The interview merely backed up Noe’s words on paper. It was interesting to see the man behind the words, his body language his facial expressions and himself trying to convince the interviewer and the viewing public of those words in his book. It seems an obvious thought that in order to have memory, thought and consciousness the environment and the world around us must indeed play a sinificant role and the brain should not be credited with all that we experience. It is indeed an integral part as a cars engine is to a car.
Noe’s book is easier on the eyes than Damasio’s, comprehension is more palatable. When Noe tells us the brain is part of what you are and continues with conciousness is experience without scientific jargon and galactic explanations the book becomes an interesting read and not a chore. (Although later on Noe does have his moments going off on one with his own scientifcally-philosophically riddled metaphors.) He does throw out a few gems as when he states that computers and brains can’t think. (8) It is interesting how Noe, sees that all that we think the brain can do it infact does with us having outside contact with the environment, and nothing from within even down to smells and taste. The brain is only one element of a larger system, Noe offers, consciousness requires, the brain, body and the world.
Noes suggests that if a person in a vegetative state is pricked with a pin and recoils does that person feel physical pain or is it just a reaction responding reflexively to stimulation? Is it then that the person should also make a sound in pain? Is it not enougth to say that the person can feel if indeed they move when touched? What if a chicken is mutilated after having it’s head cut off or a snake? Can those animals no longer feel?
Noe’s metaphors and “layman-like” explanations still are just words trying to convince one that his ideas are at least feasable and should be given consideration. The brain is an integral part to a human as is the nervous system so why shouldn’t the environment we’re a part of everyday play a large participatory role in our consciousness too?
It does seem obvious that environment must be integral to consciousness. We don’t perceive or live in vacuums. But imagine the tools you’d need to explain consciousness if that means explaining all the ongoing interactions among brain, body, and world. Because that’s not possible, various thinkers end up taking up parts of the problem. That can be valuable, but it also means excluding the other parts.
Hi David,
I completely agree with what you’ve said in your post. To your last point, the environment has to play a participatory role in our consciousness because among other things a conscious entity has to eat in order to remain alive, to remain conscious. Even a person in a coma has to be fed intravenously. I believe both Noe and Damasio make good points, but sometimes it seems that scientists lose sight of common sense and perhaps for other reasons become unable to concede points to each other.