Consciousness

I have been to a number of lectures recently given by philosophers discussing various aspects of the mind. Topics such as; character traits and dispositions, temptation, happiness and so forth. I find these discussions to be reasonably unfulfilling, not for lack of interest but due to our current understanding of the biological and chemical mechanisms by which the brain works.

Using words one can find many suitable ways to frame an idea such as happiness or temptation however these descriptive explanations become tenuous when one attempts to probe them logically. We gain little further understanding of how we function as humans through these discussions and descriptions. Often people create more structured and logical explanations of their specific topic, such as temptation, which is equally unhelpful as it is not related to other areas, such as happiness, and cannot be used to learn anything about the other. It is somewhat like our understanding of physics presently; both relativity and quantum mechanics work in isolation but make no sense in combination.

To discuss any of the intangible faculties of the mind in a useful way I deem it essential to first construct a model for how the brain operates. By doing this each specific area under discussion may be affixed to this model allowing it to be understood best and provide greater inference to other aspects. To usefully discuss the human condition we need a "unifying theory" of consciousness.

Firstly I should like to differentiate the main two ways in which decisions are ultimately made by people, those being by reasoning and by emotion. Technically we could add in a third way of making a choice, being reflex actions to events like touching a hot surface but this does not come under the heading of consciousness, nor is it as poorly understood and so we shall not be looking at reflexes at any length.

When we consciously make a choice (ie not a reflex) we are influenced in two ways, one by logic and the other by emotion. Most choices we make will be a combination of the two influences however the variance in which factor is more significant is massive. Generally speaking the sooner we respond to an event the greater the influence of emotion is on our response. This gives rise to expressions such as "in the heat of the moment", which implies a choice has been made with little reasoning. The exact ratios of emotion and logic that go into any choice are not especially important for understanding my model of consciousness, we need only appreciate that both exists and that the ratio will vary for people from choice to choice for a number of reasons. Being tired, for example, often makes people act upon emotion more than they normally would, for the likely reason that the use of logic requires more mental effort, rather like trying to use any other part of your body that is low on resources - you would run a second marathon slower than your first if done consecutively! It is also observably true that the ratio of emotion to logic varies from person to person (if taken as an average across all their choices), some people are reserved and do not jump to conclusions while others are more impulsive. Emotion serves as both a crutch to support reasoning powers when they are struggling or as a tool to expediate the conclusions of reasoning.

I should like to propose as a fundamental element of my model of consciousness that each of our individual consciousnesses, or our self awareness if you prefer, is a sense organ much like the eyes or ears. We are affected by the things we sense, and generally we think of our senses as operating externally however this is somewhat of an illusion for we have many internal senses in addition to those that do operate externally (such as the classic sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste). The internal sense organ responsible for our feeling of self I shall call the 'self organ'. The self organ is capable of detecting certain goings on within the brain, mainly the areas of the brain responsible for reasoning which is based on the collated evidence of the senses, emotion, and also from the individuals memory.

As you may have noticed, I defined the way in which we use our brains to reason was based upon input from the senses, to which I have introduced a new member - the self organ. This would imply that the sense organ observes the reasoning being done and then transmits this information back into the system doing the reasoning thus creating an internal feedback loop. As a fairly woolly overview I would assert that this feedback loop allowed for the focusing of thought as an evolutionary advantage with consciousness a resulting side affect.

At any given moment each of our senses will be relaying information up a hierarchical system feeding towards the reasoning area or level of the brain. The information will be automatically filtered so that only the relevant bits of information are presented to the reasoning brain. During this filtering process of the sensory information, the reflex actions are instigated which totally bypass the reasoning area of the brain. I consider reflex actions to include both responses like blinking and the propagation of emotions.

I am able to consider emotions to be propagated by a pre-cognitive filtering subsection of the brain as I have introduced the self organ. This allows us to create an emotional response in the body by "thought alone". When we dwell on an event that made us angry we become more irritable or even angry again.

Although not all sensory information is passed all the way up the brain hierarchy to the reasoning area, nor are we able to recall all information from our memory, it does seem likely that a lot of the sensory input is retained in memory and therefore this must occur at a similar level to the filtering process and the reflex actions.

Below is a simplified flow chart of how information is passed about the various areas of the brain and nervous system in my model of consciousness.

My model must require some feedback into the filtering sections of the senses to work appropriately. The arrow with a question mark is a possible route in that past experience will make you more or less sensitive to certain things in certain situations such as knocking sounds when you are expecting visitors (assuming you don't have a bell). It seems reasonable that there may well be another arrow from cognitive reasoning area directly back to the filtering sections instead or in addition to the arrow from memory, which would serve a similar function.

