Where in the Brain is the Mind

Good summary of thoughts on this topic. Could be printed as idiot`s guide to brain.
Good work.

i have been interested in this article since past year and do follow replies. why we are what we are is a complex issue. why we think/ feel what we think/ feel is even more complex. concioussness, uncon, sub con are old terms with constantly new theories attached with them. there is no doubt in my mind that there is a biological explanation to every action, thought, feeling and emotion we have. why two people react differently to a same stimulus is also explainable on the basis of their personality traits and object relation theories. hence it becomes a combination of the two vital principles; biology and metaphysics. i am a stong beliver that neuro chemistry can explain from uncons drives (of sex and aggression) to simple learning of multiplication and algebra. how neuro transmitters work on different receptors and mold, at times change, synaptic functioning remains to be clearified. Eric Kendell has made some attempts to combine these two. his articles, psychoanalysis of a single cell (am j of psych, `80) & another article in april `98 are both worth reading. i hope saad continues to write and stimulate our neurotransmitters.

I enjoyed ready this article : Where in the Brain is the Mind? by Saad Shafqat, and it raised many interesting points. However, I must comment on the views of Artificial Intelligence in Computers. When the Turning Test is talked about, Saad Shafqat uses it to prove a point about self-awareness, however, the Turning test is not about such things. It is a set of rules to find out if a computer can be used to mimic intelligence to such a degree that it can fool humans, hence ARTIFICAL LIFE. This is a mistake a lot of people make about AI in general. It is not about creating the soul, it is about artifically generating an impression of intelligence.

I would say that the human mind, with all of its complexities and features, is entirely understandable within the context of a correct physical theory of matter. We may not have a fundamental understanding at the moment, but once we have it, my first statement would become a tautology! (Because, by definition, the correct description of the material universe should contain within itself the answer to why the process of evolution of matter should lead to consciousness.)

About super-naturalism, my point of view would be the following: Most people need to have some answers, and in the absence of understandable ones, are willing to invent any that will momentarily pacify their need. All super-natural explanations fall within this context.

Why should one need answers? Perhaps the answer is rooted in the function served by the brain and consciousness in the survival of an animal. A curious brain will actively seek out information, and a conscious brain will continuously process it to determine the best strategies for survival. Consciousness and curiosity would then be traits determined by evolution, and perhaps are no more than a particular choice of data-handling processes within a neural network. Consciousness would then be not a domain of humans only, but would be possessed in various degrees by all living beings.

The need to understand, create, write poems etc. is in my view just an extension and a by-product of a evolutionarily favorable trait of curiosity and consciousness. After all, a computational device (our brain) configured to analyse the world around it (i.e determining the causality and eventuality of objects arounds it), and having constant access to its own information content, would inevitably ask the same questions about its own origin. In the absence of concrete answers, it would try to provide any satisfactory ones at its disposal.

All the ``mystery`` surrounding consciousness will hopefully disappear once the basis for the study of consciousness is correctly formulated. We have already seen it happen within the domain of physics, all the ``supernatural`` and ``mystical`` aspects of celestial and physical objects dissolved before our eyes once the problems were correctly formulated. Neuroscience is in a state of infancy at the moment, and is awaiting that reformulation.

The presence of a specific universe around us is an indisputable evidence that there are concrete, though yet undiscovered laws that govern it. (I personally think that we have already discovered a few of these fundamental laws). I think that we will not only completely understand consciousness, but also implement it in some of our creations. And perhaps, not very far in the future, we will actually have not only understood the physical basis of consciousness and but also would be experimenting with augmenting and improving it. That is when matter would break free of sheer probability to chart its future evolution.

I just wanted to let everyone here know if they don`t already that Richard Powers` exquisite novel

Galatea 2.2 asks and eloquently unravels to an extent the question about the ghost in the machine. Without giving away too much, the narrator`s a humanist/novelist who teams up with a

cognitive neurologist at a bad-ass research institute and the two proceed to cultivate and coax an artificial intelligence out from the

hardware of a neural network. Their goal is to get

the AI to pass the Turing Test by testing it against an English lit grad student. The novel

does not halfstep on the hard science tip. It`s

intensely cerebral and poetic. And what`s more it draws the obvious parallels between the mind and the collective consicousness of the WWW in very compelling ways.

