Conscious

Conscious Plot Summary

Introduction

Consciousness represents one of the most profound mysteries in science and philosophy. Despite tremendous advances in neuroscience and our understanding of brain function, we still cannot explain why certain physical processes are accompanied by subjective experience. This fundamental gap—between objective neural activity and the subjective feeling of being conscious—constitutes what philosopher David Chalmers famously termed "the hard problem of consciousness." This exploration challenges our intuitive understanding of what consciousness is and how it functions. By examining evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy, we discover that many of our fundamental assumptions about consciousness may be mistaken. The investigation takes us beyond conventional boundaries, considering radical possibilities like panpsychism—the view that consciousness might be fundamental to the universe rather than merely an emergent property of complex brains. Through careful logical analysis and thought experiments, we are invited to question not just what consciousness is, but also its relationship to personal identity, free will, and our understanding of reality itself.

Chapter 1: The Mystery of Consciousness: Why It Defies Simple Explanation

Consciousness stands as perhaps the most peculiar phenomenon in our universe. We experience it directly every moment of our waking lives, yet it defies straightforward scientific explanation. What makes consciousness so mysterious is not merely that we don't yet understand it, but that we struggle even to conceptualize how physical processes could possibly give rise to subjective experience. This mystery becomes clearer when we consider Thomas Nagel's famous definition of consciousness: an organism is conscious if there is "something it is like" to be that organism. This simple formulation captures the essence of the hard problem. A bacterium might respond to stimuli, but is there something it is like to be a bacterium? A computer can process information, but does it have an inner experience? For humans and presumably many animals, the answer is clearly yes—there is something it is like to be us. The hard problem arises from the apparent unbridgeable gap between physical descriptions and experiential reality. We can provide increasingly detailed accounts of neural activity, identifying which brain regions activate during specific experiences, yet these accounts fail to explain why these processes are accompanied by subjective experience at all. Even if we had complete knowledge of every neuron and its connections, we would still face the question: why does this physical activity create an inner life? This question becomes more profound when we consider the development of consciousness in humans. At some point in fetal development, a collection of cells that presumably lacks consciousness transforms into a being with subjective experience. Where exactly does this transition occur? There appears to be no clear dividing line, yet the difference between presence and absence of consciousness seems fundamental. The mystery deepens when we realize that the particles composing our bodies are fundamentally the same as those found throughout the universe. The atoms in your brain once existed in stars and will someday exist in other forms. What special arrangement or process causes these ordinary particles to suddenly "wake up" and experience the world? The transition from non-conscious to conscious matter seems as mysterious as the emergence of matter itself from nothing. Some philosophers and scientists have suggested that this explanatory gap may be permanent—not due to temporary limitations in our knowledge, but because consciousness represents a fundamentally different kind of phenomenon that cannot be reduced to physical processes alone. This possibility forces us to question our basic assumptions about the nature of reality and mind.

Chapter 2: False Intuitions: How We Misunderstand Conscious Experience

Our intuitions about consciousness often lead us astray, creating false assumptions that hinder deeper understanding. These intuitions, while useful for navigating everyday life, can become obstacles when investigating the fundamental nature of conscious experience. Just as our intuition once told us the earth was flat, our intuitions about consciousness may similarly misrepresent reality. Consider two seemingly simple questions that challenge our intuitions: First, what external evidence reliably indicates the presence of consciousness? Second, is consciousness essential for our behavior? Most people instinctively feel they know the answers, but careful examination reveals surprising complexities. We typically assume that certain behaviors—like reacting to pain or expressing emotions—indicate consciousness. Yet complex information processing and sophisticated responses can occur without consciousness, as demonstrated by computers and even plants. Plants, for instance, exhibit remarkably complex behaviors without having brains. They can sense their environment, respond to touch, remember seasonal changes, and even communicate with other plants through underground fungal networks. The Venus flytrap can distinguish between raindrops and potential prey, closing its trap only for the latter. These sophisticated responses occur through cellular mechanisms that share similarities with neural processes in animals, yet we generally assume plants lack consciousness. Similarly, we intuitively believe that consciousness drives our behavior—that we consciously decide to act and then our bodies follow. However, neuroscience challenges this intuition. Experiments show that our brains begin preparing for movement before we become consciously aware of "deciding" to move. Our conscious experience often seems to be merely witnessing decisions that have already been made at a neural level, rather than initiating them. The philosophical thought experiment of "zombies"—beings physically identical to humans but lacking consciousness—further illustrates this puzzle. If such beings could theoretically perform all human behaviors without consciousness, what causal role does consciousness actually play? We might find ourselves forced to admit that consciousness could be epiphenomenal—a by-product of physical processes rather than their cause. When we honestly examine what evidence we have for attributing consciousness to others, we discover that our certainty rests primarily on behavioral similarity to ourselves. Yet this criterion becomes circular when we question what role consciousness plays in generating those behaviors in the first place. The uncomfortable truth is that we cannot definitively identify consciousness from external observation alone, nor can we clearly articulate its functional necessity.