I have used the word hierarchy a few times in describing this model as it is a good way of looking at the relationship between different areas of the brain. Each of the sense organs is effectively at the base of the hierarchical structure and each is in dependant of the other sense organs, the information they gain will passed up the hierarchy towards the decision making areas. Once the data has been processed at the top of the hierarchy the results will be passed back to the bottom of the hierarchy allowing each independent sense organ to act in harmony with the others.

This manner of feedback allows the in dependant operation of the individual areas of the brain while also allowing them to have more or less control and/or "processing power" depending on the conclusions of the cognitive area. The brain, much like the rest of the body, is made up of specialist, semi-autonomous groups or systems. These areas must do their job to maintain the functionality of the body while also relying on each other area to be able to perform their own task.

I personally believe that the self organ has evolved over time to be more powerful in humans and has hijacked the body taking significant a degree of control over the whole. This is not the only view my model allows for, it is possible that the cognitive reasoning area has maintained control and it is a mere illusion that the self has any. In other words it could be the case that although we feel like we made a choice to do something we in fact only observed that choice being made in a process of which we have no control over.

Assuming my belief is correct however, we arrive at a system where the body has a set of goals such as propagation and survival while the consciousness, what we deem to be us, has its own motives. The body attempts to control the consciousness with emotions and pain so that it acts in accordance with the goals of the body while not losing the benefits of reason. An antagonistic relationship therefore exists between the body and the consciousness of each person where both relies upon the other and cooperates only out of necessity. This could explains such things as why we get such a rush from dangerous pursuits as we are asserting ourselves over our body.

This model is a basic framework upon which you can hang ideas so that they may be related to one another. The model may benefit from refinement, and as with all science, is still a work in progress yet it can provide a useful start point for any discussion of the mind. I will undoubtedly return to these topics and either refer to this model in future essays or update it as I gain new insights.

The Two Kinds of Utopian

The words utopian and utopia are understood in a reasonably vague manner by most people, we understand a certain meaning but have widely different images flash in our minds eye. Sir Thomas Moore gave us the term by combining two Greek words which translate roughly to 'no place', a homophone for which is 'good place'. Moore's ironic play on words may not be as widely known as the word 'utopia' is today, but the sentiment remains true.

Moore's Utopia is a specific design for a system of society but the word utopia is now a general term to describe a society which aims at being the best or maximising the good. As 'good' and 'best' are subjective terms we are able to see why our images and ideas about a utopia will differ greatly.

Logistical and practical reasons aside, the fact people are not in agreement as to what is important or good is a fundamental road block to realising any utopia. This is why utopians are often regarded as dreamers and idealists.

I am reasonably happy with our general understanding that a utopia is a place that aims at perfection from a certain perspective in that I don't feel a need to define the word any more thoroughly, however it is very important to note the difference between talking about utopias in general or a specific one. As soon as a discussion begins regarding a specific utopia any previous preconception you may have regarding what a utopia should be are no longer connected to the word utopia in its new context. To speak about a specific utopia one must try to understand the perspective of the utopian, their objectives, their ideas of goodness and so forth.

We come now to define the word 'utopian' as a person who designs and creates utopias. I think that is the widely accepted view of a utopian however I would assert that the definition should be extended to those who look to improve things within a society or a system of living. Very few persons have attempted the gargantuan task that is documenting a complete system for society and so by our first definition alone there would be very few persons who would count as utopians and less still who postulate practicable goals. I deem any person who identifies a problem within a human system (political, social, economic, legal etc) and then suggests ways to resolve these issues to be utopian, which leads me to finally discuss why I feel you can categorize these persons into two opposing groups.

I have chosen words that are not free from bias to represent these categories as I feel they are the most accurate summations of the underlying difference between these two kinds of people. I dub all utopians either optimistic utopians or pessimistic utopians. John Stuart Mill, H.G. Wells and Karl Marx are examples of optimistic utopians where as Plato and Adolf Hitler would fall into the pessimistic category. Neither category is right or wrong and each category has both weak and strong utopian suggestions. Some pessimists are simply being pragmatic while optimists can often be guilty of wishful thinking.

The fundamental difference between the categories is the view the utopian has of humanity. A pessimistic utopian wishes for the best for humanity as they see it, but does not accept that individuals can be capable of acting in accordance with their aims. A pessimistic utopian does not trust others to be able to comprehend the world as they do or be able to clearly see the benefits of their actions and recommendations. Often the pessimistic utopian will use force or deny freedoms to others in their utopia in order to maintain it as they wish.

