The brain is only a part of the consciousness*

The main aspect of this interview is the Alva´s argument that the consciousness does not reside entirely inside of us. If one thinks in consciousness, he thinks in a straightforward relationship between the consciousness and the brain, one to one. So, a feeling would have an electrical pulse associated in the brain. However, Alva argues that is more than that. We can say the brain performs a difficult job, but we are interacting with the world outside as well.
He makes an analogy with the value of a 25 cents coin. Where is this value? Is it produced by whom? There is a complex system behind this. We have feelings and sensations represented in the brain, we have contents from outside but there is a substrate inside of us and it is beyond our brain. So, is the brain by itself sufficient? No, only part of it, but there is interaction between brain, body, environment and other people[i]. Otherwise it would be very hard to explain how am I apprehending the content outside? The brain is not self-sufficient… It isn’t as our stomach in the digestion process and the mystery is exactly this illusion.
A very good example he quotes is about the tomato. The tomato we feel is not an exact copy in our mind but it is only a body in front of me. Despite of the fact that we have the sensation that the color and the flavor of the tomato are inside of us, without the "real" tomato we don´t have a tomato in our mind[ii]. For example, we cannot see the back of the tomato but we have the consciousness of that part. So, more than we can see, we have an expanded experience of consciousness. Only the visual experience can’t see the back side. The sense of presence of the hidden part in some sense is presented in our experience. The perceptual consciousness extends to a new way of presence and an ability of move around the tomato and then we presume it has a back part. We could not have the representation of a tomato without the tomato; we need the outside world.
To continue and finalize, he talks about immigration as an example where people move between cultures and changes their habits. So, consciousness extends beyond our craniums in a real sense. We are ourselves not autonomous and we are not free because we are linked to a large environment. A science of consciousness should consider the brain in dynamic involvement and agree that consciousness does not happen only inside the brain: that is all. And, this also means that we have much more interaction with the world around us and less autonomy that we could put into our wishes and freedom.


* Digest of "Alva Noë - Why is Consciousness so baffling?". 
In: https://youtu.be/1aPeWc7Um1A?list=PLnDky5U6KdTnVPeMbpyhUtbvLLYvURkq_&t=69.

[i] I had the opinion that our consciousness should be all over our whole body, as Merleau-Ponty described. However, here, is more than that and it is a phenomenological point of view.
[ii] Here we can point out to the realism/idealism problem and the very long discussion related.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Free will and determinism*

          According to SoL (School of Life), the debate between free will and determinism has been crossing the Philosophy History since the beginning until our time reaching even the neuroscientists. It concerns about whether the human being is able to dominate their actions by themselves or they are determined by forces beyond their control, like fate and politics. SoL argues that the long running arguments in favor or against both sides are not conclusive because they are based on objective variables when they should be thought as what is relevant to me (to me… to me?). Also, they vary from person to person guided by two psychological aspects: defeatism and aspiration.           Does the course of our life belong to the others, like our parents, bosses and so on or can we change our life and our relationships based on our strenght and free will? The second should be even better but more difficult, of course. So moving far from the o...
Read more

The soul is just a function*

Image
Putman talks about the contribution of Computer Science to Philosophy of Mind in terms of thinking the mind as a kind of function rather than physical or chemistry. He says that the rise of computers could result in everything being explained in terms of machines but the paradox is that it didn´t contribute for this kind of reductionism . Generally, according to Putman, when we work with computer we think in its programs, instructions, rules, etc., and we ignore the hardware. Ironically, he says that there is an emergency (not violating the laws of physics) where we work in a high level of the organization, in the program level. So we can think in the mind the same way: instead of thinking we are spirit inboded would be better think in the relation between the mind and the body in terms of functions. * Short digest of short interisting vídeo: https://youtu.be/m0YIm8p30aU . Acessed in Jan, 28 th . Hilary Putnam on Functionalism.
Read more

Eudaimonia*

SoL (School of Life) worked with the eudaimonia concept in this video: a word that comes from Plato and Aristotle. Basically, SoL compares eudaimonia with a contemporaneous word - happiness - saying that the ancient philosophers didn’t propose us to have a happy life. The purpose of our life is not avoid suffering or be unhappy – the way the word is used today, but overcome the daily and simple challenges that come every day under pressure. For SoL, eudaimonia should be associated with the word fulfilment that is distinguished by happiness by pain. So, the word eudaimonia is able to accommodate happy and unhappy and, instead of pursuing a pain free existence, we need to go further and we can make the difference. In short terms, we need to do what is really important more than to smile all the time. Follows eudaimonia recommendation means that we can spend our whole life fighting in our job, relationship and political engagement but finishing our days feeling these tasks wer...
Read more