RE: Saad Shafqat

Thank you for your kind words, and please forgive my reticence over the past fortnight - my life took a turn towards the hectic.

Now to some of the points you raised. First:

(“...DNA makes RNA makes protein makes life. Fine. But if that is all there is to it, then why can`t we do it in a test tube ?”)

I think Waqas Khan already addressed this. He wrote, “...the answer is not like trying to solve a finite math problem but is more complex as it requires a great deal more effort in all the arenas discussed and maybe more. Plus it requires a much more comprehensive a synthesis in a number of these disciplines to get very much farther...”

I tend to agree with him, though I do not share his die-hard optimism at the inevitability of the outcome.

We are blind-folded and looking for a black cat in a pitch dark coal cellar. I’m not sure the cat can be found easily, if indeed it is there at all. But we have heard the “meow, meow,” and therefore believe it must be there. Let’s be patient, there are many like Waqas who shall not rest till they find it.

Life has supposedly been around for three billion years and has evolved along tortuous paths that are hard to trace back with any exactitude. Recorded human history, by contrast, is barely five thousand years old, and modern scientific thought has only just arrived on the scene. It is a little unreasonable, even conceited, to already expect clean cut answers to mysteries that ancient. Expecting immediate results would be as unfair as taking a student who has gone through years of schooling and then as he enters a two-day long comprehensive exam you demand that he answer all of it in the first five seconds. He cannot. Does that mean he will flunk the exam if he allowed to go on? Maybe, and then again, maybe not. Waqas thinks he’ll surely pass. I say, its possible, but the task is difficult.

Leonardo da Vinci, intuitively had a grasp of the concepts of airfoil (aircraft wing’s) designs and even motion picture (sequential stills depicting movement) photography, but had the technology for neither. Mendal, conceptually, was on the right track with his botanical phenotype experiments but could not really accomplish what needed to be done (thus he rigged the results based on his theoretical calculations and got away with it for a long time). Two hundred years before Julius Caesar the mathematician Aratosthenese of Alexandria calculated the circumference of planet Earth to within 4 percent of NASA’s calculations. The list goes on and on. The point being made is that today’s biologists may not have the ability to synthesize life, but IF our mechanistic model (a la DNA) is correct, then there is no fundamental reason why it cannot happen in the future.

The fact that we can already MANIPULATE life is strongly suggestive of future outcomes. As more is learnt, more is possible to do. Way back in the 70’s we had human insulin from genetic material being inserted in bacterial cells and then mass produced. Now we have (potentially) cows that produce human milk. (Incidentally, giving a new meaning to the term “Gaou-maata” :) There are plants that glow in the dark from fire-fly genetic material. Lab rats that have human ear-lobes grown on their backs (for illustrative purposes only). Pigs (coming soon) that will be able to grow specially cloned body organs (like the heart) for specific human individuals. Not to mention the real possibility of actual human clones.

Where is all this leading to? Well, if we ask Waqas, he will say that your test-tube life is coming down the pike.

You disagree, stating: (“...I believe that life will never be synthesized: it`s fundamentally different...”) I am glad that, at least, you make no bones about the fact that this is clearly a BELIEF you have and obviously you feel strongly about it.

The fact that you are a neuro-science person yourself, makes it even a more serious matter for the rest of us when you claimed that consciousness is unique. However, I am glad that you have conceded your area of expertise and I admire your candid admission that the question ultimately boils down to the level of life itself and that consciousness will simply follow if life come about.

There is no way to settle this debate TODAY. When it is not possible to “know”, one is only left with “beliefs”. And beliefs, of course, follow different rules than does knowing.

An open minded person could compromise by using operating hypothesis that employ “likelihoods”. Thus one could neither know nor believe, but only hold on to putative truths.


