24 | Human Consciousness: Something We Have, or Something We Are? Pt. 1

Welcome to the Cow Behind the Barn: A podcast exploring humanity, the world, and the divine, as experienced and interpreted by an artist. I’m Kevin Caldwell, a co-finder of the Table Collective.

Are we conscious, or are we consciousness? 

Odd question, I know, so let me rephrase: 

Is there a me other than my consciousness and my awareness? That is, is there a me that has consciousness?

Or is what I think of as me in fact consciousness itself? Is there an I that exists other than my consciousness, or not?

That question frames the focus of my next two Episodes, and I will come back to it in a moment. 

But first, I want to try a bit of an experiment. In every Episode, I use my own poems and songs in various ways to illustrate or express something related to my topics. In this case, the poem I will share is not directly connected in that way. Instead I am using it as a practice in mindfulness, as an invitation to myself, and yourself.

Invitation to what?

The poem is called “Rooted in Sand.” As I recite it, and as you listen, I invite us to experience it, to experience the groundedness, to experience the solid rest which it expresses in the midst of the waves of whatever may be going on in life. 

So, for a moment pause. Take a few deep breaths, and let them out slowly. Allow yourself to be aware of what is happening inside you: thoughts, emotions, imaginings. The aim is simply to be aware of them. To see them. Now, in a sense, just sit with them and “listen together,” as it were, to the poem.

 

Rooted in Sand

Settle, self.

Root, rest, 

Deep soul, red heart

Sound and sight rolling, waves on sea walls:

 

                                                      Waves crest,

                                   Approach,

Thin onto sand, 

Pause a breath length,

Pull back,

                                    Withdraw

                                 Crest into waves.

 

In the waiting the damp soaks deep but does not wrest away old sand.

Water soaking and sinking.

 

Me standing,

                  feet descending into sand,

                       settling, deep, packed in, waiting, firm,

In root and rest.      

 

Ok, now that I am in  that rooted, settled place, I come back to the question of human consciousness: are we conscious, or are we consciousness?

 

The Question That Started it All

This all began more than 20 Episodes ago with the question, “Where and when did I begin?” 

I’ve looked at where, and the nature of the cosmos, and when and the nature of time, and then began exploring what might be the nature of the “I” in the question. What is the nature of consciousness in other words.

If you’ve been following the recent Episodes, you are very aware of the approach I am following, in which I evaluated and then set aside definitions and instead focused on descriptions of different dimensions of consciousness and “self”.

For newer listeners, here’s a summary:

One Dimensional Consciousness/Self: a subject experiences what happens (in some way) but is not aware of experiencing it.

Two Dimensional: a subject experiences what happens to it and is aware of experiencing it.

Three Dimensional: a subject experiences what happens, is aware of experiencing it, and is aware of being aware. 

There is a fourth category I refer to as Multi-Dimensional. That will be the focus after we look at human consciousness, for I think this category will ask us the questions around whether there is consciousness beyond the individual human level and the level of “things” and animals. It is raising the question of the divine. 

 

Making it More Complicated

My descriptive model which refers to experience and awareness is simple, maybe even simplistic. Things are much more complicated than my model, of course, for us as human beings. Let me share some examples.

Humans change developmentally. That means we are conscious in different ways as we grow from conception to embryo to birth to childhood and on into adulthood. How does that affect our understanding of the nature of consciousness and of the self? Is there a self that is the same throughout all of that? If not the same in quality or character, the same in identity?

What happens to “us” when we experience some form of dementia? Consciousness gets warped. But are we still ourselves?

What about being in a coma? Under anesthesia? What about when we sleep?

What about the effects of meditation on one’s consciousness and sense of self? 

What about altered states of consciousness that are drug induced?

In each of these different states of consciousness, are we “us,” still ourselves? Indeed are we still selves at all, if we are not aware? Is there more to who we are than what we normally experience, or is our experience, even the experience of being aware that we are aware, ultimately all that we are? 

