As a part of Dartmouth’s curriculum, first-year students are required to take some writing course during their first year. One could either take a sequence of two writing courses (writing 2 & 3) and a first-year seminar (FYS), one writing course (writing 5) and a seminar or skip the seminar altogether with a humanities 1 and 2 placement. More information on the intricacies of the writing requirements can be found here.
I opted to choose the writing 5 and FYS approach. Oh how glad I am that I made that choice! As you can probably discern from the title, this writing course wasn’t your typical writing course. Headed by Professor Erkki Mackey, we dived deep into the discussion of physics and philosophy to try and narrow down the question, “Can the human mind and individual consciousnesses be reduced to some physical explanation?” Every day, there was very insightful discussion amongst me and my peers and I absolutely loved every second of this class. In fact, I kept the three main essays we completed during the class and I certainly hope you can learn from them! See below:
Paper #1 – My personal thoughts on consciousness and what it means for human society. Should we study it? and why?
Paper #1 – Internalizing Human Consciousness
A cool, brisk air flowed through the streets of downtown Mountain Home, Arkansas – a small town in the middle of the Ozark mountains. An approaching storm system just to the west of where my little brother Logan and I were stationed brought down this crisp air from the interior of Canada, a sight to behold for someone from the humid lowlands of the Mississippi Valley. What seemed like small feathers effortlessly floating down to the Earth from the void above poured from the sky as if someone, or something, opened a gateway allowing them to do so. When I picture snowflakes forming and then falling from the graces of who knows where, I picture a master craftsman shelling them out one by one, just for me. It doesn’t even seem like a scientific phenomenon; rather, it is an agreement that snow has with nature, “I will fall, and everything else will stop.” At least, that’s what it seemed like for me. Watching the snow silence everything around me, living or not, allowed for a serious moment of contemplation. Through this moment of introspection, I truly began to realize my place within the world and the values I hold nearest to me. The connection I felt to my brother and our experiences that day resulted in a fundamental shift in my viewpoint on life. Deep feelings of friendship, love, and care – a burst of emotions through brotherly connection – arose out of a seemingly insignificant world that I viewed to be born out of happenstance, a beautiful anomaly.
Looking back at this trip continually sends me in the same direction – what allows for such feelings and how could they be objectively explained? Based on years of scientific investigation, it is almost certain that these feelings could be explained by molecular interactions in my brain that allow for complex thought and emotion. However, I am compelled to believe that my emotions and bond with my brother can’t be reduced to a purely scientific explanation. Regardless, it is difficult for me to fathom such concepts like fascination, love, personality, and desires as they are very abstract, seemingly escaping the concrete parameters of scientific investigation. Understanding what it means to be a conscious human being may, in fact, point to logical conclusions as to why we have these feelings. What allows for such subjectivity within human consciousness that one is willing to drive (with their ten-year-old brother) across a state to experience a snowfall? I’m not sure there is a distinct answer, but I am sure it lies within the confines of the labyrinth of human consciousness and its origins. Regardless of where we may find such a theory to explain conscious thought, we must accept the notion that it is worthy of exploring.
If consciousness gives rise to such feelings as personality, developing wants and desires, concepts such as free will and active decision making, then could it be that, through introspection and understanding what each of these concepts mean to our individual selves, we could expose the true nature of what consciousness is? In essence, could a better understanding of what purpose consciousness serves in our lives allow us to break down and analyze such a complex concept? My answer is an emphatic yes. Breaking down consciousness into its fundamental definition and its functionality allows us to acknowledge its significance in all our realities. From a subjective standpoint, consciousness is the mental state that allows humans to be aware of their existence within a larger framework of reality. It is what permits humans, above all other organisms, to make sense of their condition, which gives rise to a subjective interpretation of our surroundings. Namely, consciousness allows for such an understanding of reality that invokes active decision-making processes, opinions, wants, personalities, ambitions, etc. Moreover, it is what allows us to not only make sense of who we are but guides the decisions we make in our lives based on our own morals and perspectives. This fact, the notion that consciousness allows us to perceive ourselves in reference to everything else in the universe, is exactly the case for studying it. It is my conviction that, by better understanding ourselves and allowing for serious introspection, we can truly realize what consciousness means across different perspectives and identify its universal purpose.
Thinking back to arguably the most introspective moment in my life, that trip to the Ozark Mountains with my brother, it always reminds me of how strong conscious thought is. The joy it brought Logan to take a trip with his brother, the look on his face when the snow started falling, the lunch we had together, and the laughs we still share about my driving created a bond that, I believe, can’t be reduced to the matter that we are comprised of. The entire experience acts as a reminder to me that consciousness allows for such feelings of love, humor, compassion, and contemplation. We initially took the trip because things weren’t going so well at home, so I documented a winter storm with my little brother, which turned out to be the greatest decision of my life. I made an active decision to put my worries and liabilities aside to address my brother’s mental state. I was cognizant of the fact that Logan needed me, and I responded with a sense of urgency, thoughtfulness, and love. If consciousness allows for such feelings to the magnitude that I felt them on this trip, what other interpretations of such thoughts arise? Consciousness is such a crucial concept to study because it gives rise to incredible amounts of subjectivity on active decision-making and perspectives.
How does gaining a better understanding of what consciousness is allow us to understand our manipulative abilities with it? Given my example, I can testify that consciousness allows for extraordinary feelings of friendship, love, and fascination. At the same time, perhaps consciousness is the key to understanding feelings of obsession, hatred, selfishness, etc. Analyzing consciousness and attempting to reduce it to our fundamental understanding of the universe hinders our ability to understand what it means to the individual. Meaning that the personal emotions, perspectives, wants, and desires that come with it are locked away as if they are mere by-products of some physical explanation. This exemplifies my point that the fundamental misunderstanding of consciousness is the exclusion of the beauty of what it allows us to do. Taking in the different perspectives throughout humanity, observing relationships, mapping cultures, studying emotions and feelings, recognizing the strength of bonds or bitterness between people, amongst other subjective thoughts, might just allow for a better understanding of ourselves and consciousness instead of materializing the subject. Through introspection and recognizing our place among one another, I think consciousness can be understood much more vividly in terms of what its function is for humans. Thus, by understanding what consciousness means to you and to those around you, it may be that its true nature is revealed from its purpose rather than what it is composed of or what it can be reduced to.
Perhaps consciousness, like the snow on my trip, has an agreement with nature that it will take the driver’s seat and everything else will follow. The hierarchy between where the mind comes into play and how the physical world is explained in reference to it is an area of vast controversy. Regardless of where one stands on the different theories of how consciousness arose and what it means, there isn’t a definitive answer, at least, according to some. The reductive materialist view, the idea that consciousness could be solely explained by matter and evolutionary biology, isn’t entirely viable. One of the most fundamental theories that govern how humans came to be on this Earth doesn’t give an explanation for such phenomena – a requirement for a substantial theory (Nagel, 2012, p. 47). If the theory of evolutionary biology, one of the most highly regarded scientific theories of all time, cannot explain consciousness, what do we fundamentally need to change about our mindset? Is it even possible that humans could ever understand such a concept, given that we are a part of the equation? I can’t say that I can give an objective answer that would satisfy these questions. Considering the lack of a definitive explanation, perhaps we need to better understand ourselves – our emotions, morals, personalities, etc. – in order to scrutinize consciousness at its fundamental level. Consciousness proves to be so crucial to study because it allows humans to freely think and develop their own personalities and perspectives. Could it be that, through introspection, and better understanding ourselves and our societies, we gain a more thorough understanding of consciousness than ever before?
Paper #2 – This paper was a continuation of our thoughts on consciousness and how we have viewed it over time. Specifically, we analyzed two primary texts, “The Mysterious Universe” by James Jeans and “Mind and Cosmos” by Thomas Nagel. Although holding slightly different viewpoints on the nature of consciousness, both Jeans and Nagel viewed it as an area of study humanity hasn’t yet fully explored. They both supported the notion that, instead of trying to make conclusions about the nature of consciousness within the broader context of the universe, perhaps we should become more open-minded about all the different possibilities that consciousness could be attributed to. I tried my best to summarize my interpretation of their texts in the following paper:
Paper #2 – The Ability to Question
The scientific process humanity has developed allows us to make observations about the nature of our world, form hypotheses about why different phenomena occur, and articulate conclusions that help us model this complex system. As this process evolves over time, we find ourselves analyzing more complex phenomena and asking more intricate questions. Specifically, science has led us to a discussion of human consciousness, its origins, its purpose, and how we can scientifically explain it like many other phenomena in which we have successfully done so. The study of consciousness has captivated numerous scientists over time. Unlike other phenomena that can be objectively explained, several viewpoints on consciousness arise out of such an enigmatic concept. Specifically, Thomas Nagel and James Jeans embody these different mindsets and provide insight for their interpretation of the study of consciousness in their respective texts. Introducing outside scientific perspectives to clarify Jeans and Nagel’s arguments impose profound questions. Could our current scientific process allow us to fundamentally understand these problems, or is there a flaw in our investigative process hindering us from doing so? Jeans and Nagel take different routes to explore this problem but inevitably arrive at remarkably similar conclusions.
The different routes used to explore consciousness are partly due to the different time periods both scientists were in. Although Jeans wrote The Mysterious Universe a century before Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos, he is able to express concerns about studying consciousness that are still relevant despite the lack of today’s scientific knowledge. Essentially, Jeans wrestles with the idea that humans have attempted to model the universe and our consciousness as a part of it, interfering with the nature of the problem. Jeans meticulously hints at his skepticism of a purely mechanical and physical explanation of the universe throughout the reading. This fact effectively segues into the central point Jeans builds up to in his appropriately named chapter, “Into the Deep Waters,” which can be clarified with a few straightforward points. “Today there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.” (Jeans, 1930, pg. 137). As a result, Jeans firmly establishes that a purely physical and mechanical interpretation of the universe is not substantial. The human interpretation of scientific phenomena leads to great shortcomings when attempting to understand consciousness as it cannot be constrained by human interpretation because it rises above a modelized and mechanical world.
To establish his mindset further, he explores problems that are fundamental to our understanding of science that are extrapolated to great lengths. Still, they ultimately fall short in our quest to gain a thorough understanding of our place in the universe. He provides detailed descriptions of scientific phenomena like wave mechanics, radioactive decay, and even quantum theory to highlight our seemingly total grasp on the nature of the universe. Jeans’s central argument highlights that science and, in particular, the modeling of scientific concepts is precisely our downfall when trying to explain human consciousness. Because, by its very nature, our interpretation of such phenomena interferes with an objective understanding of the concept. When stating this fact, he can then introduce a viewpoint that isn’t prone to such interference: the purely mathematical view of the universe. Namely, he states that “Nature seems very conversant with the rules of pure mathematics, as our mathematicians have formulated them out of our own inner consciousness and without drawing to any appreciable extend on their experience of the world.” (Jeans, 1930, pg. 113)
Jeans consolidates his view of a “great thought” and a “purely mathematical universe” with the statement, “The great architect of the universe now begins to appear as a pure mathematician,” and “The terrestrial pure mathematician does not concern himself with material substance, but with pure thought.” (Jeans, 1930, pg. 122). Jeans reconciles his issue with a strictly physical and machine-like interpretation of the universe with the notion of a world fabricated out of a pure mathematical thought. This conclusion is built upon Jeans’s view that a purely physical world is not adequate to account for issues like human consciousness that rise above such a physical universe. Similarly, Nagel wrestled with the same conflict of a purely physical world, only happening to focus on the shortcomings of natural selection. Take the following quote from Nagel regarding the theory of natural selection “If evolutionary biology is a physical theory… then it cannot account for the appearance of consciousness and of other phenomena that are not physical reducible.” Also, he directly sympathizes with Jeans by stating, “The possibility [of an alternative to materialism] is one that makes mind central, rather than a side effect of physical law.” (Nagel, 2012, pg. 14, 15) Like Jeans, Nagel expresses his issue with a materialist account of the universe and consciousness by identifying the fundamental shortcomings of natural selection as a substantial theory.
