RLK Reflections

That's it. The theories or explanations on the Landscape of Consciousness—currently. They will continue to change.

As promised, I [RLK] shall not adjudicate among them, rank them in some order, critique this one or that one. Nor, should I try, would I have much confidence in my own, idiosyncratic views.

Scanning through all of them, this blizzard of explanations and theories, I respect but resist Colin McGinn's old admonition: “The mystery persists. I think the time has come to admit candidly that we cannot resolve the mystery” (McGinn, 1989).

We go on. That's what it means to be human.

I'm asked by viewers of Closer To Truth why I don't take more stands and give more answers to the big questions we pursue. I respond that if I knew, I'd tell—I'm keeping no secrets. Rather, I've learned to luxuriate in the questions, with an agnosticism that is proactive and passionate.

I appreciate the many readers who have written in response to Landscape, seeing impact in the field. In his review, Àlex Gómez-Marín writes: “When was the last time you read a piece cordially inviting philosophy, neuroscience, quantum physics, psychical research, theology, and religion to the same table?” (Gómez-Marín, 2024). Unexpected is Stuart Kauffman’s: “By publishing the Landscape you shall have changed it" (Kauffman, 2024). While I don’t know if that’s true, I do know that several observe—and not with pleasure—the proliferation, not the pruning, of theories. I’ve said about theories of consciousness something akin to what I’ve said about varieties of religion (with tongue only partially in cheek): “It’s not that we have too many; it’s that we have one too few.”

When I did my PhD in neurophysiology (mid-1960s), I felt somewhat embarrassed, as an apprentice scientist, to be seen taking consciousness seriously. I'm now proud of it, though it's no longer risky. There is today great interest in consciousness among scientists—some, in the context of AI potentially becoming conscious, calling the issue “urgent” (Lenharo, 2024).

I appreciate Christof Koch pioneering neural correlates of consciousness; David Chalmers challenging conventional wisdom in philosophy of mind; and John Leslie, from whom I've learned much, showing me new ways to think about ultimate matters. I admire two physicists who have long taken consciousness seriously. Paul Davies suspects that the universe is “about” something and that consciousness is no accident. Andrei Linde was advised to take the word “consciousness” out of a cosmology manuscript so that fellow scientists wouldn't lose respect for him. Andrei responded, “If I take ‘consciousness’ out, I'd lose respect for myself.”

Artist/philosopher Mariusz Stanowski, on seeing an early pre-proof of this paper, challenged my statement that “whatever the ultimate explanation of consciousness, it is somewhere, somehow, embedded in this Landscape of theories.” He argues that “creativity is producing coherent structures/syntheses as opposed to producing collections. Your article is such a collection of views on consciousness and your comment doesn't change that. The solution lies outside this landscape.” (Stanowski's own “theory of contrasts” offers “direct contact with reality” where “coherent structures are built from simple elements, gradually increasing in complexity,” such that “complexity means integration, value and goodness” [Stanowski, 2024, 2021]).

To be clear, I am not saying that the ultimate theory is already here on the Landscape, hidden in plain sight, but rather whatever the ultimate theory turns out to be, its fundamental elements could be categorized according to Landscape structure, with family resemblances to some current theories.

I turn again to Jerry Fodor and his pithy appraisal of consciousness theories: “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious” (Fodor, 1992).

Scanning the Landscape, I'd like to say we have progressed. I'm not sure I can.

Those who write about consciousness like to quote, with bemused irony, psychologist Stuart Sutherland's cautionary words: “Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it” (Sutherland, 1989).

Slyly, we all hope to be the exception. More likely we corroborate that Sutherland had us all nailed. Philosopher William Hirstein is more optimistic. In response to the early Landscape pre-proof, he noted, “You cast a broad net (you even caught me!), which is exactly what's needed at this point. Also, taken all together, it [Landscape] provides a fascinating look at the whole of human intelligence coming up against a problem, one that is vital for us. The diversity of these views is part of a larger point that, as a species, diversity is our strength: we each tackle problems in our unique ways, and (hopefully) someone will win the lottery. Moreover, a goodly percentage of the views are inter-consistent: just touching different parts of the same elephant” (Hirstein, 2024).

What do I personally believe? While I am often asked this question, and I appreciate why, I still do not like it. Smart, serious folks believe radically different theories; what I believe doesn’t much matter. In my Landscape review, I did not want to defend, or even to offer, my own view because it might skew perceptions of the entire enterprise. I try to present each theory as accurately and persuasively as I can, usually with the words of its creator. In writing each theory, I tried to “inhabit” it, to imagine it was my own theory, which I wanted the world to appreciate. However, I came to recognize that if I did not say something about what I thought, my not-so-veiled omission could also seem like a kind of “hidden agenda.” So, right at the very end of Landscape, I have this short paragraph:

• “Me, I just don’t know… My own hunch, right here, right now—if I’m coerced to disclose it and for what little it’s worth—might be something of a Dualism-Idealism mashup. (I can describe; I dare not defend.)”

with this footnote:

• “Second place might go to some form of Quantum Consciousness, triggered by writing this paper and surprising me. Third place, counterintuitively, to a kind of Eliminative Materialism/Illusionism, combined with Neurobiological and Representational Theories.”

Thirty-nine words in the text, 33 in the footnote; 72 words all together—out of ~175,000. I’ve come to love the blizzard-like storm of theories, enveloped by them in it—but only because I love consciousness and see it as the central question of existence and sentience (no matter what the ultimate answer), which is why I do not want to limit its meaning or mechanism (at this moment).

As we witness on Closer To Truth, I’m gratified that a passion for consciousness can bring together people from different nations, regions, religions, races, ethnicities, genders, educational levels, income levels. We human beings are all united by ultimate questions.

Finally, personally, I can only return to that lifetime-ago thought:

“Should a being who can perceive eternity be denied it?”

But I won't fool myself.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn