On Scientific Explanation of Consciousness

International Journal of Applied Life Sciences and Engineering (IJALSE) On Scientific Explanation of Consciousness Syamala D Hari* Vol. 1 (1) 1-11, 2014 *e-mail: [email protected] Disclaimer The contents of the research paper published here are assumed to be based on original research conducted by the author/s and due credit has been given for the cited work by them. The views expressed in review articles are of author/s' own and they have undertaken that cited work has been duly acknowledged, wherever necessary. None of the contents represent the opinion of PROM Society or Editors in direct or indirect way. PROM Society or Editors shall not be liable for any legal complication arising out of the contents published in this journal. IJALSE Vol. 1 (1) 1-11, 2014 Review Article On Scientific Explanation of Consciousness Syamala D Hari 100 Rio Vista Pl. Apt 127, Santa Fe, NM 87501 Abstract The possibility of explaining consciousness in terms of already known scientific laws depends upon whether living beings’ behaviors are subject to the same physical laws that have been successful in explaining processes of lifeless matter. A close look at what is common to and what is different between today’s intelligent computers and the brain at a functional level, seems to reveal some fundamental differences in the behaviors of living beings and lifeless systems. We discuss here the following aspects of conscious behaviors: phenomenal information, awareness, retro causality, observation of one’s own ongoing activity, feeling of self and subjectivity, and free will. The computer- brain comparison also reveals other aspects of living beings’ behaviors such as remembering and reasoning, which are often considered as requiring consciousness but which actually do not! The benefit of such knowledge is to eliminate unnecessary effort to look for consciousness in wrong places. Keywords : Consciousness, phenomenal information, awareness, retro causality, free will. Introduction aspects which suggest fundamental differences from a scientific point of view, in the behaviors of living Modern scientific research of consciousness has beings and lifeless systems. As far as we know, these evolved into an interdisciplinary effort involving aspects have not been explained scientifically yet. We both physical and social disciplines, such as also point out some other aspects of living beings’ neuroscience, quantum physics, cognitive science, behaviors which we often consider as requiring computer science and even eastern and western consciousness but which actually do not! The benefit philosophies. There has been an explosion of research of such knowledge is to eliminate unnecessary effort and results in neuroscience over the last three decades to look for consciousness in wrong places. with emphasis on understanding and explaining consciousness. Some neuroscientists believe that the Defining Consciousness “hard problem”4 is not hard any longer and some To explain something scientifically one first computer scientists believe that they are very close to needs to define it. The main difficulty with building a conscious computer. In spite of the many consciousness is its definition because the word seminal and outstanding accomplishments in this field, consciousness is used to refer to many different it seems that there remain some fundamental questions phenomena4. To define any aspect of consciousness, which need to be addressed when one tries to provide one needs to introspect oneself to understand clearly a scientific explanation of consciousness. In this article, what it is. Unfortunately understanding one’s own by comparing some intelligent functions performed by mind from one’s behavior is difficult and the answers today’s computers with corresponding behaviors of obtained by self introspection may be misleading human and other living beings we point out some sometimes. For example, we think that birds, animals, and other living beings have various degrees of Corresponding Author intelligence and of course, that a human being is more * Syamala D Hari e-mail: [email protected] intelligent than all the other species; it is reasonable to Hari IJALSE think so because for example, people do arithmetic in a scientific study of consciousness. whereas animals usually cannot. Interestingly, our We will distinguish between consciousness packet calculators can do arithmetic always accurately and awareness as Tulving 18 does. He defines and much faster than we can. But we do not think conscious-ness as a particular ability of living systems that calculators are intelligent. At the same time, if a and awareness as an internally experienced outcome person does arithmetic like a calculator (and we hear of exercising this ability in a particular situation; he about such people once in a while), he/she would be defines remembering an event as being aware now, called a genius! Do we know what we mean by of something that happened on an earlier occasion. intelligence or consciousness? Similarly, from the fact We will use the word consciousness in a broader that a living bird can fly freely in the sky whereas a sense to cover various abilities of the mind including dead bird cannot, one should not infer that the ability the ability to create awareness of an experience; other to fly distinguishes living and lifeless beings and that abilities of consciousness include the ability to pay the act of flying requires consciousness; after all, an attention, executive control of action, free will, and airplane can fly too. In this age of robots, we cannot sense of self. We will define awareness in more detail be sure that a bird’s ability to fly on its own whenever in section 3. it wants to (without any assistance from a human pilot like the plane for example) is evidence that birds have Monism, Dualism, Dual-Aspect Monism some intelligence but airplanes do not; there are auto- Today, we find primarily, three schools of pilot aircraft which do not need human pilots either. thought among scientists who attempt to