I spent a lot of time on rocks in earlier Episodes, so I feel compelled to ask, when we are not aware, when we more closely resemble being rocks, is there still something else to us?

What does consciousness mean, what is a self? 

 

The Continental Divide

And so, back to the question I asked at the very beginning of the Episode.

Are we conscious, or are we consciousness?

It is a question that cuts to the heart of who and what we are.

Typically, I look at my different sources to see what they have to say about a question and then try to sort, assemble, and come to some type of personal conclusion or point of view.

In this case, what I have already gleaned from those sources as I looked at the nature of consciousness in relation to the non-human, natural world of our cosmos, reveals a singular, narrow dividing line between two major ways to understand and describe human consciousness.

I call it a Continental Divide in the theories of physics, philosophy, and the religions. For those of you outside the USA, that term refers to the spine of the Rocky Mountains which runs north and south through America, and from which rivers flow either to the west or to the east.

Relative to the nature of consciousness, various theories of philosophy, religions, and physics, here theories are the streams, flow either east or west from it. Those streams then recombine together, forming two major rivers which each contain the waters, the theories, of different approaches in physics, different schools of philosophy, and different religious heritages. 

In other words, there are schools of philosophy, and interpretations of physics, and religious heritages which answer one way, and there are schools of philosophy, and interpretations of physics, and religious heritages which answer the other.

The Continental Divide is the question, “are we conscious, or are we consciousness?” 

Let me introduce the way physics, philosophy and religion form rivers together to answer that question in very different ways. I will do an overview of both sides of the divide for now, then look more closely at just one side for the remainder of the Episode.

First…

 

We Are Conscious

Quantum Physics: 

There are some physicists who conclude that there must be some sort of consciousness that is behind the apparently random actions of sub-atomic particles, including those which make up the electro-chemical functions of our human brains. There is something, a center, other than just the result of sub-atomic particle activity we call “thought.” 

 

Philosophy: 

The philosophical approach to consciousness known as dualism is the view that the source of consciousness, if not consciousness itself, is non-physical in some sense. There are of course many varieties of dualism, but in one way or another, this is the view that electro-chemical processes of the brain cannot sufficiently account for consciousness, not solely.  There is an “I” deeper or more “essential” than cognitive functions, of which our cognitive functions are symptomatic, signs. This includes philosophers who intentionally engage with quantum physics in this area.

 

Religions:  

In this case, the dividing line of eastern versus western religious traditions does not reveal the sort of clear difference of perspective that we have noted relative to some prior topics. 

For example, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and also Hindu, and as far as I can assess, Taoist ways of seeing all describe a form of mind, or self that is “other” than consciousness as we experience it. There is some sort of “I” that has consciousness, whether that is a human “I” or an “I” that is other than an individual human.

What about the other river?

 

We Are Consciousness

Quantum Physics:

There are physicists who, while accepting that the activity of sub-atomic particles is certainly mysterious, are nonetheless convinced that if the conditions provided by warm, wet, brains were not present there would be no consciousness. And no self having consciousness. This is not quite the same thing as saying, “we are consciousness.” It is probably more accurate to say “we are the electro-chemical processes that generate consciousness.” But this stream fits the rivers flowing on this side of the divide, because there is no other “I” if consciousness does not exist, or ceases.

 

Philosophy: 

In philosophy the theory of mind and consciousness known as materialism equates consciousness with the brain, or more specifically, with the brain’s neural activity. That activity is what consciousness is, and so ultimately that is what we are, what the self is.

 

Religions: 

This will oversimplify things, but what I am going to say is true enough for the purpose of this Episode: Buddhism stands nearly alone among the major religious heritages in its view that there is no self that has consciousness. The self is the cognitive flow we call consciousness, and consciousness is that self. If the flow ceases, there is no I that continues. Thus, while beginning from a very different starting point than the philosophy of materialism, and while differing in many important ways (especially in its view of the material world), Buddhism and materialism share the same end result: consciousness is not rooted in a source other than itself.

Now that I have summarized the two rivers, for the rest of this Episode, I will focus more on the second river: “we are consciousness.”