RE: anita zaidi

Thank you for stepping in and interpreting what I was really trying to say. I notice that you have neither agreed nor disagreed with your husband’s stance? Are you being kind to him by not joining the voices of opposition against his assertions (..life cannot be synthesized, consciousness is unique...etc..)???


RE: Safwan Shah

I appreciate your editing my two-part message and putting it in order of sequence. (I still think FIFO will help the smooth flow of all debates...)

I think we are both in the middle of the road of this debate.

I cannot agree more with your statement: “...ultra-physical is only true if we persist with doctrine driven, dogma dictated thought processes...” I will be interesting to read your views on the “soul”.


RE: Waqas Khan

(“...the conclusion that you draw (Ayer’s quote) speaks too much of laying down the arms at the feet of the gods of “I don’t know.”)

Let me confess that I did stretch A. J. Ayer’s views a little bit. His argument is actually dealing with the question of the “existence of God” and merely adapted it to our discussion about consciousness.

It is a bit severe of you to assert that my “I don’t know” stance leads to inaction and therefore the to the regression of humankind. (“... if mankind stopped trying to go the next step because there was no end in sight, the world would be a much sorrier place...”)

When we face a situation where we do not really know, I find it efficient to simply admit our state of ignorance instead of pretending that there is a holy grail at the end of the rainbow. This does not, in any way, imply that we should quit pursuing the rainbow. Maybe we will not find the holy grail, but we may find a lot else along the way and that would make the journey worthwhile.

...SR

Thank you for your interesting article. I have a
A fanciful reply to your article from the perspective of Consciousness:

Where in my imagings am I?

I am an entity in a finite world
to be discovered and mapped
logged, indexed and referred
A point in this infinitude
At last, I have found my position
in the scheme of things
I shall not move from here ever
Even though I had to move
to be able to see where I was, `oops!
I mean, `where I am`.
I am so uncertain sometimes. . . . .

Which is I in these unending
perspectives?
None?
All?
Some?
Stop counting?
Or count it all?

These humans count so much
they say thats the only way they
know they are human
otherwise they might think
they are doggies!
what would the race do without proof?

And here I am confoundingly saying. .
I am.
No matter which perspective
you use.
I am.

Sohail, You raise an interesting point by your example of electromagnetic fields. And I found your analogy quite relevant to our ongoing discussion. Causality is the basis of this thought. The field cannot exist without the dynamics preceding its formation. Similarly, consciousness cannot just pop out of thin air, it is (must be) a function of the underlying structure - what Hameroff considers to be microtubules and Penrose further associates with Quantum physics. Intermediate complexity is the problem that we must attempt to solve. To say that consciousness is based on a far more complex basis and therefore ultra-physical is only true if we persist with doctrine driven, dogma dictated thought processes. My view is that we ought to address the issue as a scientific problem and deal with it independent of any biases. Akin to what is known as a ``Clean Room`` environment in the techno world.

More on soul next time...

Sohail Rabbani,

Great inspired writing! You clearly and eloquently state that we don`t KNOW, if we can EVER KNOW what conciousness is.

Anita

[The 2 part response has been reformatted to be in sequence - Chowk Staff]

PART ONE....FIRST OF TWO MESSAGES

Greetings Saad:


Thank you for a very refreshing, stimulating and incisive essay.


Except for some hair-slitting details I find little over which to dispute you. However, in the interest of rhetoric, I’ll attempt to stretch the nebulous concept of Consciousness with some disjointed notions which do not necessarily form a cogent whole, but strive to whittle away at the same questions.



Item One: HUMAN MONOPOLY OF CONSCIOUSNESS:


In discussing the problems with defining consciousness you skillfully dodge the skeptic’s bullet by mentioning “awake, rational humans” on the one hand and animals on the other with a fair hint of asleep or demented humans along the way.


You write: (Do we possess some unique quality relating to our sense of being self-aware that non-human life forms do not possess? I believe the answer is that we do and, although I can define it no better for you, this is precisely what I mean when I use the term ‘consciousness’.)


This is a well tailored statement that commits to very little. You espouse the idea that our species has a monopoly over ‘consciousness’ and though you are unable (or unwilling) to go out on a limb and define it, you announce (with a “nod and a wink” to others of your species) that we have this exclusive club membership.


