Consciousness (E14)

The phenomenon that no one seems to want to explain

“The mind is the effect, not the cause.” —Daniel Dennett (1942-2024)

This is the 14^th in a series of related but self-contained essays. E14’s intent is not to describe and is instead to explain the “consciousness” phenomenon. I’ll begin with its conclusion:

The idea that consciousness is an undiscovered mystery is a convenient and almost universally accepted — but short-sighted and easily refuted — assumption. The discovery — described in this short essay — is an inconvenient but existentially important truth overwhelmingly supported by objective evidence.

Unfortunately, an inaccurate understanding of consciousness is an imminent threat to our species’ survival. Fortunately, civilization will thrive when our collective understanding is sufficiently accurate. Although that sufficiently accurate understanding is in this essay, some technical details necessarily precede the explanation.

How hard is it to understand consciousness?

We’re all familiar with concepts that are complicated, but there are different levels. If you’ve accomplished something significant in your life, then you are familiar with Level 2. Consciousness is Level 2.

Level 1 is a complicated concept formed by a simple process connecting a handful of simple and familiar concepts in a novel way. Level 2 is a complicated concept formed by a simple process connecting a handful of Level 1 concepts in a novel way.

Level 2 initially appears to be impossibly complex. Think of your first day of work at a new job. In hindsight, it becomes obvious that the appearance was an illusion.

Complicated is not complex, and vice versa. The output of a “complex” process is unpredictable. Because its output is highly predictable, consciousness is not complex and is instead merely complicated.

Is it important to understand consciousness?

Until the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment roughly 16 generations (4 centuries) ago, our ability to heal an unhealthy human body was undeveloped. Since then, that knowledge has steadily increased.

Our current ability to heal an unhealthy body politic is undeveloped. Assuming we are willing to open the door to the next Age of Enlightenment, our knowledge of how to heal that body — aka the human social system — aka civilization — will steadily increase.

The key that opens the door is understanding Benjamin Libet’s famous experiment. My only concern is that we have had — and have failed to use — that key for two generations.

Unfortunately, continuing to disregard the key enables imminent threats to our species’ survival. Fortunately, if we use the key, then civilization will thrive. As a bonus, the nature of consciousness is revealed. So, yes, it is important.

Describing consciousness:

Ironically, consciousness is much easier to explain than it is to describe. I say ironically because, as a rule, when a readily observable natural phenomenon is hard to describe or explain, the former is easier than the latter. There are three reasons for this exception to that rule:

1. Our genetically inherited nature includes the tools we need to describe and explain the “consciousness” phenomenon, but our tools won’t do the job for us.

2. Describing the phenomenon requires sophisticated 21st century knowledge and equipment.

3. The explanation requires a lab equipped with EEG electrodes and an oscilloscope, a simple experiment conducted in the 1980s under the supervision of American neuroscientist Benjamin Libet (1916–2007), and sound logic to interpret the data.

Describing consciousness is outside this essay’s scope mostly because my much better option is to provide a link to Daniel Dennett’s wonderful Ted Talk description.

Obviously, Dennett’s description is widely accepted. My hope is that my testable “wisdom hypothesis” explanation will be tested, and then my expectation is that it will be confirmed and widely accepted. So far, the “hypotheses must be tested” imperative is being ignored.

The HB and AB acronyms:

Because the unconscious mind’s thoughts are below the level of conscious awareness, American science correspondent Shankar Vedantam refers to it as the hidden brain (HB). Because we are aware of its thoughts, I refer to the conscious mind as the aware brain (AB).

Instead of repetitively using the harder-to-read “unconscious mind” and “conscious mind” phrases, I’ll respectively use the easier-to-read “HB” and “AB” acronyms.

Putting the AB in perspective:

Explaining consciousness is synonymous with explaining the AB. The following understanding is a prerequisite to that explanation:

• The AB is comprised of subsystems,

• The mind is comprised of subsystems that include the HB and the AB,

• A person is comprised of subsystems that include the mind,

• A person’s family is comprised of subjects that include the person,

• Your family is a subject of the human social system, and

• The human social system is an internally interdependent and externally independent life system.

We prefer not to refer to ourselves as “subsystems.” We instead tend to use the “subjects” term. Regardless, we are unquestionably subjects of the human social system. The only question is whether the system is healthy or unhealthy.

The life system’s health:

Another prerequisite is understanding the “fission-fusion society” concept. A fission-fusion society is comprised of life systems. A species’ social instinct determines:

• Whether an individual animal is a life system or a subject of a social system, and

• Whether the system is externally asocial or a member of a larger multi-system fission-fusion society.