First, let’s look more closely at the Buddhist understanding, and then turn to physics and philosophy. 

 

Buddhism and the Self

As we noted in several prior Episodes, one of the core elements in the Buddha’s teaching is what he called “non-Self”, or “un-self.”  

What the Buddha meant by this is that there is no permanent ‘something’ that experiences events and stimuli. Within you or I or any subject that is aware or is aware of being aware” there is nothing other than the awareness itself. There is no self “doing that” or “having that.”

What I am, what I call “me,” is a constant flow of experiences and mental states. 

Consciousness is nothing other than that flow. 

What I think is me, my “I,” is simply those experiences and states of mind.

I can’t ask Buddha what happens when we are unconscious, due to anesthesia, or in a coma, or have dementia. I am not sure what he would say in response. There are streams of Buddhism that might suggest the ways that at least some Buddhists would respond. They have to do with what is called the “Buddha-nature.” I will take that up when I look at the river on the other side of the divide. For now, it suffices to say that mainstream Buddhism says that we are consciousness, and consciousness is what we are.

  

Physics and Materialism

There is a division in the scientific community, just as there is in the religious world, between whether the source of consciousness, indeed its entire reality, is material or non-material. The materialist view is that consciousness results from, and is dependent for its existence and functions upon, the physical conditions of a warm, wet, brain.

Quantum theory is often used to suggest the opposite of materialism, namely that there are phenomena, especially at the sub-atomic level, which are inexplicable in a materialist framework. 

Quantum physics deals with the nature of matter and energy, and how matter and energy “behave,” at the atomic and subatomic levels. That behavior includes phenomena physicists describe with terms like “wave activity,” superposition, and entanglement which seem counterintuitive to our everyday experiences of the world. 

However, materialists also appeal to quantum physics to support their worldview. A materialist application of quantum theory would argue that quantum physics strengthens materialism by providing a comprehensive description of reality, even if that reality is more complex than what we experience and understand. Thus, in a materialist framework, quantum physics portrays consciousness as a complex emergent property of physical processes.

It seems to me that how one interprets quantum theory related to materialism and its implications relative to consciousness, depends upon conclusions reached through different lenses: namely, religion or philosophy. I mentioned Buddhism above, so I will turn to philosophy here. 

 

Materialism and Philosophy of Mind:

Materialism in philosophy, as in the sciences, is the perspective that consciousness is a product of physical processes in the brain, and that there is no non-physical mind or soul. In other words::

The material world is the only reality. 

Every cognitive and psychological function can be explained in physical terms. 

There is no non-material or spiritual realm. 

The physical brain is the source of consciousness. 

Emotions are chemical reactions.

All phenomena are reducible to physical interactions, nothing more. Including consciousness.

 

Before proceeding, I need to ask a question that is nagging me.

 

Does Buddha Belong Here?

I have put the Buddha stream from the religious world on the same side of the Continental Divide as the materials streams in physics and philosophy, but do these streams actually flow into the same river? 

The Buddha’s thinking about consciousness and about the nature of the material world are both very complex. Thus my answer to the question I just posed is yes and no! 

In Buddhist philosophy, mind and matter are seen as different ways that we experience reality. Mental experiences, including consciousness, arise from the sensations of our bodies, and the perceptions and thoughts we formulate in our minds. Body and mind are entangled. Matter itself is not something fully external or even scientifically accessible.  

Our observations of matter and the reality of matter itself are intertwined. This is, as we have seen, almost exactly the view of quantum physics. 

Where Buddha could be seen to disagree with materialism is in his denial that even science can access “matter” as it is, or matter in its “real reality” I might say. Because even that purely scientific, objective exercise is not in fact purely objective. 

Where Buddhist thought supports the world view of materialism, and the reason I put Buddha on this side of the mountain range, is that for the Buddha, there is nothing else that is real other than this entanglement of consciousness and matter. At the end of the day, then, this is almost exactly the view taken by philosophical, and scientific, theories of materialism, for those also hold that consciousness does not exist apart from matter, the physical world.