You did, however, ask the important question: “...is the difference merely one of degree (quantitative) or more fundamental (qualitative)?” My leaning is towards the former, not the latter. This puts me more in Safwan’s camp and less in that of the Observer.


I suspect that what you call consciousness can include (though may not be limited to) such mental phenomena as ‘imagination’ and ‘abstract thought’.


Let’s begin by asking where to fit tiny human infants (even normal and healthy ones, not just the iodine deficient imbeciles)? It seems reasonable to suggest that infants don’t possess more consciousness than, say, adult chimpanzees.


Experimental work, as far back as the early seventies, demonstrated that chimps have the capacity for expressing rudimentary ideas. Language researchers came to believe that these apes possessed the brain power to communicate but did not have the larynx nor the nasopharyngeal architecture to support speech. So they decided to teach sign language to some of these primates. The results astonished everyone. One of the chimps even acquired a vocabulary of almost three hundred words and had the ability to communicate, what could only be called, abstract thoughts. These primates demonstrated the ability to comprehend passage of time and even use deception and tell lies to serve their needs (an eerily human quality). Our tiny infants, on the other hand, cannot do all that, yet they are human and the chimps are not. An awkward observation, if I may say so!


This, at least, casts a “reasonable doubt” on your claim of human monopoly over consciousness. A claim that, in my opinion, is inspired by our ancient philosophical heritage.



Item Two: NATURAL vs. SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS


Let me just say that the matter gets very thorny if we entertain any ‘supernatural’ hypothesis. The trouble is that if we allow one supernatural concept, we may as well allow them all, because the differences are only of degree. Whether we talk of goblins or genies, fairies or witches, angels or souls, or we speak of God or magic, it all falls in the same domain. They are a continuum and belong to the realm of faith; impervious to empirical dissection.


The supernatural view, ultimately, takes us to Theology, and that is a different debate all together.


I will, therefore, limit my speculations to what could conceivable be termed as ‘natural’ even if it remains unfathomable in our present state of ignorance.



Item Three: LIMITATIONS of the REDUCTIONIST MODEL


The era of Newtonian thinking has outlived its utility. Reductionism is fraught with limitations, no one can deny it.


You wrote: “.... we can’t even begin to prove that life itself, even in it’s simplest forms, is reducible to physics and chemistry, let alone the lofty phenomenon of human consciousness ...the ultimate test of biological reductionism: start with physics and chemistry and produce biology.”


It is true that no one can, as yet, mix a bunch of chemicals and produce a living cell. This is a very rigorous standard and one that is unlikely to be met any time soon. If the same stringency is applied to other theories, we’ll be left with a staunchly ‘agnostic’ posture.


I personally like the idea of the “Occam’s razor” (erroneously attributed to the medieval English philosopher William of Occum). The gist of it says: don’t bring in a hypothesis, if you can do without it. That is to say the fewer assumptions we make in explaining a phenomenon or formulating a concept, the better. I think that’s a great idea and if everyone followed it, we would have very little need to invoke divinity every time we run into a philosophical cul-de-sac.


We need to take a sweeping glance at all our options and see what the various competing theories are and which one of them is the LEAST IMPERFECT. We can only look at the ‘natural model’ versus the ‘supernatural model’ to explain these rather intricate phenomena of life and consciousness.


Stanley Miller and Urey conducted the “primordial soup” experiments in 1953 and successfully produced amino acids from methane, hydrogen and ammonia in a water-containing flask. Though this is still a long ways from a living cell, it is one step towards the complex cascade of events, as hypothesized in the natural model, that makes up protein molecules which in turn are the pre-fabricated components of living cells.


As you aptly point out, scientific theories can never be proven, they can only be disproved. In other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This dictum is often invoked in the defense of the supernatural explanations, why then, should we not also invoke it in the defense of the so-called ‘missing links’ in the natural explanations?