The optimistic utopian sees the good and worth in humanity and is more capable of entrusting their utopia to the masses. Optimistic utopians feel that under the right conditions and with the right treatment humans are capable of great things. The optimistic utopian believes that each person will be able to act in such a way that conserves a utopia and further proliferate goodness regardless of intellect or social standing.

Since the failing of the earliest communisms mankind has a dim view of the optimistic approach, we have become more distrustful of each other and that individual greed and self interest will undo any "optimistic" attempt at anything good. This view has also been strengthened by the recent financiall circumstances.

While I concede that one must be pragmatic in designing any utopia and account for human self interest, this does not require a pessimistic approach. A large part of managing to practically avoid a pessimistic utopia is to align the best option for an individual with what is also best for society, this does not force or coerce choice and therefore remove freedoms.

It may be greatly easier to tell people exactly how to behave, eensuring they do so by wielding power over them. This approach may then allow many kinds of (pessimistic) utopia to exist, far more so than optimistic ideas may be able to exist. It is not morally relevant to the pessimistic utopian that their values need to be forced onto people as that is the only way to achieve their goal. This may be a logically reasonable standpoint and act as a good counter argument to the morality of removing freedoms from a populous but in trying to account for certain aspect of human nature it ignores others. I would suggest that people resist force in a manner not unlike Newton's third law of motion - every force exerted by one body on another will be equally and oppositely returned by that body to the first. In other words, when you try to force people to act in a way they would otherwise choose not to then they will resist that force to an extent. On this basis alone I reject the pessimistic approach to utopianism and have attempted to adopt a pragmatic optimistic approach.

I believe, like John Stuart Mill, that if you treat people with respect, trust, compassion, honesty and with a fair hand that those values will be reciprocated. Perhaps not immediately, as mistrust takes a while to break down, but eventually others will follow the good example, not only that but those people will begin to see the merits of such behavior and go on to treat others in that way also. Individuals are able to make small ripples in society by their actions but only by introducing a complete social system that is sympathetic to treating people in these ways can large waves be made.

The society we live in presently does not set up conditions ripe for growing trust, compassion, honesty, respect and fairness. We may still value these ideas but the system we operate under has other driving mechanisms and as a result proliferates the values that go with those mechanisms. Capitalism is great for many things and has provided for society very well but the values it promotes are those of self interest and competition. Capitalism rewards ruthless and impersonal choices in the world of business and fails to reward altruism and other worthy aspects of humanity.

Even very negligible areas of our society such as health and safety lead us away from optimistic utopianism. Companies and people alike begin to lose faith in other peoples ability to look after themselves and be trusted to make choices. As this faith is lost we spiral closer to needing our choices made for us. As technology in medicine advances we veer away from evolving to ever fitter, well suited versions of humans and this is much like health and safety. The more society makes provisions for us and controls our decisions to aviod any type of mishap, the more incapable of living in a free utopia we shall become.

Possessions

I wish to discuss the sentiment behind Tyler Durden's quote in Fight Club -"the things you own end up owning you". I do not wish to confuse the concept of wealth and that of possessions as I deem them to be two quite separate things. Although I am not, nor ever have been wealthy, I am by no measure poor. This is because I live in a prosperous country and have the support of my friends and family. A poor person is someone who has no means to obtain either, food, shelter or clothing, or struggles to do so. I have never had to worry about these things and so I would not like to presume how that must feel. To me the idea of wealth is that of potential, a sum of money represents the potential to do things and a persons position in life affords them possibilities unavailable to others. I have never had much in the way of money but simply because of where I was born, and to whom I was born, I cannot ever be really poor.

A great deal of possessions, or even a very valuable one, may serve to make you wealthy but it is not the case that possessions necessarily make someone wealthy or that a wealthy person must have possessions. I cannot speak from experience of the hardships of poverty but I am able to offer my thoughts on possessions having had both some, and none, for periods of my life.

While still living at home I began to accumulate stuff. I was encouraged to work by my parents to gain "life experience". As I had no outgoings I started to collect things such as CDs and liquor with my earnings. I find it very hard to express the pleasure I gained in adding to my collections, an odd form of vanity perhaps, but dangerously addictive. The more stuff you have, the more you seem to feel you need. Sometimes you would go out with intent to treat yourself and find a reasonably priced gem for your collection and this would leave you with the sort of buzz you get from winning the bottom rung prize in the lottery - short lived as it is not a personal achievement. Other times however you would just get something for the sake of it only later to be gut-shot by the realisation of what you had done, what a silly waste of money and effort, which leaves you with that sickly sinking sensation in the whole torso.