Like Jeans’s skepticism of a mechanical universe that arose from human interpretation of scientific concepts, Nagel’s mindset is equally skeptical of a theory like natural selection to reduce consciousness to something that is merely a by-product of some physical change. Specifically, he focuses on the idea that the sciences used to explore human evolution are foundationally physical, and the methodologies of analyzing natural selection bring mind into the equation (that is not reducibly physical), which plays to the theory’s downfall. For instance, Nagel notes that “An account of their [conscious organisms’] biological evolution must explain the appearance of conscious organisms as such. Since a purely materialist explanation cannot do this, the materialist version of evolutionary theory cannot be the whole truth.” (Nagel, 2012, pg. 45) Essentially, Nagel does not accept the idea of a purely materialist view of the universe by attributing consciousness to human evolution because it treats consciousness as a by-product of some physical change of an organism and leaves out an explanation for the physical, and therefore mental aspects of conscious beings. This point is summarized by Nagel, stating, “Materialism is incomplete even as a theory of the physical world, since the physical world includes conscious organisms among its most striking occupants.” (2012, pg. 45)
To clarify Nagel’s issue with the lack of explanatory power of consciousness in natural selection, we can show how other scientists struggle with the same conflict. Bernard J. Baars, a theoretical neurobiologist who provided feedback to comments made on various consciousness-origins hypotheses, noted that like 19th-century physics, our most complex understanding of quantum mechanics still cannot yield a full understanding of conscious thought. Specifically, the author states that “Quantum hypothesis would be delightful if they had any explanatory power for understanding conscious thought.” (Baars, 2012, para. 1) He offers a comparison by stating that, as Jeans mentioned in The Mysterious Universe, there was inevitably no need for the universal “ether” as it had no observable effects on what it was attempting to explain. Therefore the “Quantum hypothesis of consciousness confront the same challenge” because it does not provide a descriptive explanation for consciousness. (Baars, 2012, para. 4) This statement directly reinforces Nagel’s idea that if a theory (namely human evolution) does not attempt to explain the phenomena it supposedly accounts for, then it is not substantial and is not needed. Moreover, it strengthens Jeans’ argument as quantum physics is yet another attempt to model our consciousness and scale down these phenomena to our level of understanding. Jeans’ final quote in The Mysterious Universe summarizes both of these perspectives and Baars’s points, “Perhaps it ought rather be that science should leave off making pronouncements: the river of knowledge has too often turned back on itself.” (Jeans, 1930, pg. 158) Jeans suggests that science is often too quick to try and conceptualize something too complex (like consciousness) when we don’t have a thorough understanding of the concept, which emphasizes Nagel and Baars’s points of natural selection and quantum mechanics having no explanatory elements to them.
Jeans and Nagel both outline issues with the study of consciousness that hinders us from having a complete understanding of it. Consolidating these mindsets with Baars’s present-day concerns of quantum theory having the same issues effectively validates their mindsets. In this regard, I truly believe that Nagel and Jeans are essentially making the same case. In their respective times, both Jeans and Nagel are bold enough to stand out from the scientific foundation to question the consensus around human consciousness. They find fault and inadequacies in the scientific process of their time and give supportive reasoning to clarify why they think it isn’t enough to merely agree with what our “best shot” of understanding consciousness is. Scientific progress in today’s time in understanding consciousness even further reinforces Jeans and Nagel’s points. For a specific example, Ned Block, a professor of philosophy and psychology at New York University, states, “Have we come to a fundamental understanding of consciousness yet? Of course not. But it is clear that the field is maturing and making significant progress, converging on approaches to understanding this most enigmatic phenomenon,” and, “Conscious science… has moved away from simple intuitions and generalizations.” (Block et al., 2014, para. 7) To Jeans and Nagel’s points, this clearly articulates that the study of consciousness is continually evolving and is working out the very concerns that they expressed. The maturing of conscious science may prove to shed light on a theory of actual explanatory elements that isn’t prone to our subjective interference.
In even more recent years, consciousness continues to be scrutinized as a interdisciplinary field. Namely, Philip Goff, a meta physicist at Durham University, notes that “We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behavior, but no one has so far managed to explain how all of this results in feelings, emotions, and experiences.” (Goff, 2019, pg. 1) Just like studying physics, it is obvious that we can gain a great understanding of the nature of consciousness and provide detailed descriptions of it, but we lack any explanations. Also to note, Goff explains that “I am optimistic that we will one day have a science of consciousness, but it won’t be science as we know it today.” Regardless of how Jeans and Nagel chose to arrive at their conclusions, they both criticize the attempts of science to explain our consciousness even when ongoing research continually leads to new advancements and new forms of knowledge. How could we attempt to fully explain something as intricate as human consciousness if the science we are using to explain it is continually evolving? This question is precisely Nagel and Jeans’ points; they only happened to focus on the different nature of two inadequacies – no explanatory power and our subjective interference.