Item Four: COMPLEXITY of the BRAIN


Each of us has about as many neurons as there are stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. The elaborate interconnections of each of the upper motor neurons run in the thousands. There are an estimated hundred trillion (Ten to the power 14) such interconnections in the cerebral cortex alone. This anatomical complexity is dwarfed by the physiochemical orchestra that creates the music of consciousness. We have not even begun to decipher the key, the staff, the measure, the treble or base clef of this mammoth symphony, how are we expected to know its meter, melody, rhythm or harmony? To our tone-deaf science it is no more than cacophony. However, take away the orchestra and there is only silence.


I will grant you that a symphony of chemical reactions does not easily explain abstract thinking. The whole is far more than the mere sum of its parts. Consciousness may be something akin to a force-field being generated by the cerebral cortex as a consequence of electrochemical activity.


Let us think of a magnetic field emanating from a metallic coil that has current passing through it. The magnetic field is altogether a distinct phenomenon, and the truth is that we don’t understand its nature either, but we do know that it is inextricably married to the metallic mesh that generates it. Interrupt the current flow and the magnetic field will die. Let’s stretch the imagination and visualize consciousness as we would a magnetic field, only more complex by several orders of magnitude.


We have ample experimental evidence to demonstrate that such abstract things as character, memory, mood, motivation, imagination and creativity are all demonstrably altered by chemical and physical events effecting the brain.


On the other hand, unless you are willing to consider ‘near-death-experiences’ (NDEs) as admissible evidence of the ‘soul theory’, no empirical observations of it’s existence can be found.

PART II

PART 2, ...A CONTINUATION from the previous...


The CONFUSION and the FOGGY VIEW


(1) PREAMBLE to the MYTH


At the age of 16 I was convinced that I “knew” everything. By 22 I had realized that I was not superhuman, but I still thought I was at the top of the world. By the late 20s I was no longer convinced of my infallibility. By the late 30s I was an ignorant, fragile and insignificant mortal, and now, almost a decade later, I’m ever more so as each day passes.

The purpose of citing my personal example was to emphasize that this process of humility is not just an individual phenomenon, but also a collective one. As we continue to learn more, we increasingly realize that we know less about the universe and ourselves than we previously imagined. Perhaps we are approaching adulthood as a species.


As the fables of ones childhood loose their magical hold over the imagination upon entering adolescence when linear logic dominates ones thought patterns, one tends to shatter all the handed down icons because one regards them as superfluous. Such is the arrogance of youth. However, upon entering adulthood one rediscovers the allegoric beauty and simplistic wisdom of the fables of childhood and gives them new meaning and reverence.


We have come almost a full circle. But it is not really a closed circle. It is a like a spiral that goes upwards. As we make a full round and come to the starting point we are actually at a higher plane than we were at the beginning. We have discarded the fables of our child hood, but we have also learnt that our knowledge has severe limitations.


The arrogant attitude of the 19th century adolescent scientific mind-set is gradually giving way to more humility and a mature outlook of the universe where we are willing to fathom the unfathomable.



(2) The SCIENTIFIC MYTHOLOGY


Every society has its own unique cocktail of ideologies, value systems and mythologies that reflect the collective wisdom of the population in question. Thus what was the wrath of Thor to the Vikings is merely a thunderstorm to today’s Weather Channel viewers.


As our experience and tools of observation become refined we probe deeper and deeper into the cosmic enigmas. At the end of the second millennium our technological society has its own very unique and attractive mythologies.


If, at least for the sake of argument, we keep divinity out of the loop, it will still follow that the Universe seems to obey certain “Laws of Nature”.


Whence cometh such Laws is neither explained nor pondered. Be that as it may, these Laws are ostensibly (i) consistent, (ii) universal and, (iii) ultimately, discernible. This is the crux of today’s scientific mythology.


We have pieced together a plausible concept of our origins (though it is far from comprehensive and, in the end, no matter how scientific, it is essentially a mythology ).


The central theme of the story says that simple constituents --subatomic particles, for example-- can somehow (but we do not know HOW) get organized into higher states of complexity until they transform into other items--such as various elements-- that exist as distinct entities.