Behavior patterns of a healthy system are in harmony with its species’ social instinct. When behavior patterns and social instinct work at cross purposes, the system is unhealthy.

When subsystems are healthy, the system is healthy. When the system is healthy, then either the fission-fusion society is healthy, or there is no fission-fusion society.

When a simple fission-fusion society starts behaving like a complicated life system, it has evolved. Specifically, it responded to a novel context, and its response was adaptive.

When a complicated life system starts behaving like a simple fission-fusion society, it has devolved. Specifically, it responded to a novel context, its response was maladaptive, and its health is declining.

Civilization is unhealthy because its behavior conflicts with our species’ social instinct. Specifically, it is trying to behave like a simple fission-fusion society, and our social instinct is trying to get civilization to behave like a complicated life system. In a future state, when its health has been restored, civilization’s behavior will be in harmony with our genetically inherited social instinct.

Relationships:

There are three mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive relationship types:

1. Healthy relationships between life systems are transactional, aka zero-sum, aka win-lose.

2. Healthy relationships within a system are transformational, aka positive-sum, aka win-win.

3. When a transformational relationship behaves like a transactional relationship, the system is unhealthy, aka negative-sum, aka lose-lose.

Relationships within a life system are between subsystems and invariably complex. They include those between:

• Your body’s subsystems (mind, skeletal-muscular, digestive, reproductive, etc.),

• Subjects within a single-family elephant social system (closely related adult female elephants and their juvenile offspring), and

• Subjects within a prehistoric multi-family “hunter-gatherer band” social system (roughly a handful of extended families).

Relationships between life systems are invariably simple. They include the predator-prey relationship and relationships within a fission-fusion society.

Interactions:

While an interaction is mutually beneficial, it is healthy, free of conflict, and transactional regardless of the relationship type. And yet, even in the healthiest transformational relationship, a mutually beneficial interaction ends because a conflict of interest inevitably emerges. When a conflict emerges, one of the following three mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive interaction types will be revealed:

• A healthy transformational interaction within a transformational relationship,

• A healthy transactional interaction within a transactional relationship, or

• An unhealthy transactional interaction within a transformational relationship.

Is a conflict a dilemma or a problem?

A “dilemma” has a multi-step resolution, and a “problem” has a one-step “fight, flee, or freeze” solution. A between-adult conflict is perceived as:

• A dilemma in a healthy transformational relationship,

• A problem in a healthy transactional relationship, and

• A problem in an unhealthy transformational relationship.

The HB detects a conflict and reflexively perceives a dilemma or a problem below the level of conscious awareness in about the same amount of time it takes to blink an eye. However, cognition (thought) is just a more recent manifestation of a much older behavior pattern. Consider the following healthy relationships:

A conflict emerges between two healthy neighboring single-celled organisms, and both cells perceive a problem.

A conflict emerges between two healthy neighboring skin cells, and both cells perceive a dilemma.

A conflict emerges within an elephant band between two healthy families, and both families perceive a problem.

A conflict emerges within a prehistoric Homo sapiens clan between two healthy bands, and both bands perceive a problem.

A conflict emerges between two healthy neighboring Homo sapiens families, and both families perceive a dilemma.

Detecting a dilemma and perceiving a problem is a symptom of an unhealthy life system. Consider the following unhealthy relationships:

A conflict emerges between two neighboring skin cells, the healthy cell perceives a dilemma, and the cancer cell perceives a problem.

A conflict emerges between two neighboring Homo sapiens families, the healthy family perceives a dilemma, and the unhealthy family perceives a problem.

Synthesis and analysis:

Synthesis and analysis are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive perspectives. Explaining consciousness necessarily includes both perspectives.

The “synthesis” perspective involves understanding how the AB’s behavior impacts:

• The mind,

• The individual,

• The family, and

• The human social system.

The “analysis” perspective completes the understanding by describing how the behavior of the AB’s three subsystems explains the AB’s behavior.

Synthesis:

In team sports, the between-teammate relationship is transformational. When we recognize a lack of team spirit, teammates are behaving as if the relationship is transactional.

Good teams have good team spirit. Start with two teams that lack team spirit and are otherwise equal, add team spirit to one team and it will outperform the other team.

Team spirit is the “immaterial” teammate. Adding team spirit is better than adding a material teammate. If a team is good, then it has the immaterial teammate.

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) correctly perceived the mind’s three id, ego, and superego subsystems. The id is the HB, the ego is the AB, and the superego is the immaterial teammate, aka the transformational HB-AB relationship.