In light of these outside perspectives, it is necessary to highlight that ongoing research in several fields leads us to conclude that science does not have the power to explain consciousness yet. Our understanding of the concept is inadequate, but progress is being made to change that. To reinforce these points and summarize Jeans and Nagel: because science is continually advancing, it is futile to try and conceptualize consciousness with theories that obviously have their downfalls. Both scientists convey that we do not have a firm enough scientific understanding of consciousness, and this lack of knowledge leads to great inadequacies when attempting to formulate theories on consciousness. This is true regardless of the fact that Nagel focused on the lack of explanatory power and his skepticism of natural selection and Jeans’ trouble with the mechanical universe that leads him to a purely mathematical universe that isn’t prone to our subjectivity. We can effectively bring these two perspectives together by showing that ongoing research continually shapes our understanding of consciousness. If that is so, then perhaps Jeans was correct in that science should “Leave off making pronouncements” until we have compelling and substantial evidence to make concrete conclusions about consciousness. (2012, pg. 158) Nagel and Jeans both promote the ability to question the scientific foundation based on the inadequacies of the scientific theories attempting to explain consciousness during their respective times. By doing so, they make it obvious that science lacks a definitive explanation and that the field is continually shifting. With ongoing research on consciousness, these points are certainly validated, and perhaps Jeans and Nagel serve as examples to be more open-minded about the conclusions we may eventually come to.
For our final paper, we were given the chance to explore some niche area of academic interest such as medicine, psychology, or physics to try and better understand how studying consciousness could lead to insights into that field or how advancing that field could lead to a better understanding of consciousness. I opted to explore the instances of Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs) to see how they are tied in to the broader discussion of consciousness. Instead of trying to explain my stance or justify my conclusion, why don’t you just read the paper for yourself!
Paper #3 – What do Out-of-Body Experiences Say about Consciousness?
Science has traversed through a long and challenging journey with phenomena that seem beyond human comprehension. Natural disasters like floods and earthquakes were once attributed to the wrath of some omnipotent being, but scientific thought has allowed us to move past this. We can now study those phenomena and conclude that such disasters arise from plate tectonic shifts and the climate variability of a region. Likewise, some illnesses that would once certainly send someone to their deathbed in the past can now be treated and cured thanks to the discovery of microbes and viruses. Whether it be explaining why the crop yield wasn’t as good for a certain season or deducing why a population is disease-stricken, there is always a cause-and-effect relationship that allows us to comprehend such phenomena through science. As we find answers to these problems, they become more complex. For the most part, science has done an excellent job of finding definitive answers to what we experience in our lives. The scientific methodology makes it look relatively easy to model the complex system that is the world around us. However, the one pebble that seems to get stuck in the gears of science, hindering them from cranking out another answer to an intricate problem, is when the mind, or the human “self,” is brought into the equation. Beyond the story of the origins of humanity or even human evolution, the arguably more complex question comes into play when examining what it means to be a conscious human being. What allows for such complex thoughts and a self-referencing system? Has science reached a fundamental roadblock that we can’t rise above since consciousness is something of a “higher” meaning? Or does history repeat itself in that we just don’t have a good enough grasp of the phenomenon to explain it? The difficulty in coming to a fundamental understanding of consciousness is integrated within the nature of the problem itself, as expressed by some credible minds throughout history.
Consciousness proves to be such an enigmatic phenomenon because it is filled with levels of subjectivity that science cannot seem to pin down. The foundation of scientific thought allows us to describe, in detail, the function of consciousness and its general nature across humanity, but it cannot, for instance, account for the individual experience of the subject. Specifically, science cannot seem to fit consciousness into a physical explanation when it comes to “the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience – how consciousness ‘feels’ and the fact that it is directly ‘for me.’” (Weisberg). This issue has come to be known as the “hard problem of consciousness” by many philosophers. Namely, cognitive scientist and philosopher David Chalmers coined the phrase in 1995 and summarized the issue by stating, “The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of how physical processes in the brain give rise to the subjective experiences of the mind and of the world.” (The Hard Problem of Consciousness, 2016) Chalmers adds that the real issue science has a tough time dealing with is the idea of subjective experience. When it comes to the explanations behind why consciousness exists and what its purpose is, according to Chalmers, there is always a “functional” role in the biology of the organism that accounts for this awareness. However, the supposed mechanisms behind these functions do not account for “what it is like” to have subjective experiences. (Chalmers, 1995) It is widely held in the philosophical community that this is where science comes to a roadblock. There are, in some extraordinary circumstances, ways that these subjective experiences reflect an individual’s own conscious mind, perhaps bringing science into the equation after all.