Simple hydrogen atoms, we learn, are fused to form helium in the hearts of small to medium stars. In larger stars more complex stable elements get formed. Simple constituents get organized to a higher level of complexity and thus something new is created.


Then after the big stars turn nova and splatter all these elements around we get a rich and diverse kind of cosmic dust. Eventually, in this neck of the cosmic woods carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen (and a few other mischief mongers), following elementary “Laws”, get organized into a self-replicating energy transference cycle. Bingo, you have biological life. Again simple constituents get organized to yet a higher level of complexity creating a new phenomenon.


Likewise, the next higher plane of organizational complexity yields animal life and a rudimentary nervous system.


There was a time, the scientific myths tell us, when light perception was unknown to the then animal life-forms. Then a photon chemoreceptor is somehow (and we really do not know HOW) linked up to the rudimentary nervous system and information about the existence of light was perceived. Since that must have conferred competitive advantage, soon (within a few million years) eyes became common place. Alongside with that, we are also told of the evolution of complex nervous systems. Here again the web of existence is knitted into an ever more multifarious matrix. Simplicity folds layers upon itself and becomes intricate.


The next great leap in the story is abstract thought. What is its form? We have agreed to believe that it is electrochemical signals organized in intricately complex patterns. Another upward spiral in the cosmic scheme of organizational complexity. Simpler entities reorganizing themselves as building blocks of the next higher level of phenomena. As an analogy imagine the vast binary arrays of zero’s and one’s that makes up the Star Wars software and multiply that complexity a million times.

(3) The RECKLESS SPECULATION

Let us imagine that in much the same manner there may exist, or may come into existence at some point, extra-corporeal, self-sustaining, information systems. For lack of a better term could be call them “souls”.


Of course, this is all idle speculation for the depth of our ignorance is stupendous. We do not even understand the very nature of the force of gravity (is it particulate in form or is it electromagnetic?). Yet we deal with it daily and aspire to undertake interstellar travel.


When there was no vacuum tube or transistor there was no way of perceive radio waves. But radio waves still existed. My point here is that there are vast wonders that the cosmos holds in secret. It is not reasonable to rule out the outlandish and the unfathomable. What we do know already is outlandish enough. We must never be stubborn in our refusal to entertain the fantastic. The natives of H. G. Wells’ “Country of the Blind” could never know of the existence of the moon or the stars. Likewise, we may never know the spirit world if it exists.


Why even claim that there is no possibility of the existence of some wave-forms which can transfer information at velocities exceeding light? Would such (imaginary) wave form fit our concept of psychic perception? We don’t know.


And ultimately, that is our only reasonable answer: WE DON’T KNOW. As A. J. Ayer would say, it is a tutology: unknowable, therefore irrelevent.

...SR

In my earlier comment I explained human consciousness in terms of one`s spiritual development and efforts to achieve nearness to God. In one of the following replies, a comment was made that consciousness may be acquired without necessarily trying to achieve nearness to God. Such attempts are being made by a host of some of the greatest minds (physicists, quantum mechanists, neurologists etc.) in various fields, as mentioned in the replies that followed. Granted, I am not an authority on this subject, sharing my few basic observations is very much called for.

I clearly see a short coming in the methods adopted by the experts in one field or another. It may be argued that these people have a high level of consciousness, but I am inclined to say that that consciousness is quite ``fragmented``. An expert in one field understands well the relevant issues in that field and has a good working model that explains most (if not almost all) of the phenomenon encountered in that field. This expert is likely to attempt to extend that model in other fields as well, and draw analogies and base his conclusions on the extension of that model.

For example, a chemist may view the human brain as a ``pot of chemicals``. He may notice the
shifts in the pH balance of some chemicals in the brain of a human, depending upon if the human is
happy or sad. Basing his conclusions strictly upon the principles of chemistry (without getting
involved with spiritual aspects of the issue), he will conclude that in order to be happy, all one has to do is take a certain pill that will cause the pH balance of that particular chemical in the brain to shift in the ``direction of happiness``. This inadvertently results in anti-depressant pills and ``feel good`` medicines, which are often prescribed by therapists.