More can be said of course about the Buddha and this side of the divide. But I need to get ready for the other side!

However, before I begin to transition to the next Episode, I have another poem to share. I have included it in a prior Episode, but it seems very fitting here.

The poem is called “Room-Scape” and though it does not answer the question of whether we are something that has consciousness or whether we are consciousness itself, it does explore consciousness from the viewpoint of an imagined possibility that we share consciousness in a mysterious way with our surroundings. 

 

Room-Scape

Lead marks on paper, from a pencil

Moved by fingers, moved by hand,

Moved by bone and muscle,

Moved by tendon, sinew, nerve,

Moved by a thought shot down the path

Of pulse and synapse  

To the pencil point on a paper.

 

In the moment of the pencil moving,

Tracing a thought on dull paper,

Pulped flat from the souls of trees,

Further up and further in, 

Up the hand, arm, neck,

Inside the grey tissue inside the skull,

Another thought is already born, 

Formed, and sent, on its way

Before the old thought 

Finds the period on the paper.

 

In the room two cats 

Playing, purring, pausing,

Staring into the dark hallway 

At the things cats see

In the spaces beyond my sight.

 

Inside square walls

There is a tiny orange flash of fish 

Moved by some liquid synapse,

Or lure or longing I cannot sense.

 

A plant above and to my right

Tamed and potted 

In soil from the loam of some 

Raw and wild land

Spilling leaves and stems

Down the bookshelf’s breast

Trellised green and yellow.

 

Toys are askew, scattered residue 

Of a three-year old’s make believe.

She sleeps in a crib that stands on a floor

That is the ceiling above me.

 

A daughter, first born of three, 

Sleeps above me, to my left.

Mother of a first born of her own,

Across the hall, not yet stirring

In the crib.

 

Behind a door to my right

Another sleeper.

We have fifty years of waking,

Walking; bed and bread;

Breath inhaled and exhaled;

A weathered life of days, 

Together.

 

These rooms are breathing.

 

The night has inhaled a passing day 

Held its breath deep in moonlit lungs

Up to the point of exhale, 

Releasing a tomorrow that will be today,

A wind that will carry us afloat

From dawn down to dusk and the next breath 

Swallowed in deep.

 

The woman breathing

The daughter and the daughter’s daughter 

Breathing

The cat breathing

The fish breathing

I am breathing.

 

I inhale the breath of the breathing room

Into lung, to blood, to brain,

Down the muscle and tendon and bone,

Down to fingers laced around a pencil

To the dulling point scratching,

To the traces of lead on paper,

To lines shaped into sticks,

Circles and twists and spots.

 

The grey dust on paper is inhaled by other eyes.

They draw in deep the scratches of the pencil on the page,

Into lung, to blood, to brain,

Down again through muscle and tendon and bone and vein.

And now, where to from here?

 

Philosophy and Religion as the Lenses for Aiming Physics?

I said above that it seems to me the interpretations of quantum physics seem to be decided by prior convictions reached in other ways, from philosophy and religion. Now in my view, science can and should reframe one’s philosophical and religious understanding.

However, I do think it is a two way street, and should be.

Whether a physicist sees quantum theory as supporting materialism or not seems to depend on prior convictions which have been arrived at through different means. In other words, that one’s philosophical and/or religious conclusions and convictions have a huge say in how one interprets quantum theory, and how one explains its counter-intuitive conclusions about the way what we think of as material reality actually functions. 

As I say, I think it is a two way street, and that it should be. Our views and ways of seeing can be and should be an ongoing interplay of science, philosophy, religion, and imagination, and experience, and intuition. One of the themes of the podcast is that we “know things” in all sorts of different ways, and we need to welcome them all.

In the next Episode I will travel over the mountains to the other side of the divide and look at the philosophical and religious views in those streams and rivers, the ones that view consciousness as rooted in something “other,” views that do not reduce reality to matter. Having looked at the views that say we are consciousness, we will explore where instead, we are conscious!

Until next time…