The enigma behind human consciousness arises out of a distinct difference between the human self-referencing system and conscious qualities held by virtually all other non-human organisms. Research suggests that some of the most unexpected creatures exhibit human-like levels of consciousness and possess similar neurological functions. For example, a small bird known as the magpie “has been shown to exhibit striking similarities to humans, in studies of self-recognition,” like other intelligent creatures such as dolphins and great apes (Pretorius, 2016). Does this seem remarkable? At face value, it is fascinating to know that other creatures have complex mental capabilities apart from humans. However, there are several organisms on earth that can act intentionally and have the neurological makeup that would allow for conscious states. This is precisely where the hard problem of consciousness comes into play that separates human consciousness from all others. The ability to be self-aware of one’s body and environment is a level of consciousness several organisms possess, but metaphysician and theologian Mark Pretorius clarifies that “self-awareness from a human perspective is recognition of that consciousness” (p. 8). In other words, human consciousness includes the ability to be aware of your own body and mental state in relation to the rest of the world and your consciousness as a part of it. It is this capability of being able to distinguish your life and perspective from the larger framework of reality that not only gives rise to our sense of “self” but also allows for instances of conscious detachment – a spontaneous change or intentional manipulation of your own conscious state that allows for an outside perspective of the world that isn’t confined to one’s physical body or mental state. In other words, one’s consciousness transcends beyond the physical plane. The most extreme instances of these phenomena are known as “Out of Body Experiences” or OBEs, and they prove to be instrumental in understanding some key elements of human consciousness.
Accounts of OBEs are some of the most enigmatic and, frankly, bizarre phenomena that humans can experience as they suggest that we can transcend the physical body and mental state. In a formal definition, OBEs (although cases vary widely from subject to subject) generally suggest that there is a clear distinction between the “experiencing subject, a mental entity, and a sense of oneself as an embodied person, a bodily entity.” (Carruthers, 2015) Additionally, it remains consistent across OBEs that a change in the point of view, namely from the first person-perspective to an outside third-person-perspective that helps create the distinction between the mind and the physical body. These experiences are contingent upon humans having this self-referencing system that allows us to be aware of our own consciousness. Knowing that you are in a dissociative state apart from your physical self is quite mysterious, but the study of consciousness allows us to develop descriptions (not necessarily explanations) of such events. OBEs seem to be produced by a multitude of different factors such as near-death experiences, traumatic events, sensory deprivation episodes, and several intentional practices used to promote OBEs like meditation. Some would attempt to reduce these experiences to physical processes in the brain that would objectively give rise to this experience. Others would claim that there is a fundamental separation between the physical processes in the brain and the mental phenomena that create such experiences. This ties back to our previous discussion of how far science has come throughout history, reaching roadblocks now and again. Are OBEs merely another stump in the road of science, or have we finally reached an ultimate phenomenon that cannot be physically reduced? As it turns out, we don’t have a definitive answer, just as we don’t have a definitive answer to explain the nature of consciousness. These issues are directly related, and perhaps analyzing one can reveal the truth about the other.
All OBEs truly showcase the complex nature of human consciousness, but different instances of OBEs play to the scientific reductionist and “higher meaning” viewpoints. Let’s take, for instance, OBEs that are correlated with physical or mental maladies that could induce them. This suggests that there is a linkage between the physical structure of the brain and body and the mental processes that ensue as a result. Specifically, mental and physical ailments such as epilepsy, cardiac arrest episodes, anxiety, and depression are physically reducible conditions that seem to promote OBEs. (Raypole, 2019) These types of OBEs, those that are onset by some underlying force, are known as spontaneous OBEs. There is some cause-and-effect relationship between the physical nature of one’s body and brain that allows for such an extraordinary experience. OBEs that seem to have an underlying physical component, such as the biochemistry involved with a near-death experience, are somewhat easier for science to deal with. However, there is no clear distinction of why OBEs are consistent across virtually all instances. For example, it is a common trend that subjects who experience OBEs report floating above their own body and experience taking in all stimuli that their physical body and mind would. Instead, they are a distinct entity apart from their “normal” self. There is no materialist explanation for why physical conditions in the brain give rise to consistent episodes of distorted reality. For some, the mind, consciousness, and OBEs are not only not physically reducible, but these experiences prove to have a greater meaning above the physical world that would explain such extraordinary circumstances.
Some OBEs are fundamentally different from others, and these differences highlight the debate between a materialist and the “greater meaning” perspective. For instance, “induced OBEs” are examples of how the mind seemingly rises above the physical plane. Rather than a spontaneous onset because of some underlying physical condition, induced OBEs are intentional ways of manipulating one’s conscious experience through meditative practices, sensory deprivation, hypnosis, etc. What is remarkable about these instances of OBEs is that they suggest, through the power of the mind, we are able to transcend not only our physical body but our own sense of consciousness. A recent study investigated a young woman who claimed to “at will, being able to produce a somatosensory sensation that are experienced as her body moving outside the boundaries of her physical body all the while remaining aware of her unmoving physical body.” (Smith and Messier, 2014) An experiment was designed so that researchers could assimilate scanned fMRI images of the participant’s brain as she self-induced these OBEs. As the participant intentionally slipped in and out of her induced OBEs, researchers prompted her with questionnaires while she was either actively in an OBE or, as a control group, while she was resting or merely imagining another activity, like jumping jacks, where she wasn’t trying to induce an OBE. The researchers aimed to distinguish different parts of the brain that were activated by the participant being in an ongoing OBE or merely imagining a simple motor action. In summary, the researchers found that different areas of the brain were highlighted when answering various questions when the participant was actively undergoing an OBE and when she was not.
In this manner, one could assume that since different areas of the brain were involved during an induced OBE, then there should inevitably be some physical linkage between the physical body, the OBEs that result, and human consciousness that allows for such experiences. Research suggests that there is some fundamental linkage between the neurological framework of humans and the complex levels of consciousness we have, including incredible cases of OBEs. However, establishing that some connection exists between the physical world and the mind doesn’t necessarily conclude that the mind and OBEs, and consciousness for that matter, are physically reducible. Even though there is a connection between our physical bodies and the nature of the mind, how can we say that OBEs, and, therefore, consciousness is explained by the physical world and can be reduced to the science that governs this physical domain? In our case study, the subject was able to intentionally pull herself in and out of these OBEs. This seems to suggest that consciousness and the mind fundamentally transcend the physical world. If she was able to manipulate her own conscious state, then the physical state of her brain was impacted because of this intentional manipulation. In terms of the apparent linkage between the two worlds, it is viewed by some that this connection is there, but that the mind allows it. In contrast to the mind being strictly dependent on the physical world, the results of this study show me that this may not be the case. Consciousness, OBEs, and all other complex mental phenomena that we experience may be linked to the physical, but the physical world is merely a consequence of the mind. In the case of OBEs, spontaneous or induced, as in our research example, do these experiences suggest that the mind is inherently beyond the physical world?
This question effectively leads to the problem that many scientists and philosophers wrestle with. If we were to somehow come to a fundamental understanding of consciousness and its implications, like instances of OBEs, it would be necessary to provide explanations of consciousness at a fundamental level rather than generating detailed descriptions of it. For instance, in our discussion of OBEs and how they can seemingly be correlated to our physical makeup, there is no clear explanation of why physical maladies or intentional practices give rise to an OBE. It could be made clear that certain parts of the brain are responsible for our consciousness and OBEs, but there is a lack of substantive explanatory power that explicitly states why such a physical state gives rise to consciousness. Specifically, we are familiar with the nature of consciousness and what part of the physical world it is linked to, but we cannot definitively say why our brains generate subjective experiences like in OBEs. In the words of David Chalmers, “There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain.” (Chalmers, 1995) This rings true for OBEs as well. We can gain a great understanding of the nature of the experience, but we cannot objectively explain why they happen. American philosopher Thomas Nagel concisely emphasizes this conflict in his book Mind and Cosmos. He states that “Merely to identify a cause is not to provide a significant explanation, without some understanding of why the cause produces the effect” (Nagel, 2012). Nagel briefly mentions the fact that our mental capacities and subjective experiences are strongly connected with the physical interactions in our brain, but this connection does not serve as a definitive explanation for such qualities. He supports the idea that, merely because OBEs relate to physical events in the brain, we still cannot reduce these events to the physical world as there is no definitive explanation involved.