In a similar example , a senator may well understand the issue of the cost to the society of raising an unplanned child conceived by a teenage mother. Basing his decisions solely on his
understanding of monetary issues, this senator, is likely to support in congress a bill for distributing contraceptives to kids in high schools.

Common sense tells us that the likely outcome in these two cases is not functional and does not further the cause of the society. So what good is all that knowledge and consciousness? I think that this type of consciousness, without a spiritual dimension in one’s life, without any efforts to understand an all mighty, benevolent Presence, is quite misguided.

On the same note, it is quite possible that in future life will get synthesized in a test tube. The person who does this will be a great bio-chemist (just like the great chemist or the great senator, mentioned above). He will be no doubt very knowledgeable on which chemicals to use, how to conduct the procedure in the controlled lab environment, and so on and so forth, but that knowledge does not translate into human consciousness. Synthesis of life in test tubes will raise scores of other, more complicated, potentially dangerous issues, which will fall outside of human understanding of the world.

In short, I believe that true consciousness is achieved by understanding the world through the
Supreme Being who created it. That consciousness will be perfect and complete, and will be a
source of guidance for the followers.

In my earlier comment I explained human consciousness in terms of one`s spiritual development and efforts to achieve nearness to God. In one of the following replies, a comment was made that consciousness may be acquired without necessarily trying to achieve nearness to God. Such attempts are being made by a host of some of the greatest minds (physicists, quantum mechanists, neurologists etc.) in various fields, as mentioned in the replies that followed. Granted, I am not an authority on this subject, sharing my few basic observations is very much called for.

I clearly see a short coming in the methods adopted by the experts in one field or another. It may be argued that these people have a high level of consciousness, but I am inclined to say that that consciousness is quite ``fragmented``. An expert in one field understands well the relevant issues in that field and has a good working model that explains most (if not almost all) of the phenomenon encountered in that field. This expert is likely to attempt to extend that model in other fields as well, and draw analogies and base his conclusions on the extension of that model.

For example, a chemist may view the human brain as a ``pot of chemicals``. He may notice the
shifts in the pH balance of some chemicals in the brain of a human, depending upon if the human is
happy or sad. Basing his conclusions strictly upon the principles of chemistry (without getting
involved with spiritual aspects of the issue), he will conclude that in order to be happy, all one has to do is take a certain pill that will cause the pH balance of that particular chemical in the brain to shift in the ``direction of happiness``. This inadvertently results in anti-depressant pills and ``feel good`` medicines, which are often prescribed by therapists.

In a similar example , a senator may well understand the issue of the cost to the society of raising an unplanned child conceived by a teenage mother. Basing his decisions solely on his
understanding of monetary issues, this senator, is likely to support in congress a bill for distributing contraceptives to kids in high schools.

Common sense tells us that the likely outcome in these two cases is not functional and does not further the cause of the society. So what good is all that knowledge and consciousness? I think that this type of consciousness, without a spiritual dimension in one’s life, without any efforts to understand an all mighty, benevolent Presence, is quite misguided.

On the same note, it is quite possible that in future life will get synthesized in a test tube. The person who does this will be a great bio-chemist (just like the great chemist or the great senator, mentioned above). He will be no doubt very knowledgeable on which chemicals to use, how to conduct the procedure in the controlled lab environment, and so on and so forth, but that knowledge does not translate into human consciousness. Synthesis of life in test tubes will raise scores of other, more complicated, potentially dangerous issues, which will fall outside of human understanding of the world.

In short, I believe that true consciousness is achieved by understanding the world through the
Supreme Being who created it. That consciousness will be perfect and complete, and will be a
source of guidance for the followers.

Good job Saad. A pleasant digression from rather difficult topics :=) Ahem!

To a large extent a debate on this topic could go on ad finitum. Lets see what we can accomplish.

In my opinion, the way we define consciousness has a lot to do with how we understand it. Webster`s definition of self awareness is but one, albeit highly validated and accepted, surely there are others. And surely we can create our own custom definition. Right? I will leave it at that.

