If consciousness is better understood as an activity than as a thing, another question naturally follows.
What kind of activity?
Not every activity seems remotely conscious.
A waterfall is active.
A hurricane is active.
The Earth's atmosphere is active.
Movement alone tells us very little.
The challenge is to identify the kind of organisation that distinguishes conscious activity from activity more generally.
One possibility has appeared repeatedly in neuroscience.
Consciousness may depend less upon the amount of activity than upon the way activity is organised.
This is a subtle but important distinction.
A system can be extraordinarily busy without becoming conscious.
What matters may be the relationships between its many ongoing processes.
One neuroscientist who consistently thought in these terms was Gerald Edelman.
Rather than looking for a place in the brain where consciousness resides, Edelman described the brain as a continually changing organisation whose many parts are constantly influencing one another.
The brain was not a container holding consciousness.
It was an evolving pattern of interactions.
That difference shaped almost every aspect of his approach.
Among Edelman's most influential ideas was that the brain is not simply receiving information from the world.
It is continually organising its own activity.
Perception is not a passive recording of reality.
It is an active achievement.
The organism does not merely classify the world.
It continually classifies its own classifications.
The significance of incoming experience is constantly being reorganised in the light of previous experience, present circumstances and anticipated possibilities.
Whether every detail of Edelman's theory proves correct is not the important point here.
The deeper insight lies elsewhere.
Conscious activity begins to look less like a picture of the world and more like an organism continually reorganising its own relationship with the world.
The emphasis shifts from representation to participation.
This way of thinking changes our understanding of perception.
We often imagine perception as though the world simply enters the mind.
Light arrives.
Sound arrives.
The brain receives.
The picture is completed.
Yet living organisms rarely behave like passive recording devices.
They explore.
They anticipate.
They ignore.
They revise.
They compare.
They act in order to perceive.
Perception is already organised activity.
If that is true, then consciousness may involve something even richer.
Not merely perceiving.
But continually organising the act of perceiving itself.
The organism is not simply responding to its surroundings.
It is responding to the way it is responding.
Experience becomes part of the activity that shapes subsequent experience.
The organisation begins folding back upon itself.
This idea may initially sound abstract.
In practice, it is almost ordinary.
Imagine walking through an unfamiliar forest.
At first, every sound attracts attention.
Gradually, some sounds become familiar.
Others remain significant.
The meaning of each new perception depends upon the organisation established by countless previous perceptions.
The forest has not changed.
The organisation of your experience has.
Your awareness is continually reorganising itself.
Seen in this light, consciousness no longer appears as a spotlight illuminating the world.
It resembles an organism continually maintaining a coherent relationship with itself and its surroundings.
Every perception slightly reshapes the organisation that makes future perceptions possible.
Every action alters the circumstances within which new actions become meaningful.
The organism is not simply alive.
It is continually participating in the construction of its own ongoing experience.
Notice how naturally this connects with the ideas we have already explored.
If consciousness is an activity, we should expect organisation rather than substance.
If it is organised activity, we should expect relationships rather than isolated components.
If it is relational, we should expect continual change rather than static possession.
The pieces begin fitting together.
Not because we have imposed a theory upon them.
But because the questions themselves have changed.
None of this means that consciousness has been explained.
Far from it.
Many mysteries remain.
How does subjective experience arise?
Why does organisation become experience at all?
What kinds of organisation are sufficient?
What kinds are necessary?
These remain among the deepest questions in science and philosophy.
But perhaps we have reached a more promising place from which to ask them.
Instead of searching for a hidden object called consciousness, we are beginning to study the dynamic organisation through which conscious activity is continually sustained.
That is a different investigation.
And perhaps a more illuminating one.
There is one further possibility that follows from this way of thinking.
If conscious activity depends upon the continual organisation of an organism's own activity, then consciousness may not be something that is simply present or absent.
Like many organised activities, it may exist in different forms, at different intensities, under different conditions.
The important question may not be,
Does this system have consciousness?
It may be,
How is this system organising its own participation in experience?
That question does not reduce the mystery.
It enlarges it.
But it also begins to free us from one of our oldest assumptions—that consciousness must be a thing before it can become an activity.
Perhaps the opposite is closer to the truth.
Perhaps the activity comes first.
And the thing we call consciousness is one of the ways language has learned to speak about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment