There are some books for which a simple, single page review cannot do justice. Every page leaves you in awe and it is quite impossible to capture the spirit of the book with just a summary. Phantoms in the Brain by V.S.Ramchandran is one such book. For books like these, I prefer to talk about some interesting information contained in the book instead of doing the review of the entire book. I feel this gives a better perspective about the book. My previous post was also from Phantoms in the brain and so is this one.
The question of consciousness and nature of self has intrigued both philosophers and scientists for thousands of years. VSR gives his take on consciousness or qualia in a chapter titled “Do Martians See Red”. There are many definitions of qualia and I am going to use the one closest to what the VSR describes “certain features of the bodily sensations especially, but also of certain perceptual experiences, which no amount of purely physical information includes“
Let me explain this definition with a thought experiment given in the book. Let us say we encounter an alien who does not recognize color and he wants to understand what ‘red’ is. Every time I see red he measures the wavelength of light. He does this with all colors and makes a chart of all the wavelength of colors that I experience. The alien can show me the chart of wavelengths and say this is what is going on in my brain. But I see red color, where is the red in the chart. I can never convey the experience of color to the alien because he is color blind. In fact if you notice, there are so many wavelengths which are not visible to the eye and we can never know their color?
For centuries philosophers and scientists believed that this illustrates the difference between the brain and the mind and this chasm can never be crossed. VSR claims that this barrier is only a perception, it does not really exist. He gives the analogy of translating between two very different languages. While the brain’s language is in terms of electrical impulses, the spoken language is in term of words. So the word Red does not convey anything meaningful to the alien because it is lost during the translation from the language of the neurons to that which is spoken.
Let us assume that you bypass the spoken language and connect a cable directly from your brain to that of the alien (a hypothetical situation. Just an extension for our thought experiment). Now, he can experience red, exactly the way you experience it.
There is a way of proving if this is right. There are some patients whose optical pathways are damaged from birth but there portions of the brain which recognize color (the visual cortex) are intact. What if we stimulate these regions of the brain. Would he just feel something funny tickling his brain or would he say “This is extraordinary. I am finally experiencing vision. This is light, this is color, this is seeing!!!”
In effect he concludes that consciousness is very much a product of the brain and there is no difference, really, between the brain and the mind. There is an elaborate discussion on the required conditions for qualia to occur. If you are interested do read the book. I guarantee you will not be disappointed.
Your experiment with a direct connection to the alien brain or even to that of a non sighted human brain may give entirely different results than you suspect. I think that to see red requires learning and that our brains learn how to interpret different signals from experience. Nature provides the basic mechansim for learning. Nuture provides for us to understand what we have learned
Hi Ted,
Thank you for visiting. I don’t quite understand what you mean by learning. You require to learn a language to express what you are seeing but the experience of seeing would be the same, right. If you take a baby who has not learnt anything, there will be no difference between his and our experience of ‘Red’, right.
Let me know if I am missing something.
What if somebody is taught “red” as “green” and vice versa right from the beginning? What would his experience be? He wud be as good as our alien here. Learning here, I think, is experiencing things the same way it is experienced by others too. But I dont think everybody’s brain experiences things in the same way. Otherwise, why do people say that different colors create differnt moods?
Hi Mahesh,
That is a different dimension isn’t it? Overall we would all agree on red, when we see regardless of how it effects our mood. Would the alien also agree with the rest of us, is the question?
Nice post Archana. This is easily one of the best books I’ve read. The thought experiments are particularly good.
Thank you, Sukumar. I agree, it is one of the best book I have read.
VSR is indeed a thinker, but his central idea that we are “nothing but our brains” is as abominable as his thought experiment.
if wavelengths were all that the colors were, we don’t need a concept as “red” at all. it wudnt be evolutionarily economical for that alien to hang around with his wavelength chart to make sense of the color.
thought experiments are not enuf to explain the beauty of mystery of consciousness; they r just a gentle push into the grand realm of human consciousness. or else you’ll fall prey to what is called a “cognitive bias”
Thanks Tress. The point of this thought experiment was to prove just the point you made. There is a big difference between the subjective and objective experience of the universe. You cannot say they are one and the same.
Peace.
But don u think that the subjective and objective sides are sort of flip sides. Say we have an abstract math idea like infinity which can hardly be subjectively expressed – yet it exists.
Maybe because as cognitive scientist Rafael Nunez explains, it is “metaphorical” in nature. the physical distance by which we measure say a triangle whose two sides gradually separate to become parallel lines is one way to say that we are subjectively engaging with infinity.
or god can be used as metaphor – like Ramanujan, who never comprehended the idea of proof. He said that an equation is of value only if it expresses one of God’s thoughts, and believed that his ideas were communicated to him by the goddess Namagiri.
iz the body – and the brain within it – that gets to engage and understand the world with which we constantly and consistently interact. This is the embodied approach to cog sci
Hi Tress,
You make very interesting and valid points. I had to really ponder over your comment before I could respond. Does infinity exist, except in our mind? It is just our representation of a large limitless thing to make better sense of the world better. Similarly mathematics- is it real or our language for making sense of the universe. Is it just a grammar for science? Can another grammar be equally applicable? I don’t think these concepts can function/exist outside human consciousness and hence are not part of objective reality. Same can be said of god too.
You might also want to look up this post. It asks whether mind / consciousness can exist separate from the body?
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/08/does_an_artificial_intelligenc.php
Thanks for those great insights. Very thought provoking. Do let me know if you have a blog.
Archana thanx 4 ur encouragement. more than me, iz ur stuff tat provokes comments.
I forgot to tell u one thing i just read and posted elsewhere about colour…
In 1969, anthropologist Brent Berlin and linguist Paul Kay controversially proposed that all cultures recognise two basic colour categories — black and white — and that the more highly evolved a culture is, the more colours are represented in its language, up to a maximum of 11.
There is no objective reality of colour. It’s an impression, a sensation which forms in the brain based on information sent to it by the visual apparatus. To label that sensation, to transmit it to others, we revert to familiar symbols.
Colour words, perhaps more than any others, reflect a society: its values, its practices, its history. In Benin in west Africa, for example, men and women have different colour vocabularies.
Thanks once again Tress. I have my reservation about this theory. Whether a colour is represented in a language or not, human brain can recognize the full range of colours. I don’t understand how colour representation can determine if a culture is evolved.
I read somewhere else that the number of words we have for a single object depends on our exposure to that object. I believe Eskimo have 50 different words for a snow flake. In india, we have so many words for relationships (eg we have a distinct word for mothers brother another for father’s brother and distinct words for their children).
Do you know where I can find the full text of this study?
I think the Harvard psychologist, Steven Pinker talks about this in his “words and rules”. Also check this French scientist @ dansperber.com
sorry dan.sperber.com
Thanks Tress. Will definitely check it out. I will also see if I can find the book by Pinker.
Good site! I’ll stay reading! Keep improving!
Thanks a lot George.