explain The so called drones have computers in them and fly consciousness in scientific terminology. One school, in enemy territories without human pilots. Nowadays, which may be called scientific materialism, believes machines can see, hear, talk, walk, and even solve that mental states are identical with brain states and mathematical problems! They play music as well! So, that our thoughts and feelings, and our sense of self today’s machines perform many activities of intelligent are all properties of electrochemical activity in the and conscious human (living) beings but of course, brain. In other words, although in our daily life, we the machines are not conscious. If so, what is find consciousness in human beings (and in other living consciousness? beings in varying levels) but none in lifeless objects, The point to note in all these examples is that this school of thought assumes that there are no there is a certain component of a human being’s fundamental differences from a scientific point of view, intelligent or talented behavior which does not involve in the functioning of living beings and lifeless systems consciousness and another which does. The latter is and that it should be possible to explain consciousness experience, desire to do things, initiating appropriate in living beings by means of already known action, and awareness of doing them besides simply fundamental physical laws. Today’s computers, which doing them. Today’s machines can realize the former think like human beings if not better, and do component that is, perform actions but not the latter. superhuman tasks, reinforce this belief. In general, This observation is not entirely new because for neurobiologists (for example, Edelman5, Crick and example, Chalmers4 emphasizes the distinction Koch6, Watson19) belong to this school. On the other between performance of a function and the hand, others like Sir John Eccles7 argue that there is a accompanying experience. However, Chalmers does mental world in addition to the material world and not talk much about how the brain initiates the that our mind or self is involved in the functioning of performance by itself; we will discuss later in section the brain at a basic level. (Together with quantum 4 why this ability to initiate action distinguishes living physicist Beck, Eccles proposes that consciousness beings from lifeless matter and needs further attention is involved at the quantum level, in increasing the 2 On Scientific Explanation of Consciousness IJALSE probability of exocytosis)1, the basic activity that of absolutely nothing! initiates information flow between neurons in chemical The PC is able to recall and make judgments synapses. Eccles’s mode of thinking, known as dualist because it is equipped with a memory containing some interactionism, assumes that minds of living beings are data and some instructions to handle input or stored fundamentally different from lifeless systems. The main data. A simple typewriter cannot do what the PC can; criticism of this second school is that its propositions the typewriter cannot retrieve the earlier typed memo are not experimentally verifiable because notions such and therefore cannot compare it with the one typed as the mind, feelings, thoughts, and sense of self are now because it has no memory with data and the not mathematically or scientifically defined within the necessary programs. Note that neither the typewriter theory. The third school of thought tries to solve this that types the memo on the paper, nor the paper which problem and provide such definition by proposing that contains the memo, nor the PC into which the same mind is a dual-aspect of living matter, for example, memo is entered, understand the contents of the memo like the wave associated with a quantum particle. but the PC can judge the contents of the memo like David Bohm2,3 was a dual-aspect theorist who we do! The point is: the act of recalling does not require considered consciousness as the dual aspect of an consciousness! Nor does arguing logically require infinite sequence of quantum potentials at successive consciousness because again, a machine can do it if it levels, each controlling the one below. Bohm’s has a memory with appropriate software. We are able collaborators, Hiley and Pylkk¨anen12 claim that their to prepare the PC to pretend such intelligence because theory avoids dualism without falling into reductive information residing in our brains (at least some of it) materialism because a particle and its wavefunction can be mapped into languages, and then words can on whose shape the quantum potential depends, are two different aspects of just one reality. However, be mapped into the states of some hardware units, they do not explain why mind is not present in any and therefore mappings of information from the brain lifeless quantum system as the dual aspect of the can be stored in the PC’s memory. The PC is then system’s quantum potential. Moreover, the quantum able to carry out all the operations of receiving input potential guides the motion of the particle but the data, storing, retrieving, and processing them, and particle has no impact on the quantum potential; finally giving some answers to questions, solutions to therefore from the Bohm-Hiley hypothesis (that the problems, results, or judgments but none of these mind is nothing but a collection of quantum potentials activities clearly requires consciousness because the at various levels), one can infer that mind acts on the machine does them all! brain but cannot explain that the brain acts on the mind also. "Real" Information is Different from any of its Representations Consciousness is Not Required for One common characteristic of a computer and a living Remembering and Reasoning! brain is that information is stored in both. We know Our personal computer (PC) can tell for how it is stored in a computer. The digital computer example, that an earlier memo from the boss is has a bunch of memory cells, each of which can exist inconsistent with the one typed into it now! It in either of two states denoted by ‘0’ and ‘1’. Writing remembers, all previously entered memos; rather, information is the process of driving these cells into because it has no awareness, it PRETENDS TO ‘0’ or ‘1’ states. Reading information is sensing these REMEMBER them and understand them. It can read, cells to know in which states they are. What write, recall, compare the input with its stored information is represented by bytes of ‘0’s and ‘1’s is contents, and even evaluate the input but it is aware decided by the programmer and not by the computer. 