A Talk by Dr. Raymond Tallis
For quite a while now, I have been rather intrigued by questions regarding consciousness, and its ontological basis. In so far as, whether it is material-based phenomena (for most contemporary scientists/neurologists), or not so (for most religious beliefs, especially Buddhism). Of all the subjects worth studying, one would think that consciousness would predominate, considering it is something we all experience for all of our lives, every second, until we die. For, surely, if we don’t know ourselves, then why study other things? Yet, this is not how things have gone on, in the West at least, leading me to believe that all the current interest in consciousness is really quite promising. Accordingly, one can see that when I first heard of a talk on consciousness from a non-mainstream perspective, it didn’t take much convincing to get me going. And so I did.

The talk, by Dr Raymond Thallis, was entitled “Why the brain doesn’t explain the mind and why some people think it does”. Dr Tallis, a gerontologist at Hope Hospital Manchester, as well as a prolific author on subjects ranging from poetry and philosophy to his area of Medicine, with major research interests in stroke, epilepsy and neurological rehabilitation, was, in my opinion very well qualified to speak on such a topic. What follows is, a surmise of the talk from my perspective including some of his main arguments. Please bear in mind, however, that it is quite possible(in fact certain) that I misunderstood or will misstate some of his arguments, so , I suggest for those of you interested in really getting a true insight of his perspective on this matter, to read some of his books on this topic. Please do read on though!

To begin with, the two premises of modern neuroscience which are almost unchallenged are as follows: 1) Mental activity is neural activity; 2) Consciousness is due to activity in the brain. This, Dr Tallis, described as being nothing but, “neuromythology”, another facet of the contemporary belief in Scientism, which says that all, without exception, can be explained by Science. However, before beginning his critique, a presentation of the history leading to our current situation was given.

This began with, like most things in Western Medicine, Hippocrates, who maintained that the brain was where all our emotions, feelings etc come from. Although this may seem like quite a reasonable suggestion, we must bear in mind that at the time there was serious debate on the matter. To give an example, Aristotle, maintained that it was from the heart that thought came. As for the brain, it served only to cool the blood! Why this cerebral cooling notion was dropped we may never know! However, the brain-centred approach was then accepted. Yet, things weren’t as straightforward as accepting the brain in its entirety though. Next came the debate as to which part of the brain-parenchyma (actual body of brain) or ventricles (empty spaces in brain now shown to be responsible for the production of Cerebral Spinal Fluid)-was responsible. A brief discussion was then had on Franz Joseph Gall, father of phrenology(the science of determining character by feeling lumps on the skull which, incidentally, was used by the British in “proving” the inferiority of other races including the Irish), who was actually responsible for advancing science in it’s theories of the brain whatever about the validity of phrenology . This broader historical picture certainly made it much easier to see how we got where we are today.

With the framework established, Dr Tallis proceeded to explain current arguments regarding the perceived scientific fact that consciousness is the preserve of the brain. He began with the identity theory, which maintains that all neural events are identical to mental events. However, this he countered with arguments about the patent subjectivity of experience, and about such things as brightness and loudness. The latter, he explained, are not physical constructs. Atomically, without a conscious observer nothing can be loud or bright, thus such phenomena cannot be explained by simple physical neural excitement. Some may say that it is the patterns of neural excitement that allow for the range of experiences that we have, however if one thinks deeply of what a pattern is, one should find that it is non-existent without an already present observer. An example I can give of this is as follows: imagine seven asteroids moving in a line through space, each of them is set for a collision with a nearby planet. It is impossible for the planet, per se, to recognize a pattern of collisions by the seven asteroids. Only when there is an observer can patterns be established. If one says that these patterns activate further neurons which respond to specific patterns you will find that you have ultimately succumbed to a form of circular reasoning, as eventually the patterns will have to be recognized.

Next, an interesting argument known as the “levels” argument was elaborated upon. This tries to draw an analogy between the constituent water molecules and their product, water, to consciousness. For, just as millions of water molecules combine to form water, so is it with millions of nerve impulses combining to form consciousness.
According to Dr Tallis, the faults of this argument are as follows. Firstly, the concept of levels -neural activity level to consciousness level- requires levels of observation. This theory also doesn’t explain why some nerve impulses are conscious and why some aren’t. Further, this doesn’t explain why consciousness arises.

To show how ludicrous this is, consider the following (my example not that of Dr. Tallis): If you take the case that consciousness is believed to be an emergent phenomena (which it must be as part of the this “levels” argument”) then it must entail that each depolarizing neuron must have an intrinsic quasi-consciousness; that a simple action potential is in some, extremely minute way, conscious. No, scientist would accept such a thing, but, strangely, they except the idea of emergence quite easily.

The totality of consciousness was then discussed. This being the phenomena that we all share, in experiencing the hic et nunc with both lucidity and convergence of relevant sensory data. If one considers that the brain is said to be localized, in that certain areas of the brain are responsible for processing specific pieces of data (i.e. the neo-cortex is said to be responsible for higher mental function, whilst the brain stem deals with “sub-conscious” activities). This must mean that somehow the brain knows how to connect certain bits of data which are applicable to consciousness. However, when you investigate the somehow, one will see that an observer is needed. Why? An example the speaker gave was that if you considered a room of say forty people (about the amount of people at the talk) you will find that a certain number of them will have a low blood sugar level. The low blood sugar level by itself will not make itself self-evident. What is required is an observer who is actually looking for those with low blood sugar levels. Thus, without an observer it is very hard to see how converge of sensory data can occur.

Thus ended the main crux of the talk, although there was a few other issues discussed of which I have decided not to go into. In light of the above discussion, it is important to mention that the speaker himself doesn’t believe that neurons have no role in consciousness. In fact he made it very clear that he believes that a pre-requisite for consciousness is a fully functional brain, something that is clinically quite obvious. However, the two contentions of the “neuromythologists”, of which I stated at the beginning, are where his disagreements lay. Interestingly, when asked where he imagined that consciousness did in fact reside, he never uttered the word spirit or even alluded to a non-physical basis for consciousness. He suggested that the body could also have a role. I was rather surprised by this, as in my opinion, this is rather ludicrous-not that I don’t believe that the body has no role- as it is simply raising the physical basis for consciousness, the same problems of the lack of the observer in different experiences of which he so eloquently exposed is in no way ameliorated by this physically based extension of the causative elements in this consciousness conundrum. Perhaps, as he didn’t out rule such an aetiology, he doesn’t dismiss such a thing. Maybe, I will just have to read one of his books for find out more!

To conclude, I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed the talk. In fact, it was once of the best talks I have ever attended. It certainly has challenged many of my views on the topic. I think that of all the content of the talk one particular sentence that he said had the most profound impact on me. It went something like this: [without consciousness] “…the world is but a series of odour-less, colourless, atoms endlessly vibrating”. As physical entities have no characteristics of themselves, it is us that classify them. So, the question still remains, what is it that illuminates this inanimate world? I have a feeling that if I ever truly found out that I would be a changed person!