Chapter 3: Beyond Free Will: Consciousness as Observer Rather Than Controller

Our everyday experience powerfully suggests that consciousness directs our actions—that we consciously decide what to do and then do it. This intuition forms the foundation of our concept of free will. However, neuroscientific evidence increasingly challenges this view, suggesting instead that consciousness might be more observer than controller. Neuroscience reveals that our brain activity begins preparing for movement before we become consciously aware of deciding to move. In experiments conducted by Benjamin Libet and others, researchers could detect neural signals indicating an impending movement approximately half a second before subjects reported making the conscious decision to move. More sophisticated versions of these experiments consistently show similar results: the brain "decides" before consciousness is aware of the decision. This temporal gap between neural activity and conscious awareness extends beyond movement decisions. All our sensory experiences involve significant processing delays. Visual, auditory, and tactile information travels at different speeds through our nervous system. The brain must synchronize these inputs through a process called "binding" before delivering a coherent experience to consciousness. As neuroscientist David Eagleman puts it, "You live in the past. By the time you think the moment occurs, it's already long gone." The illusion of conscious control becomes even more apparent when experimentally manipulated. Researchers have induced feelings of will in subjects who actually had no control over certain actions. When the experimental setup creates the right conditions, people can be convinced they consciously initiated movements that were actually controlled by someone else. These findings suggest that our sense of conscious authorship might be a retrospective construction rather than an accurate representation of causality. This doesn't mean we should abandon concepts like responsibility or accountability. A brain still makes decisions based on values, consequences, learning, and reasoning—all crucial for social functioning. The distinction between premeditated actions and those caused by brain disorders remains valid and important. But it does suggest that consciousness itself may not be directing the show as we intuitively believe. When you examine your own experience closely, this becomes more apparent. In meditation or careful self-observation, you can notice that thoughts simply arise in consciousness without your having decided to think them. You don't decide what to think before you think it—thoughts simply appear. The same applies to emotions, sensations, and even the decisions we believe we make "freely." Consciousness witnesses these mental events rather than creating them.

Chapter 4: The Self Illusion: How Consciousness Exists Without Identity

The experience of being a unified, continuous self seems fundamental to consciousness, yet evidence suggests this sense of self may be another constructed illusion rather than an accurate representation of reality. Just as consciousness doesn't control our actions in the way we intuitively believe, it also doesn't require the unified sense of identity we typically associate with it. The binding processes that synchronize our sensory inputs also create the illusion of a unified perspective. When these processes are disrupted—through neurological conditions or certain altered states—the unified self can fragment or dissolve. People with conditions like visual agnosia or disjunctive agnosia experience the world in a fragmented way, unable to integrate different aspects of perception into a coherent whole. Remarkably, consciousness can persist even when the sense of self temporarily disappears. This phenomenon occurs naturally in deep meditation, where practitioners report experiencing awareness without a central "experiencer." Neuroscientific research confirms that during meditation, activity decreases in brain regions associated with self-reference, particularly the default mode network. Similarly, psychedelic substances like LSD and psilocybin suppress neural circuits that contribute to our sense of separate selfhood, producing experiences described as "non-dual" or characterized by a dissolution of boundaries between self and world. The split-brain phenomenon provides further evidence for the constructed nature of self. When the corpus callosum connecting the brain's hemispheres is severed (a procedure once used to treat severe epilepsy), the patient functionally develops two separate streams of consciousness. The left and right hemispheres can possess different information, desires, and even beliefs, yet only the left hemisphere typically has linguistic abilities to express itself. In some cases, one hemisphere will be unaware of actions initiated by the other, leading to bizarre situations where a person's hands literally work at cross-purposes. What these findings collectively suggest is that consciousness itself doesn't depend on the continuous unified identity we normally experience. Rather, consciousness may be more accurately understood as awareness itself—a field or capacity for experience that can take many forms and need not be organized around a central "I." The self we experience most of the time—a stable, bounded entity separate from the world—appears to be a useful evolutionary construction rather than an intrinsic feature of consciousness. This perspective aligns with contemplative traditions that have long recognized the constructed nature of selfhood. Through practices like meditation, it's possible to directly experience consciousness without its typical self-structure—awareness remains fully present even as the sense of being a separate self temporarily falls away.

