-
Not Synced
Right now
-
Not Synced
you have a movie playing inside your head.
-
Not Synced
It's an amazing multi-track movie.
-
Not Synced
It has 3D vision and surround sound
-
Not Synced
for what you're seeing and hearing right now,
-
Not Synced
but that's just the start of it.
-
Not Synced
Your movie has smell and taste and touch.
-
Not Synced
It has a sense of your body,
-
Not Synced
pain, hunger, orgasms.
-
Not Synced
It has emotions,
-
Not Synced
anger, and happiness.
-
Not Synced
It has memories, like scenes from your childhood
-
Not Synced
playing before you.
-
Not Synced
And it has this constant voiceover narrative
-
Not Synced
in your stream of conscious thinking.
-
Not Synced
At the heart of this movie is you
-
Not Synced
experiencing all this directly.
-
Not Synced
This movie is your stream of consciousness,
-
Not Synced
the subject of experience
-
Not Synced
of the mind and the world.
-
Not Synced
Consciousness is one of the fundamental facts
-
Not Synced
of human existence.
-
Not Synced
Each of us is conscious.
-
Not Synced
We all have our own inner movie,
-
Not Synced
you and you and you.
-
Not Synced
There's nothing we know about more directly.
-
Not Synced
At least, I know about my consciousness directly.
-
Not Synced
I can't be certain that you guys are conscious.
-
Not Synced
Consciousness also is what makes life worth living.
-
Not Synced
If we weren't conscious, nothing in our lives
-
Not Synced
would have meaning or value.
-
Not Synced
But at the same time, it's the most
-
Not Synced
mysterious phenomenon in the universe.
-
Not Synced
Why are we conscious?
-
Not Synced
Why do we have these inner movies?
-
Not Synced
Why aren't we just robots
-
Not Synced
who process all this input,
-
Not Synced
produce all that output,
-
Not Synced
without experiencing the inner movie at all?
-
Not Synced
Right now, nobody knows the answers
-
Not Synced
to those questions.
-
Not Synced
I'm going to suggest that to integrate consciousness
-
Not Synced
into science, some radical ideas may be needed.
-
Not Synced
Some people say a science of consciousness
-
Not Synced
is impossible.
-
Not Synced
Science, by its nature, is objective.
-
Not Synced
Consciousness, by its nature, is subjective.
-
Not Synced
So there can never be a science of consciousness.
-
Not Synced
For much of the 20th century, that view held sway.
-
Not Synced
Psychologists studied behavior objectively,
-
Not Synced
neuroscientists studied the brain objectively,
-
Not Synced
and nobody even mentioned consciousness.
-
Not Synced
Even 30 years ago, when TED got started,
-
Not Synced
there was very little scientific work
-
Not Synced
on consciousness.
-
Not Synced
Now, about 20 years ago,
-
Not Synced
all that began to change.
-
Not Synced
Neuroscientists like Francis Crick
-
Not Synced
and physicists like Roger Penrose
-
Not Synced
said now is the time for science
-
Not Synced
to attack consciousness.
-
Not Synced
And since then, there's been a real explosion,
-
Not Synced
a flowering of scientific work
-
Not Synced
on consciousness.
-
Not Synced
And this has been wonderful. It's been great.
-
Not Synced
But it also has some fundamental
-
Not Synced
limitations so far.
-
Not Synced
The centerpiece
-
Not Synced
of the science of consciousness in recent years
-
Not Synced
has been the search for correlations,
-
Not Synced
correlations between certain areas of the brain
-
Not Synced
and certain states of consciousness.
-
Not Synced
We saw some of this kind of work
-
Not Synced
from Nancy Kanwisher and the wonderful work
-
Not Synced
she presented just a few minutes ago.
-
Not Synced
Now we understand much better, for example,
-
Not Synced
the kinds of brain areas that go along with
-
Not Synced
the conscious experience of seeing faces
-
Not Synced
or of feeling pain
-
Not Synced
or of feeling happy.
-
Not Synced
But this is still a science of correlations.
-
Not Synced
It's not a science of explanation.
-
Not Synced
We know that these brain areas
-
Not Synced
go along with certain kinds of conscious experience,
-
Not Synced
but we don't know why they do.
-
Not Synced
I like to put this by saying
-
Not Synced
that this kind of work, for neuroscience,
-
Not Synced
is answering some of the questions
-
Not Synced
we want answered about consciousness,
-
Not Synced
the questions about what certain brain areas do
-
Not Synced
and what they correlate with.
-
Not Synced
But in a certain sense, those are the easy problems.
-
Not Synced
No knock on the neuroscientists.
-
Not Synced
There are no truly easy
problems with consciousness.
-
Not Synced
But it doesn't address the real mystery
-
Not Synced
at the core of this subject:
-
Not Synced
why is it that all that physical processing in a brain
-
Not Synced
should be accompanied by consciousness at all?
-
Not Synced
Why is there this inner subjective movie?
-
Not Synced
Right now, we don't really have a bead on that.
-
Not Synced
And you might say,
-
Not Synced
let's just give neuroscience a few years.
-
Not Synced
It'll turn out to be another emergent phenomenon
-
Not Synced
like traffic jams, like hurricanes,
-
Not Synced
like life, and we'll figure it out.
-
Not Synced
The classical cases of emergence
-
Not Synced
are all cases of emergent behavior,
-
Not Synced
how a traffic jam behaves,
-
Not Synced
how a hurricane functions,
-
Not Synced
how a living organism reproduces
-
Not Synced
and adapts and metabolizes,
-
Not Synced
all questions about objective functioning.
-
Not Synced
You could apply that to the human brain
-
Not Synced
in explaining some of the behaviors
-
Not Synced
and the functions of the human brain
-
Not Synced
as emergent phenomena:
-
Not Synced
how we walk, how we talk, how we play chess,
-
Not Synced
all these questions about behavior.
