New thread, expanding on a post by REB on 7/18/2007 1:18:22 PM , below...

No, I'm not being facetious, REB. There is a school of philosophy/psychology that suggests consciouness is only an illusion, an "epiphenomenon". I'm not sure I agree, but the concept is well thought out, and cannot be summarily dismissed.

According to these folks, consciousness or self-awareness are mechanisms evolved to improve our morale and keep us functioning effectively by obscuring the reality that we are completely preprogrammed and operate mechanically, that our behavior is automatic, like insects, and entirely out of our direct control. It is somewhat similar to hunger which keeps us eating, or sexual desire, which provokes us to continue reproducing. It's primary function is to convice us that we have free will so we will continue thinking (the real information processing occurs in the background, totally out of our control and direction). It is just a sophisticated algorithm with predetermined responses to outside stimuli. The behavior of those around us also feels consciously directed because it is so complex we simply don't recognize it as automatic.

Actually, this concept is not as ridiculous as it sounds, ideas like "fate" and "the Gods" have been around forever, and there's always been the "Is there free will?" controversy. Even some branches of Christianity (Calvinism) operate on the concept that our eventual fate is already determined by God, no matter what we think or do. There are other clues, such as obsessive behavior, some forms of mental illness, and the insistence of people to often act contrary to their own best interests which could be construed to support this idea.

Whether or not this is true, surely it makes sense that if it WAS true it would be difficult to prove or disprove it for sure. Consciousness seems to operate on the model of a little observer in our head who monitors and sometimes intervenes and controls our activities and thought processes. Perhaps there are two observers in our heads, each unaware of the other, and each convinced it is in charge, but both operating mechanically, like a computer program, sharing the workload and switched back and forth by a randomly activated toggle. After all, the brain is divided into two semi-independent hemispheres and such dysfunctions as schizophrenia and split personalities could be the result of breakdowns in these mechanisms. Julian Jaynes based a whole theory of personality on this concept ("The Origin of Consciouness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"). The book is infuriatingly persuasive, you don't want to believe a word of it but it is difficult to find holes in his logic.

As I mentioned, I'm not convinced of this myself, I do believe consciouness is special, that it is a wonderful and novel way that the Universe has of contemplating itself, but the point I'm making is that we have no way of knowing how it works, in fact, we can't even be sure we have it.

We need to be very careful when discussing the idea of consciouness, it might be arrogant of us to think we actually control our own destiny. The ancient Greeks called that Hubris.