Conscious

The 'adjectival' title of this book – Conscious – by Annaka Harris is appropriately concise for one of the briefest available books on the subject of 'consciousness'. Anyone who has written or thought about the subject has in some way been "conscious of consciousness" as "something mysterious" but easily overlooked as 'tis always hiding in plain sight. What can a student of consciousness say in only 90 short text pages that has not been said before? Something new, or something perennial that bears repeating? Ms. Harris, a New York-based editor, consultant for science writers, and meditator has evidently said enough to put Conscious, her first book for an adult audience, on the NY Times best seller list (familiar territory for her spouse Sam Harris, a well-known author and neuroscientist). Given this biographical context on Ms Harris, and the screen saver panorama of the New York skyline that popped up on my laptop, I found myself imagining Ms Harris meditating on the subject of consciousness and using her NY 'milieu' to pop out this little book. All credit to her for reminding us of the perennial mystery of consciousness and sharing her thoughts.

Using a blend of background research and interviews, she quotes many of the usual suspects and sources, providing sufficient notes to give the curious reader access to useful literature and 'general' sense of familiarity with the field. However, as is often the case in consciousness studies, intractable "hard problem" questions rear up without satisfying answers. While I applaud Harris for asking the perennial questions and giving some interesting, but specific examples, my "mind" (book's subtitle) drifted to the holistic statement of Emerson that "we lie in the map of immense intelligence." Implicit in this statement is a rejoinder to "a simple assumption" that Harris claims "most of us make… [that] … people are conscious; plants are not conscious." (Her quotes). She admits the simplification, surely only plausible if you define consciousness, intelligence and mind too narrowly. Too many consciousness studies are narrowly human-centric, if not brain centric, and so define 'conscious' or consciousness as human self-consciousness or self-awareness.

This excludes the immense intelligence associated with the realms of the subconscious and unconscious, which constitute so much of what makes the biosphere and our own organism tick. Harris recognises the immense intelligence of plants and gives fascinating examples from the work of Daniel Chamovitz and Suzanne Simard, the latter accessible from the TED stage. Given that the biosphere, from microbes to homing pigeons and dogs is shot through with immense intelligence, are we perhaps asking the wrong questions about the mysteries of mind and consciousness? It is fun to ponder the notion, attributable to Alan Watts and others, that we humans are the universe observing itself, but by definition this is anthropocentric and, overlooks myriad species intelligently observing and symbiotically communicating among themselves and with each other on their own wavelengths. [Don't plants and carbon cycles do their own biosphere observing and reacting]?

Perhaps it is an occupational hazard be anthropocentric, but best to resonate with all other biosphere consciousness of which we are a part, in whose lap we lie. This brings us, logically I hope, to the idea of panpsychism and the conscious universe, which Harris appropriately discusses later in the book. But before we go there, we might ponder the assertion by Harris, that the "most basic definition of consciousness" is taken from Thomas Nagel's essay "What is it like to be a bat?" As Harris puts it, what is that experiential "something"? Although this is a question and not a definition, and has not been answered by a human, at least from the perspective of inner bat experience, and I do not quibble with Harris, the question again seems to resonate with the 'big' Emersonian intelligent biosphere / intelligent universe perspective.

Experience, whether unconscious, subconscious or conscious is so multifaceted as to boggle the so called 'mind' (book's subtitle again) and immense intelligence, on the one hand, and on the other, be daily recognized, consciously and unconsciously by we humans every time we meet another intelligent species. Moreover, as Emerson, intimated the recognition of that of which we are a part is natural and intuitive. So again no quibbles with Harris, just an observation that all human probing and scientific, meditative or experiential investigations of consciousness seem destined to flow, (dare I suggest purposefully?), towards the bigger holistic, universal picture. Regardless of the inspired, illuminating, less-informative, or overly detailed, even ill-conceived studies of consciousness they all contribute dynamically to the big picture, and thanks to Harris for stimulating me to ponder how "my take" resonates with hers.

After asking in Chapter 5 "Who are we? A valid question given the studies that show, as one song lyric suggests, we sometimes "don't even know ourselves" … babies, infants, illusion-of-self and all that, we come to Chapter 6: "Is consciousness everywhere? Again, I indulge and challenge the "abstract" question: "why is there something to experience rather than nothing?" The answer may be deceptively simple: one can only experience something, experiencing nothing is surely impossible! Do we only ask such questions to prove there is always "something" and to dispel the 'silly' notion that our experience is a delusion? Harris lets British philosopher Galen Strawson answer that it is "silly [to] deny … conscious experience, the only general thing we know for certain exists." Jung said the same.

All credit to Harris, and anyone who attempts to plumb consciousness. Such endeavours, one might argue, are among the more important things we humans do. There is hardly a philosopher who has not touched on the subject. In simple terms, human consciousness reaches almost everywhere so we are not just aware of a sentient biosphere: physicists and astronomers see order in the cosmos best labelled as "anthropic" embedding our conscious intelligence deeply the universal lap.

Harris raises the panpsychism question of "why we should draw a line" between the consciousness of any entity (from atom to human), and how combining atoms and entities might lead to changes or evolution in consciousness. Good questions, and the global brain and immense intelligence is implied but not mentioned directly. SMN members may be interested to know that Harris considers that despite some detractors, panpsychism theories "have been gaining respect." She cites the famous J.B.S. Haldane that "if consciousness were not present in matter this would imply a theory of strong emergence that is fundamentally anti-scientific" and therefore, in turn, implies at least rudimentary consciousness "all through the universe." This implies, as Harris suggests, that there are "many more systems that have consciousness," or as noted above, 'consciousness' is not just about human self-consciousness: it includes the whole realm of the subconscious and unconscious.

We have surely known, since Freud and Jung, that these 'general things' (sensu Strawson) manifest in the human psyche. Put another way, as Harris does in citing Adam Frank's book Minding Matter, why "the reluctance of scientists to propose theories … beyond viewing consciousness as a result of processing in the brain?" Harris suggests proposing otherwise may be "a risk to one's reputation." Amusingly she cites Frank asking "why does an infinity of parallel universes in the many-worlds interpretation get associated with the sober, hard-nosed position, while including the perceiving subject [consciousness] gets condemned as crossing over to the shores of anti-science at best, or mysticism at worst?" [At least some challenge the tired 'science good, mysticism bad' routine]!

Reviewing a book about consciousness helps focus on being "conscious of consciousness," and it reminds one of the limitations and ambiguities of science, despite the myriad studies that attempt to plumb the mysteries of the field in microscopic, particle by particle detail. It also reminds us of Emerson's memorable characterisation of the panpsychic milieu of which we are all part, including Harris and anyone reading her book. With a brief on, and a brief lap around, consciousness Harris helps remind us of the mysterious milieu of immense intelligence.