-
Not Synced
But when it comes to consciousness,
-
Not Synced
questions about behavior
-
Not Synced
are among the easy problems.
-
Not Synced
When it comes to the hard problems,
-
Not Synced
that's the question of why is it
-
Not Synced
that all this behavior
-
Not Synced
is accompanied by subjective experience?
-
Not Synced
And here, the standard paradigm
-
Not Synced
of emergence,
-
Not Synced
even the standard paradigms of neuroscience,
-
Not Synced
don't really so far have that much to say.
-
Not Synced
Now, I'm a scientific materialist at heart.
-
Not Synced
I want a scientific theory of consciousness
-
Not Synced
that works,
-
Not Synced
and for a long time, I banged my head\
-
Not Synced
against the wall
-
Not Synced
looking for a theory of consciousness
-
Not Synced
in purely physical terms
-
Not Synced
that would work.
-
Not Synced
But I eventually came to the conclusion
-
Not Synced
that that just didn't work for systematic reasons.
-
Not Synced
It's a long story,
-
Not Synced
but the core idea is just that what you get
-
Not Synced
from purely reductionist explanations
-
Not Synced
and physical terms, in brain-based terms,
-
Not Synced
is stories about the functioning of a system,
-
Not Synced
its structure, its dynamics,
-
Not Synced
the behavior it produces,
-
Not Synced
great for solving the easy problems
-
Not Synced
— how we behave, how we function —
-
Not Synced
but when it comes to subjective experience
-
Not Synced
— why does all this feel like
something from the inside? —
-
Not Synced
that's something fundamentally new,
-
Not Synced
and it's always a further question.
-
Not Synced
So I think we're at kind of impasse here.
-
Not Synced
We've got this wonderful great chain of explanation,
-
Not Synced
we're used to it, where physics explains chemistry,
-
Not Synced
chemistry explains biology,
-
Not Synced
biology explains parts of psychology.
-
Not Synced
But consciousness
-
Not Synced
doesn't seem to fit into this picture.
-
Not Synced
On the one hand, it's a datum
-
Not Synced
that we're conscious.
-
Not Synced
On the other hand, we don't know how
-
Not Synced
to accommodate it into our
scientific view of the world.
-
Not Synced
So I think consciousness right now
-
Not Synced
is a kind of anomaly,
-
Not Synced
one that we need to integrate
-
Not Synced
into our view of the world, but we don't yet see how.
-
Not Synced
Faced with anomaly like this,
-
Not Synced
radical ideas may be needed,
-
Not Synced
and I think that we may need one or two ideas
-
Not Synced
that initially seem crazy
-
Not Synced
before we can come to grips with consciousness
-
Not Synced
scientifically.
-
Not Synced
Now there are a few candidates
-
Not Synced
for what those crazy ideas might be.
-
Not Synced
My friend Dan Dennett, who's here today, has one.
-
Not Synced
His crazy idea is that there is no hard problem
-
Not Synced
of consciousness.
-
Not Synced
The whole idea of the inner subjective movie
-
Not Synced
involves a kind of illusion or confusion.
-
Not Synced
Actually, all we've got to do is explain
-
Not Synced
the objective functions, the behaviors of the brain,
-
Not Synced
and then we've explained everything
-
Not Synced
that needs to be explained.
-
Not Synced
Well I say, more power to him.
-
Not Synced
That's the kind of radical idea
-
Not Synced
that we need to explore
-
Not Synced
if you want to have a purely reductionist
-
Not Synced
brain-based theory of consciousness.
-
Not Synced
At the same time, for me and for many other people,
-
Not Synced
that view is a bit too close to simply
-
Not Synced
denying the datum of consciousness
-
Not Synced
to be satisfactory.
-
Not Synced
So I go in a different direction.
-
Not Synced
In the time remaining,
-
Not Synced
I want to explore two crazy ideas
-
Not Synced
that I think may have some promise.
-
Not Synced
The first crazy idea
-
Not Synced
is that consciousness is fundamental.
-
Not Synced
Physicists sometimes take
some aspects of the universe
-
Not Synced
as fundamental building blocks:
-
Not Synced
space and time and mass.
-
Not Synced
They postulate fundamental laws governing them,
-
Not Synced
like the laws of gravity or quantum mechanics.
-
Not Synced
These fundamental properties and laws
-
Not Synced
aren't explained in terms of anything more basic.
-
Not Synced
Rather, they're taken as primitive
-
Not Synced
and you build up the world from there.
-
Not Synced
Now sometimes, the list of fundamentals expands.
-
Not Synced
In the 19th century, Maxwell figured out
-
Not Synced
that you can't explain electromagnetic phenomena
-
Not Synced
in terms of the existing fundamentals
-
Not Synced
— space, time, mass, Newton's laws —
-
Not Synced
so he postulated fundamental laws
-
Not Synced
of electromagnetism
-
Not Synced
and postulated electric charge
-
Not Synced
as a fundamental element
-
Not Synced
that those laws governed.
-
Not Synced
I think that's the situation we're in
-
Not Synced
with consciousness.
-
Not Synced
If you can't explain consciousness
-
Not Synced
in terms of the existing fundamentals
-
Not Synced
— space, time, mass, charge —
-
Not Synced
then as a matter of logic,
you need to expand the list.
-
Not Synced
The natural thing to do is to postulate
-
Not Synced
consciousness itself as something fundamental,
-
Not Synced
a fundamental building block of nature.
-
Not Synced
This doesn't mean you suddenly
can't do science with it.
-
Not Synced
This opens up the way for you to do science with it.
-
Not Synced
What we then need is to study
-
Not Synced
the fundamental laws governing consciousness,