HANS ZIMMER

On a more general note, there are quite a few problems with a metaphysical description of consciousness that I was admittedly too lazy to point out. The first problem, as I see it, is the uneasy relationship it has to what we already know about the brain. In its broadest form, when you manipulate the brain in a specific way, it doesn't merely affect your ability to navigate the world, it can affect your very perception of reality itself. To give a point of reference on this -although I think Bregt's example of disturbing the brain with electrodes to produce feelings associated with NDEs is sufficient in itself- consider the point of psychopathy. When known psychopaths of a prison in the USA were given visual examples of others in pain, the parts of the brain associated with empathy, the 'anterior insula, the anterior midcingulate cortex, somatosensory cortex, and the right amygdala', failed to become active in the more psychopathic individuals.

The brain doesn't just distort experience, it distorts consciousness itself. It's like putting on a pair of red sunglasses and seeing everything in red; but also coming to believe the world is red. These, and countless other examples (just visit a mental hospital if you doubt the brain isn't related to cognition) at least strongly suggest consciousness is an emergent property, even if its exact details remain a mystery. (Not to mention that much of what the brain does to keep us alive goes unnoticed by conscious thought, the apparent illusion of the self and that our decisions are not as autonomous as we like to think.)

But the biggest problem, for me, is the ontological aspect and the difficulties that lay ahead of the presumptions that lie behind the metaphysical hypothesis. Let's assume the brain is a filter, in the physical realm, for a consciousness, a "soul", that exists in a 'spiritual realm' (whatever that might mean, something that often has a suspiciously vague definition itself). There are two ways to approach this hypothesis: The first is that the spiritual realm exists in and of itself, it came into its own existence by natural law. The second is that the spiritual realm is a result of a supernatural creator (invoking virtual reality simply pushes the question of consciousness back). In the first example, one is led to ask where and how this realm came into existence? What natural process at the beginning of creation necessarily created a realm of consciousness before consciousness had even appeared? Or did it appear only when the first conscious being awoke? Again, what natural process then might have led to its creation?

The second point, and I contend this is its most popular form, is of course a god - specifically a benevolent, omnipotent one (God with a capital 'G'). But of course arguments for God, let alone one of a specific tradition based on Iron Age literature, fail to stand up to scrutiny - and for the sake of brevity I shall hardly attempt to cover them here. But why the need for a brain that mediates awareness in the first place? Could we not just have a brain that deals with things like keeping our heart pumping and our nervous system active and leave the actual conscious part to the spiritual realm? It seems a bit of a flaw in design that such a precious thing as consciousness can be so easily manipulated due to a fragile and complex brain so precariously placed upon our torsos. Again, the hypothesis lands on weak ground.

As much as I sympathise with this view, essentially it boils down to an appeal to faith, wish thinking. It's a suspiciously ineloquent description that runs into more problems than it solves borne of an intuitive preconception, but a simpler, less problematic and far more beautiful one is available: We are the chance product of an uncaring, indifferent and vast cosmos, yet we are the arbiters of meaning in a meaningless universe through what appears to be a naturally evolved consciousness. If you'll excuse a moment of hippiness, feelings of love, awe and happiness (as well as their antitheses) are made all the more precious knowing they weren't simply created on the whim of a divine author. Or as Christopher Hitchens would have put it, a 'divine dictatorship'.