In the 1980s, Benjamin Libet’s famous experiment revealed that in the 500 ms between the stimulus and the response, the HB takes roughly 300 ms to formulate a plan that was given a technical name. It’s called “unconscious intent.” Then — after a 200 ms pause — the 500 ms process ends, the HB triggers the response, and the body’s organs execute the plan.

In the 500 ms between the stimulus and the response, the AB is a passive observer. In most cognitive cycles, the response is a one-step action, and the AB continues to be a passive observer. But the HB detecting a conflict within its circle of concern triggers the “dilemma” response in which a multi-step HB-AB interaction occurs. The interaction’s technical name is “conscious deliberation,” and its function is to resolve the dilemma.

A within-system conflict is unquestionably a dilemma and not a problem. The only question is whether the HB is mature or immature. When the mature HB detects a dilemma, it informs and triggers a multi-step “resolve dilemma” response. When the immature HB detects a dilemma, it informs and triggers a one-step “solve problem” response.

Prehistoric hunter-gatherer bands were invariably healthy because immature HBs exclusively belonged to children. Our 21st century civilization is unhealthy because the HBs of too many adults remain immature.

Maintaining a healthy system by responding to dilemmas with multi-step resolutions is hard, but it’s much harder to live in an unhealthy system.

Analysis:

Not only is the AB a subsystem of the mind, but the AB is itself comprised of three subsystems:

Awareness is one AB subsystem. When the awareness subsystem is active, the AB passively observes.

Conscious deliberation is another AB subsystem. When the conscious deliberation subsystem is active, the AB actively participates in the resolution of a dilemma.

The AB’s third “subsystem” is the transformational relationship between the awareness and conscious deliberation subsystems. In other words, the third subsystem is the immaterial teammate.

Understanding how the AB’s three subsystems behave is a prerequisite to understanding the AB.

In the 500 ms between the stimulus and the response, the final 200 ms phase provides the AB with awareness of the stimulus, the imminent response, the response’s rationale, and whether the AB will be a passive observer of — or an active participant in — the response.

Awareness:

Despite being passive, awareness is an essential function. In most cognitive cycles, the AB passively maintains situational awareness. While the awareness subsystem is active, the final phase is when the AB is repeatedly being informed that it remains a passive observer.

Great athletes talk about being “in the zone.” In the zone, behavior is governed exclusively by the HB while the AB is passively observing.

Conscious deliberation:

The second AB subsystem is conscious deliberation. When the HB detects the dilemma pattern, the AB finds out it will become an active participant in the final phase, which ends as the HB triggers the conscious deliberation subsystem.

When unconscious intent informs conscious deliberation, it is informing a multi-step HB-AB interaction. Its function is to resolve the dilemma.

A detailed description of the dilemma resolution process is in E13. See TE7 and TE8.

The transformational relationship subsystem:

The “immaterial” subsystem is the transformational relationship between the AB’s two material subsystems. If the AB’s only function was awareness, then it would be able to fool itself into thinking that it does something useful. Conversely, if the AB’s only function was conscious deliberation, then it would not be able to function.

A team of teams:

Ideally, the system is healthy, and dilemmas are resolved in multi-step interactions.

There are three conscious deliberation levels. At the lowest level, a dilemma is resolved in an HB-AB interaction. At the next level, a dilemma is resolved in a direct relationship between two people. At the highest level, a dilemma is resolved between teams. A team is comprised of roughly a handful of people.

Why are we conscious?

We are not conscious for conscious’ sake. Consciousness is one of the tools in our mental toolbox. A hammer is also a tool. We can use the tools we have available to us to hit other people over the head, but then we will all suffer due to the system’s weakness.

Why not work together toward a future state vision in which we all use the tools we have available to us to create things of lasting value? Adults can and should behave as if the relationships within our large and complex human social system are transformational. Then, resolved dilemmas will be conscious deliberation’s predictable output.

When a dilemma is resolved, the bonds holding the system together are being repaired and restrengthened, and then we all benefit from the system’s strength.

Conclusion:

I don’t know how many people agree with me that civilization is facing imminent threats to its survival, but I assume the number is large. I don’t know how many people agree with me that there is an effective means that will neutralize those threats when it is applied, but it seems as if the number is one (me). Regardless, those numbers are irrelevant to this essay’s conclusion. The only relevant number is how many people will test my hypothesis. My objective is to increase the current number, which to my knowledge is one. So, to paraphrase the Eagles, I know you won’t let me down because I’m already standing on the ground.