When analyzing OBEs, the fundamental issue of understanding consciousness arises. Nagel mentioned the lack of explanatory power in his argument against natural selection acting as a definitive explanation for human consciousness. Along these same lines, we do not have a working definition for what causes OBEs as they prove to be a part of the enigma behind consciousness. OBEs are founded on the idea that one, we have the ability to be aware of our own consciousness, and two, the subjectivity of consciousness or qualia consciousness allows for such events. As such, just as there are attempts to attribute OBEs to a physical interpretation, many contribute OBEs to a religious or spiritual experience. This qualia consciousness allows for a sense of being aware of detachment from one’s body during an OBE and, for some, allows for an awareness of spiritual awakenings. Just as consciousness and OBEs are embedded in the scientific community, theologists also firmly establish what OBEs mean in a religious sense. For a specific example, Mark Pretorius describes this as, in terms of Christianity, “an awareness of God” and “a unique conscious experience with God, since this is how optimistically we could see qualia consciousness working from a spiritual perspective.” He goes on to clarify that “numerous areas of the brain are activated when, for instance, one prays and meditates” (Pretorius, 2016). This statement seems strikingly similar to the study regarding intentional OBEs and how different areas of the brain are activated. If meditative practices that induce OBEs and religious behaviors like praying or worshipping trigger the same areas of the brain, how could these ideas be reconciled with either the physical reductionist or a theological point of view? The fact that we can even articulate these questions indicates that the physical brain is connected to the mind, but the subjective question arises when distinguishing which gives rise to the other. Consequently, there is no definitive answer on either side; it is, by the very nature of the problem, open to interpretation.
Whether one takes the mindset of someone who believes OBEs and consciousness can be reduced to some physical explanation or that the mind fundamentally transcends anything physical, there is no explanation or definitive cause in either case. One could argue that OBEs are strongly correlated with physical elements of the brain, and they would make a compelling argument. However, since there is no tangible explanatory power behind why those physical elements create a subjective experience, other perspectives are viewed with the same amount of credibility. It seems that we have reached an impasse in the study of consciousness at this time as it is apparent that there are no fundamental “functions” behind the inner workings of consciousness that could be physically reduced. As David Chalmers suggested, “The hard problem [of consciousness] is hard precisely because it is not a problem about the performance of functions. The problem persists even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained” (Chalmers, 1995). Does this suggest that there is a barrier science has yet to overcome that would shed light on the true explanation for consciousness? Some would argue that is undoubtedly the case, and others would deem it futile to try and continue to search for a working explanation of human consciousness as it is beyond our comprehension. Regardless, I think it may prove beneficial to humanity, even if there is a remote possibility of there being an explanation, to continue to study consciousness’s direct implications (like OBEs) in order to gain a better understanding of the parent phenomena. OBEs suggest that there is some physical link between the brain and the resulting experience (and therefore consciousness), but this inevitably has many interpretations. As Nagel stated, we can only offer greatly detailed descriptions of the nature of the problem in contrast to there being any explanatory elements involved. If the problem boils down to being fundamentally open to interpretation, then would we ever come to an objective conclusion for what consciousness is and how OBEs could be explained?
The roadblock science has run into is not due to a lack of scientific understanding, but we are hindered because we have reached a problem that fundamentally transcends the physical world that science attempts to describe. When we are introduced to a problem that can be explained and answered subjectively, this interferes with the scientific process that searches for an objective answer. My argument here is to emphasize that, through our attempts to better understand consciousness through case studies and general interpretations of OBEs, we haven’t fully developed an objective explanation for consciousness, but we gained the ability to realize that OBEs and human consciousness eludes an objective answer because the problem is fundamentally subjective. Through different instances of OBEs, we can never truly explain the phenomena, but we can offer detailed descriptions of the event from our own perspective. Namely, we take these detailed descriptions and interpret them in such a way that conforms to our currently held beliefs. Scientists may aim to reduce these OBEs to physical events in the brain in order to try and scientifically map consciousness into a physical description while, from a religious standpoint, OBEs allow for a connection to a higher supernatural force as Mark Pretorius pointed out from the Christian perspective.
OBEs, although extraordinary instances, are one example of the direct implications of human consciousness. Scientists and philosophers scrutinize such problems because if we can gain a better understanding of what OBEs are and how they originate, then they could tell us a great deal about the nature of consciousness as well. OBEs further reinforce the fact that we haven’t developed a clear-cut explanation of consciousness, and, as a result, these experiences can be stretched apart in many different directions by several different viewpoints. Whether it be the physical reductionist attempting to scientifically map the phenomena or a religious individual attributing meaning to the event through a spiritual lens, I think both are validated in this regard. The study of OBEs, to me, suggests that consciousness as a science boils down to a subjective interpretation. Even if we find some link between the physical world and consciousness (like in some OBEs), that doesn’t necessarily mean we can objectively explain consciousness merely because we found a correlation between two variables. If there is anything I have taken away from the study of consciousness, the evolution of the science, and especially through scrutinizing OBEs, I developed validation for my belief that nothing, in terms of human life, its origins, and our consciousness, is concrete. You can develop your mindset around whatever is most comforting for you, whether that be a world that is physically reducible or one that is created by a supernatural force or some variant in between.