Chapter 5: The Panpsychic Possibility: Consciousness as a Fundamental Property

If consciousness is neither clearly identifiable from external observation nor necessary for explaining behavior, we face a profound puzzle about its nature and origin. One radical but increasingly considered possibility is panpsychism—the view that consciousness might be an intrinsic feature of all matter rather than something that emerges only in complex brains. While initially sounding mystical, modern versions of panpsychism are compatible with physicalism and grounded in scientific reasoning. The basic argument is straightforward: if consciousness cannot be explained as emerging from non-conscious matter (the "hard problem"), perhaps consciousness is fundamental to matter itself. This view gains plausibility from considering how little physics actually tells us about the intrinsic nature of matter. As physicist Adam Frank notes, "Materialists appeal to physics to explain the mind, but in modern physics the particles that make up a brain remain, in many ways, as mysterious as consciousness itself." The concept of "strong emergence"—wherein entirely new properties appear that cannot be predicted from their constituents—has been criticized as fundamentally unscientific. Consciousness appearing suddenly in certain arrangements of matter with no precursors in simpler systems would represent such a radical emergence. The biologist J.B.S. Haldane argued that this would be "opposed to the spirit of science, which has always attempted to explain the complex in terms of the simple." Importantly, panpsychism doesn't claim that electrons or thermostats have human-like experiences with thoughts and emotions. Rather, it suggests they might possess some absolutely minimal form of experience—perhaps a form we cannot imagine. As philosopher Gregg Rosenberg explains, we would be attributing "a qualitative field that has a character in some very abstract sense like that of our experiences, but specifically unimaginable to us and unlike our own." A common objection to panpsychism is the "combination problem"—how could many simple conscious entities combine to form a unified complex consciousness like ours? However, this objection may conflate consciousness with the sense of self. If we recognize that unified selfhood is constructed rather than fundamental to consciousness, the combination problem appears less insurmountable. Consciousness might be better understood as content available to experience at different locations and configurations in space-time, varying in complexity but fundamentally similar in kind. Despite growing philosophical interest, panpsychism remains controversial in scientific circles. Many scientists dismiss it without engagement, fearing association with mysticism or pseudoscience. Yet the hard problem of consciousness persists, and panpsychism may represent one coherent solution worth serious consideration. As cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman notes, "We know our intuition is fallible, which is why we need science to tell us what the actual state of the universe is."

Chapter 6: Combination Problems and Theoretical Frameworks

The panpsychic perspective, while offering a potential solution to the hard problem of consciousness, introduces its own complex challenges—chief among them the "combination problem." If consciousness is fundamental to matter, how do the presumably simple experiences of fundamental particles combine to form the rich, unified consciousness we humans experience? This question has been described as "the hardest problem facing panpsychism." At first glance, the combination problem seems insurmountable. How could many separate "little" conscious entities merge to form a unified "big" consciousness with its own coherent experience? The puzzle becomes clearer when considering split-brain patients. If severing connections between brain hemispheres can create two apparently separate streams of consciousness, what exactly happens when those connections remain intact? The combination problem asks us to explain how many simpler conscious entities could possibly combine to form a new, integrated conscious entity. However, this formulation of the problem may itself contain a misleading assumption—that consciousness necessarily involves a "subject" or "self." If we distinguish between consciousness itself (the capacity for experience) and the particular contents available to that consciousness, the problem takes a different form. Perhaps what we call combination is actually just consciousness accessing different content depending on the configuration of matter present at a particular location in space-time. Consider a thought experiment: if two human brains were successfully connected as thoroughly as the two hemispheres of a normal brain, would this create a new unified consciousness? Most neuroscientists believe it would. But this need not be viewed as two separate consciousnesses "combining." Instead, it could be understood as consciousness accessing an expanded field of content—similar to how closing and opening your eyes changes what's available to your conscious experience without changing consciousness itself. Various theoretical frameworks have been proposed to address these issues. Integrated Information Theory (IIT), developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, attempts to quantify consciousness based on the integration of information within a system. While not explicitly panpsychist, IIT implies that consciousness exists on a spectrum and could theoretically be present in simple forms throughout nature. Donald Hoffman's "conscious realism" proposes that consciousness is more fundamental than physical reality, suggesting that what we perceive as physical matter may be better understood as conscious agents interacting according to specific rules. These frameworks, while still speculative, demonstrate how scientists and philosophers are developing increasingly sophisticated approaches to consciousness that move beyond traditional materialist assumptions. The field faces substantial challenges, including how to empirically test theories about consciousness and how to reconcile these ideas with established scientific understanding. What unites these emerging theoretical approaches is their willingness to question fundamental assumptions about consciousness and reality. Rather than treating consciousness as simply an emergent property of complex information processing, they explore the possibility that our understanding of matter, information, and consciousness may need radical revision.

