Quite often in the book, Noe repeats the phrase, “Where do we stop, and where does the rest of the world begin?” which I believe to be a strong summary of the point he is making with this book. We began the semester with Hustvedt who described who she was and accepted herself through experience sharing and her personal life journey. Demasio on the other hand describes consciousness as a product of our brains, created by neurons that internalize what we perceive. Our last discussion just last week paused when we attempted to describe our own beliefs and whether or not we could side with a materialistic, dualistic or monistic perspective but as I mentioned then I believe there be something more to the equation and Alva Noe has an interesting take on consciousness one that I very much enjoyed reading.
The key to Noe’s framework is to look beyond the brain, beyond what it is actually hard wired to and looking into the world that it interacts with. This interaction is just as much our consciousness as our feeling of self. What I find most interesting is he speaks of evolution as it lead to language. Language which in humans, is characteristic in that it is more than a form of communication but a way of explanation, of describing, questioning and directing. Language, as Noe describes it, is our way of communicating and internalizing the world around us and in doing so connects others’ worlds to our own. The meaning we give to things and the information we are led to understand is a part of what we know and therefore a part of our consciousness. This has a very social aspect to consciousness and as humans are very conscious beings I believe these ideas to hold weight.
It is a difficult task to understand how other objects, people and animals are a part of our consciousness, and to be completely honest, although I believe it makes some sense, I still struggle with considering knowledge and environment as a part of consciousness. Maybe this is due to conflicting definitions of consciousness and self that we have been offered so far but what makes absolute sense is that the people and things around us are without a doubt what shapes us. These ideas are very Vygotskyian, and if anything about Vygotsky’s ideas are still prevalent in modern developmental theory, it’s that language and environment play a large role in who we become. Points that Noe makes very clear in this book. If human consciousness is unique, and it is our higher order thinking that is unique from other animals, than it seems to me the ability to learn from and understand our surroundings while being able to critically think and manipulate it, can be consciousness.
While I think Demasio has created a framework that is modern, relatable and sensible, it is just a bit too mechanistic for my beliefs in what makes us different. The idea that neurons create consciousness, that everything is reflected in our brain cells leaves little room for hope that I am the creator of my life. Although In Noe’s words the environment and my surroundings shape us, he does speak of the interaction between organism and environment. These ideas, more than Demasios at least, seem to foster a greater sense of uniqueness, of choice and altogether is a framework I am more willing to support.
I like Julia’s comment about what is included in the “I” and the implications of what is and isn’t included as it relates to free will. From what I understand, Noe doesn’t believe the neurons and mechanical brain can create a consciousness because the value of consciousness is not the straight measurable value of the neural processes but rather more about “my history and my current position in and interaction with the wider world” (Noe). What if we were to flip and consider each piece of our physical body to be a piece of “me?” People often speak of souls and spirits which are independent of the body we inhabit. Just last week Julia discussed the Dali Lama’s reincarnation history. What if, instead of thinking of ourselves as somehow separate from the physical, our psychical self, we considered every piece a part of us as ourselves? Do some of us not feel loss when we lose a bit of the physical? I have yet to feel loss but even in something as simple as when I cut off my long hair and exchanged it for a boy cut, I felt a sense of confidence surge through me. It changed how I saw myself and felt. This same change reemerges every time I cut my hair. My hair’s length seems to be directly connected to my sense of self so why do we separate from the self from the body?
This discussion reminds me of a passage from a recent book by two historians of medicine. In Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the the mind (Princeton UP), Nicholas Rose and Joelle Abi-Rached note that the “interaction” (or “transaction”) in question is on the agenda of some neuroscientists:
“…the new brain sciences share much with more general shifts within contemporary biological and biomedical sciences: at their most sophisticated, they are struggling toward a way of thinking in which our corporeality is in constant transaction with its milieu, and the biological and the social are not distinct but intertwined. Many of the assumptions and extrapolations that are built into the heterogeneous endeavor of neurobiology are ripe for critique. But at a time when neurobiology, however hesitantly, is opening its explanatory systems to arguments and evidence from the social sciences, perhaps there is a relation beyond commentary and critique that might be more productive. We will return to these issues in our conclusion. For now, though, it is sufficient to say that it is in the spirit of critical friendship between the human sciences.”
Oh I just want to add — it makes me wonder if the I is different from the self.
I think it’s interesting that you write, “The idea that neurons create consciousness, that everything is reflected in our brain cells leaves little room for hope that I am the creator of my life.” What is “I”? Who is “I”? And how do we define “I”? This seems to be what Damasio, Noe and Hustvedt are getting at — the physical I and the metaphysical I and the subconscious I and the part of me that I don’t want to admit is part of me. Neurons must be part of I but you are saying that identifying I as only neurons makes you feel out of control and that you aren’t the creator of your own life. It leads back to free will, I think.
I agree that Noe’s framework is more tangible. I think both he and Demasio agree that the environment weighs heavily in the measuring, development and understanding of consciousness. So it’s like the thread between us and our environment or the object .. and how we engage (choose to engage) with the environment is the determinant of consciousness in the organism. so to Noe ist’s all contextual.