In New Orleans, 1990, the decade of the brain was greeted with great fanfare in the Neuroscience conference. A number of speakers, including one that you have cited, discussed various aspects of consciousness. I still remember the sense of excitement and the hope that a solution is around the corner. I guess it still is, after all, perpetual future has far more seductive appeal than anything else.

I personally have little problem with the Hameroff driven, Penrose popularized Quantum hypothesis. I strongly believe that structure, in its collective activity, synchronized and patterned operation, is what gives rise to self-knowledge. Francis Crick and Koch have done extensive studies in this area, as have numerous others. I think the eventual solution will come out of the study of neural assemblies and connectivity. It is not too far fetched at all.

In his recent book, Steven Pinker addresses this issue in a qualitative fashion. He also takes an information theoretic approach towards the definition of consciousness. I think there are intriguing possibilities there as well.

The treatment and psychosis level, which Waqas alluded to, is a difficult (because of the qualitative nature) but necessary area of emphasis. After all, eventually, behavior will have to be related to the physico-chemical (at least in my view of things).

The cross pollination of ideas from Physics, Neuroscience and Mathematics, together with sophisticated imaging and recording techniques, is very recent, with time I feel the commingling will pay off and we will begin to get a better insight into what constitutes consciousness. Meanwhile, I think there is a lot to learn from studies that have been carried out on the hippocampus and memory storage/formation.

I dont see any reason for despair, skepticism and hopelessness. The brain will succeed in understanding the brain. However, I dont preclude the possibility that in the process we might have to rewrite the Maxwell Laws for the function of the brain.

Based upon what little I have studied about the religion, and even lesser that I comprehend, I understand human consciousness in terms of one`s nearness to Allah. Human consciousness is a direct measure of one`s spiritual development; studying it without acknowledging the existance of One Who is the Rab-ul-alameen (Lord of the worlds), Who is Rehman (Gracious) and Raheem (Merciful), and Malik-e-Yaumiddin (Master of the Day of Judgement) will be wasted efforts.

Human beings have come a long way in understanding the attributes of god: from worshipping thunder, stars, sun, to worshipping snakes, idols, and their kings and rulers, to the acknowledgement of the One Whose 4 basic attributes are mentioned above.

During this course of spiritual development, man has also been bestowed with the Laws which lay out the dos and donts ( guidelines for eating, drinking, marrying, praying, fasting, making money and spending it, helping the needy and so on and so forth). These laws are a road map to achieving nearness to Allah, the ultimate stage of human consciousness.

This nearness to Allah is also discussed in Quran. In Surah Al-Baqarah is stated:

``Nay, whoever submits himself completely to Allah and he is the doer of good, shall have his reward from the Lord.`` (2:113)

Reading this closely, and with some thoughtfulness, it becomes evident that Quran is hinting towards 3 stages of spiritual development. These stages are ...

1) Fana (self-annihilation) hinted by ``.. whoever submits himself completely to Allah ..`` i.e. all his powers should be surrendered completely to God and devoted to His service

2) Baqa (regeneration) hinted by `` ...he is the doer of good ...`` i.e. when a man falls in love with God, his wordly designs and desires are extinguished, and he is, as it were, granted a new life. He then lives for God and for the service of man

3) Liqa (Union with God) hinted by `` .. shall have his reward from from the Lord ...`` i.e. man achieving oneness with Allah

Equipped only with ``intellect`` and reasoning, man is ill-prepared to deal with the matters of the worlds. Spiritual inclination is a pre-requisite to leading a successful life. Without this, the human evolution is bound to either ``run into the wall`` or result in self-annihilation. One only needs to look at the futile attempts made by the legal code (tax initiatives, sex-ed etc) in the US to address the issues of illegitimate/teen births [one small example]. Single parenting is simply a matter of choice for these mis-guided individuals. Man-made laws can take the society only so far, and then the ``wall is reached``.

In short, human consciousness is actually a matter of a man developing and nurturing his relationship with God. It is the path to understanding one`s purpose of life and how it fits with the great designs of the Powers that be.