Chapter 7: Scientific Exploration: The Future of Consciousness Research

The scientific investigation of consciousness stands at a fascinating crossroads, with researchers pursuing multiple paths that may eventually converge on deeper understanding. While traditional neuroscience continues mapping neural correlates of consciousness, theoretical approaches are expanding our conceptual frameworks about what consciousness might be and how it relates to the physical world. One promising research direction involves developing better methods for detecting consciousness in ambiguous cases. The "zap and zip" procedure, developed by Giulio Tononi and Marcello Massimini, uses transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with EEG to measure the complexity of brain responses, potentially distinguishing between conscious and unconscious states in patients unable to communicate. This approach could have profound implications for patients in comas, under anesthesia, or with locked-in syndrome—determining whether they retain consciousness despite inability to respond. Another frontier involves the relationship between consciousness and time. Our conscious experience unfolds across time in ways that remain mysterious. Quantum physics experiments like Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment suggest counterintuitive relationships between observation and temporal sequence, raising profound questions about consciousness and temporal reality. Does consciousness exist in discrete moments or as a continuous flow? Is our experience of time flowing an illusion or a fundamental feature of reality? These questions connect consciousness research to foundational issues in physics. Artificial intelligence presents another crucial domain for consciousness research. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated, determining whether they could become conscious has profound ethical implications. This requires developing better theoretical frameworks and potential tests for consciousness in non-biological systems. Some researchers suggest that integrated information theory or similar approaches might eventually provide metrics for consciousness applicable to both biological and artificial systems. The expansion of consciousness research beyond neuroscience into physics, computer science, and philosophy reflects growing recognition that consciousness may require interdisciplinary approaches. This breadth also introduces methodological challenges, as researchers must bridge different disciplinary languages and standards of evidence. The hard problem of consciousness may require developing entirely new research paradigms that combine first-person phenomenology with third-person scientific observation. Despite these challenges, the scientific community has made remarkable progress in taking consciousness seriously as a subject of rigorous study. What was once dismissed as philosophically interesting but scientifically intractable has become a legitimate and vibrant research area. Whether consciousness proves to be an emergent property of complex brains or a fundamental feature of reality, the pursuit of this question is transforming our understanding of mind, matter, and what it means to be conscious in this universe.

Summary

The exploration of consciousness reveals a profound mystery at the heart of our existence. Despite tremendous scientific advances in understanding brain function, we remain unable to explain why certain physical processes are accompanied by subjective experience—the "what it is like" quality that defines consciousness. This investigation challenges our most basic intuitions: that we can reliably detect consciousness in others, that consciousness directs our behavior, that we possess a unified self, and that consciousness emerges only in complex brains. Each of these intuitions proves questionable under careful scrutiny. The journey through these questions opens possibilities rarely considered in mainstream science, including the perspective that consciousness might be fundamental rather than emergent—a basic feature of reality rather than a complex product of brains alone. Whether this panpsychic perspective ultimately proves correct remains uncertain, but the investigation itself transforms our understanding of mind and reality. By questioning our assumptions about consciousness, we gain not only philosophical insight but potentially practical applications in medicine, artificial intelligence ethics, and our understanding of other minds. The mystery of consciousness thus stands not merely as an academic puzzle but as a gateway to reconsidering our place in the cosmos.

About Author

Loading...

Annaka Harris

Annaka Harris is the author of "CONSCIOUS: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind" (HarperCollins, June 2019). She is the author of the children's book "I Wonder," a collaborator on the "Mindful Games Activity Cards," by Susan Kaiser Greenland, and her work has appeared in The New York Times. She is a consultant for science writers and a volunteer mindfulness teacher for the Inner Kids organization. She is married to the neuroscientist and author Sam Harris.

Read more