Is consciousness the “last surviving mystery” (Dennet, 1991), or are researchers finally demystifying consciousness (Pinker, 2007) and “shaking our deepest convictions about what it means to be human” (p. 60)? Through demystification, some researchers declare the human soul’s death but seem to be merely putting a scientific veneer on a new dogma.

The conundrum

To Harvard University Professor Steven Pinker (2007), recent discoveries in consciousness research illuminate an Easy Problem and a Hard Problem.

• The easy problem is “to distinguish conscious from unconscious mental computation, identify its correlates in the brain, and explain why it evolved” (Pinker, 2007, p. 61). In other words, identify the functions of the different parts of the brain. Pinker says neuroscientists could probably solve the Easy Problem with enough funding and brainpower in about 100 years.
• The Hard Problem is explaining how brain function causes subjective experience. In other words, what makes people aware? “No one knows what a solution might look like or even whether it is a genuine scientific problem in the first place.” This Hard Problem is where Dennet’s (1991) observation about the enduring mystery of consciousness seems to hold. Pinker says, “Everyone agrees that the Hard Problem remains a mystery” (p. 61).

The Astonishing Hypothesis

Enduring mystery or not, Pinker joined other neuroscientists to declare the death of the soul. Francis Crick, a co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, proposed the “Astonishing Hypothesis,” which states, “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules” (Crick, 1994). So, was Crick a “mechanistic killjoy” or is there evidence that every aspect of consciousness is connected to the brain? Pinker proposed the following as evidence from the emerging science of consciousness that he asserts shows that consciousness is simply a function of the machine (p. 62):

• Neuroscientists can virtually read people’s thoughts by monitoring blood flow in their brains using MRI technology.
• Electronically stimulating the brain during surgery can cause hallucinations that the individual cannot distinguish from reality.
• Chemicals that affect the brain—like caffeine, Prozac, and LSD—changes how people think, feel and perceive.
• Severing the two hemispheres of the brain creates two consciousnesses in the same person, “as if the soul could be cleaved in two with a knife.”
• Near-death experiences “are not the eyewitness reports of a soul parting… but symptoms of oxygen starvation in the eyes and brain.”
• The executive “I” that controls our brain “is an illusion.” Consciousness is not a function of a single control point, but “a maelstrom of events distributed across the brain. These events compete for attention, and as one process out shouts the others, the brain rationalizes the outcome after the fact and concocts the impression that a single self was in charge all along.”

Death of the soul?

Neuroscientists continue to map the brain’s functions, but that is the Easy Problem, providing a better understanding of what it means to be human and improve the human condition. However, understanding how the brain causes subjective experience is another matter. “No one knows what to do with the Hard Problem,” Pinker said. Since a solution for the Hard Problem seems impossible, philosophers may see “an opportunity to sneak the soul back in.”

Meanwhile, neuroscientists think they can solve the hard problem by chipping away at solving the small problem. Pinker asserts that most scientists believe “they will locate consciousness in the activity of the brain.” However, this discovery will require some “unborn genius” who will come up with some “flabbergasting new idea that suddenly makes it all clear to us.” Pinker then proposes

… biology of consciousness [that] offers a sounder basis for morality than the unprovable dogma of an immortal soul. It’s not just that an understanding of the physiology of consciousness will reduce human suffering through new treatments for pain and depression. That understanding can force us to recognize the interest of others—the core of morality (p. 79).

In other words, Pinker seems to be saying that a messiah of consciousness science will reveal a “flabbergasting new idea” that will force people to meet his definition of morality while disproving the “unprovable dogma” that there is a soul. He asserts that this is a “terrifying prospect for non-scientists” because it means it will prove there is no soul and that people lack agency. In supporting the proposition that humans are little but biological machines and that consciousness is “nothing but a pack of neurons” (Crick, 1994, p. 3)

A dogma with a scientific facade?

Pinker may be a bit hasty in concluding that neuroscience has delivered a deathblow to the soul by failing to recognize a powerful force of consciousness: faith. Crick (1994) acknowledged that his Astonishing Hypothesis lacked evidence; however, Pinker seems to insist that no evidence is sufficient for calling an end to “dogma.” Pinker appears to be unconscious of the faith he demonstrates by hoping for some future “genius” who will force new morality on humanity by proving there is no soul. In short, Pinker seems to be attempting to disprove dogma with his dogma that he says he cannot prove. The mystery of consciousness seems to survive.

References

Crick, F. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Dennett, D. C. (1991) Consciousness Explained. Boston, MA: Back Bay Books.

Pinker, S. (2007, January 29, 2007). The mystery of consciousness. Time, 169, 55-79.

###