The pleasures and pains of purchase for the sake of purchase aside we continue to grow our collections to nourish our superimposed pride. I was not so aware of myself in those times and continued to act the good consumer throughout my university years. The habit of my consumerism was lapsing in that period due to my having outgoings and less time together with all my stuff, but it was not to be revoked until I finished and began life "in the real world" as the mentors of our youth loved to call it.

I had come to realise, only too late, that the reason I slacked my way through the education system is that I didn't have a passion for the way it was done. I was capable of putting effort into something provided that I was deeply interested in it. I therefore concluded that I should try my hand at the thing I enjoyed most which was games. The following two years in which I solely played games opened my eyes to many things including the effect of possessions.

Not long after I finished university my parents moved house, on that day I packed all my remaining stuff (I had given stuff of use to friends on long term loans) into boxes for safe keeping at the new house and took my wallet, my toothbrush, some cloths and a duvet and went to crash at my girlfriends apartment. I remember feeling vividly liberated, I must apologise for the vulgarity of the following analogy but it is the most applicable - the sensation was much like having emptied one's bowels, the way in which you feel light and mobile afterwards. I had severed the bond between my things and me and it felt good. I no longer cared about the size of my CD collection, it was no longer needed to give me pride in who or what I was.

I spent those two years going from tournament to tournament, crashing at fellow gamers houses all over the place. The best way to learn something is to do it with a lot of different people. I wanted to be good at games and so I played with lots of people, I had no home, all I really had was what I carried with me, and I have never felt so free. I never really knew where I would be more than a few days away except for the big tournaments and even for those I was blissfully unprepared. I was once due to fly to Japan but had not felt the need to book accommodation or acquire any Yen. It might have been quite an unpleasant experience if it were not for the trusting goodwill of the gaming community and the delightfully welcoming Japanese.

I made a humble and unpredictable living in that time and often relied on the kindness of others but I also grew up more in that time than any other. I came to find the travelling stressful and adopted a more docile life in a home, but I have not forgotten the life lessons of the wandering and have come to understand some of their teachings better.

Possessions do not "own" you in the strict sense of the word as that would be ridiculous, however they are somewhat like shackles weighing down upon your choices. If we become too invested in them we will begin to muddle our priorities. One cannot gain self esteem or self worth through possessions, they serve only to make life more pleasant and convenient. It is not how much you own that can make us lose sight but rather how much we care for what we own. A broken thingamy can never be as bad as a broken relationship, which is important to always remember as it may serve as a measure of ones personal investment in their things.

Why spend so much time working if all you are to do with the proceeds is spend it on stuff you don't need? Life without possessions makes you see that you didn't really need them for anything, without them you just have more time to dedicate to the things in life that actaully provide fulfillment such as friendship, achievement and self improvement. I do not advocate a life without possessions, that would be quite counterproductive, but I would recomend a clear head in remebering the purpose of the things you own; pleasure, convenience and nothing more.

Comedian Responsability

Comedy is a powerful social tool being always at the forefront of social development. Comedy helps to break taboo and instill new values to a society. Comedy often uses contentious themes and picks them apart, in doing so a greater general understanding of political and social issues is gained by a society. Legends such as Bill Hicks were not just entertainers but also preachers of the moral and just. Where politicians tend to eventually become the focus of public disdain comedians are more able to keep the public favour. The messages of the comedians endures, on the whole, for a longer period than most politician's.

Both comedians and politicians are wise to appeal to the public by saying what they know will be well received. This is a message taught to us centuries ago my Machiavelli, but this lesson was taught from the perspective of that public speaker and not the general good of the public. Most people well know that politicians tend to lie when it suits and this is also the case for the artistic embellishment that a comedian gives their stories. The difference is that we look for the humour in what a comedian says, not the political or social context for that humour. As we already tend to have a fondness of the comedian we are listening too we will trust them more than an unfamiliar person or a public figure without charisma. We are also not paying a great deal of attention to the underlying assumptions of the storey and may find ourselves just accepting the premise upon which it has been based.

All of my assertions here surmount to the implication that the messages of a comedian are widely received and regularly accepted throughout society. I would argue that most comedians that are known in a country will have far more sway than most politicians in that country. If this is true it would put them, as a group, second only to media outlets for generating public opinion. With power comes responsibility, the misinformation of comedians may seem like lighthearted harmless fun but I would argue that it serves to retard the progress of society.

I wish to give two reasonably current examples of this damaging effect, one which relates specifically to England and another which is more general. For anyone unfamiliar with English politics I will give the briefest overview of the situation. We have two main political parties which tend to get into power when the other falls out of favour, much like the American system, and so the government oscillates back and forth between these parties. We also have a third party called the Liberal Democrats who have had presence in Parliament but never been in government. The Liberal Democrat party were renown for morals and integrity while the other two bigger players tended to focus on putting the other down. A general election was held in the country in 2010 and neither of the two big parties had enough votes to secure the necessary number of seats to win the election. A coalition between two parties was required making the Liberal Democrats suddenly a lot more relevant in the political scene. The breakdown of seats in Parliament was 307 to the Conservatives, 258 to Labour and 57 to the Liberal Democrats. An unlikely alliance between the more right wing Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was formed.

In the campaign leading up to the elections of 2010 one of the policies of the Liberal Democrats was to scrap tuition fees at universities. Since the coalitions coming to power the fees, instead of being scrapped, have gone up by almost three fold. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, has since been ripped apart by the comedy circuit. His name has become synonymous with spineless, cowardly, subservient and dishonest. People are annoyed by the raises to fees and want someone they can focus their anger on, they require a scapegoat to blame. Comedians are pandering to this misguided rage towards Nick Clegg by getting easy cheap laughs at his expense and cementing these views in place. People want to hear harsh remarks regarding Nick Clegg and so the comedians respond to maintain their popularity.

I would argue that this is very damaging, not just to the Liberal Democrats but also to our political system in general. The Liberal Democrats are not in power, they have just over a sixth of the number of seats as their "partners" in government. Even if it were an equal coalition they would presumably have to evenly share the policy choices with the Conservatives. The fact that a liberal party can have an influence on the Conservatives is a good thing but we should not get carried away and allow ourselves to think that all the policies we voted for via the Liberal Democrats will be enacted. I have been bemused by these occurrences and pity Nick Clegg who has achieved great things for his party and is in a good position to further liberalism in the country.

The second example is that of the collapse in the global economy over the last year or so. This has been widely blamed on bankers which is not only a massive generalisation but also quite unreasonable. They have played their part in the problems but are by no means the sole cause. We, the people, have accepted credit and loans that have been beyond our means or speculative. We live in a capitalist society, one where competition and striving for profit drives change and development. It is not the greed of the bankers alone that has brought us to where we are but a whole populous of greed. The bankers are required to try and make as much as they can within the confines of the system. Any failing they may make on a society wide level is not a reflection of their flaws or greed, but a reflection of the endemic greed brought about by capitalist values, the financial impatience brought about by inflation and a failing of the system itself (I suggest reading Hyman P. Minsky for greater insight into these issues). Comedians have been getting cheap laughs from bankers as well as Nick Clegg, I find a joke at someone else's expense humorous only when deserved, which neither of these are.

Perhaps it is because we like to have a face we can blame that we generalise the cause of so many current issues. I do not wish to explore that side of the debate at the moment as I have been rambling far longer than intended. I wish to conclude with a simple plea to comedians to continue to lead the way in social development and not succumb to getting the easy laugh from the current witch-hunt if it is not based entirely in truth. The plain truth is often the funniest as well being for the greater good. If we are not careful we will end up with situations like when a paediatrician was lynched by a very ignorant mob who assumed he was a child molester.

"A prison without walls"

I am trapped in a prison without walls. Contained in one place, one thing. I am a slave to my prison, I must maintain it and appease it else it will punish me for my neglect. The idea of escaping excites me but also fills me with fear. Having been trapped for as long as I can recall I have no concept of the world outside my prison, what awaits on the other side? I have been so conditioned by my prison that even when I dream I dream of life only in my prison. My prison controls the information I can get from the outside world, it filters things and provides only what it sees fit to let me know. There could be untold beauty in the world to which I am blindfolded. I hear the shouts and screams from other prisoners in their prisons but I must guess at what they mean for it is the prisons which conduct these transactions and not those contained within.

My prison is also cruel, I am kept in solitary confinement. I have no way to share my understandings and feelings as they are to me. I must write letters in the cumbersome language of the prison which are then broadcast to other prisons where the filtering process begins for them. Oh to be free from these shackles so that I may collectively feel, understand and express. I am so tired of trying to break down these metaphorical walls using the limited tools within them.

I shall serve my term with humility and gratitude and I will not give up my quest for unhindered expression, however clumsily and awkwardly it may spill forth. For I fear that I am the prison and in freeing myself I would no longer be myself, I would be only what other prisoners recall of me, I would become shattered and imprisoned over many other prisons, each one with only fragmented distortions of my expression remaining.

The best we can hope for is to find those who are able to see past the walls, past the exterior of the prison and appreciate the inmate for their qualities. Qualities which are unmeasurable in the world of the prisons such as compassion and love, good will and understanding. For only when we find those to whom expression is not a problem are we able to feel truly free. Unshackled and a person, no longer an inmate.