3 Hari IJALSE In the case of a quantum computer, the representation is yet to be answered: How is this “real” information is in terms of qubits, which are micro-objects whose created in the brain or who assigns meaning to neural states are all linear combinations of ‘0’ and ‘1’; still, assemblies or pathways? meaning is assigned to the qubit states ‘0’ and ‘1’ by the computer programmer. So, the machine carries Awareness and self Awareness only a representation of some information but does One difference between a computer and a human not really know or understand the information. To being is that a human being knows what he/she is doing communicate some information which is in our minds, at least when awake whereas a computer does not. we use words; since different words are used in What does it mean to know oneself or even to know different languages, words are not the same as the something? Nowadays, we are very much used to meaning they convey. The sound we produce when expressions like “the computer knows”, “it we utter a word is not the same as the meaning. The understands”, “it thinks”, etc. What we unintentionally electrical signals that are transmitted through a mean when we say a computer “knows” an object is telephone line are not the same as the meaning, that a representation of that object exists in the wireless signals transmitted and received by cell computer’s memory. Hence we may define: phones are not the same as meaning, and so on. All Definition: A computer behaves as if it knows an means of communication that we use to convey object or aware of an object (a data item or a program information in our minds involve matter and material instruction), when a representation of that object as energy. They all really carry only a representation of bytes of “0”s and “1”s in a digital computer or qubit what is in the brain but not the actual meaning or states in a quantum computer, in other words, as a thought. So also, all means of storing our thoughts sequence of states of some hardware elements (let us outside of the brain, involve a material medium such call them hardware correlates), exists in its memory. as books, CDs, databases, all of which are different Note that the above definition of awareness from the meaning they store. So, in the brain, there is applies to a human brain with the following difference: “real” information called phenomenal information by Chalmers4, but not merely a representation; this Definition: A brain is aware of an object (which information is different from the language or the energy may be an experience) when a physical representation signals used for its communication just like water is (neural correlate) of that object together with its different from its container although water cannot be “meaning” exists in its memory. carried from place to place without the container. The nature and structure of “meaning”, the mental Note that sensory experiences such as seeing an record is not yet known. Dualists think that it is object, hearing a sound also create representations in nonphysical and exists independently from its neural brain’s memory, in the form of bonded nerve cells correlate; dual-aspect theorists think that it is subtle and therefore a brain’s memory is also a store of but it is one of the two aspects of the neural record, representations. However, in addition, there is an and monists think that it is a property of the neural experience of seeing, hearing, knowing etc. in the brain. record. But the above definition holds in all theories. Moreover, the brain seems to contain some In a dualist theory, this definition suggests the information, which is not a neural representation of possibility of presence of unconscious thought in the any material object in the outside world. For example, brian. In a dualist theory, the definition also allows time is not a representation of any material object; the for the occurrence of Libet’s delay-and-antedating concept of time is created in the brain by itself and the paradox14 and the readiness-potential paradox 15 brain uses time as a key to order the neural records because a neural record and the associated mental stored in its memory. Hence the following question record can be created at different times. 4 On Scientific Explanation of Consciousness IJALSE Once such a representation is contained in its and write until it runs out of all its memory space. memory, the computer can perform any number of Also, writing each sentence in the loop takes some operations with it (when the operations are also time however small it may be. Thus the computer with supplied to it as software). The computer can compare a finite (but not infinite) storage space and a finite (but the object with another object also known to it, add, not infinitesimal) writing time cannot complete the subtract, compute functions of it, draw a picture of it, infinite loop. What about a quantum computer? A and so on. The computer can do almost anything that quantum computer does have the potential to be a person can do with it and behave as though it millions of times faster than today’s most powerful “knows” the object. In fact, computers do so many supercomputers and many times larger storage miraculous things that we often wonder whether they capacity. Can it complete the infinite loop? The answer are more intelligent than we human beings! But does is no because a quantum computer cannot compute a computer “really know” the object? Of course, something which a digital computer (a Turing machine) not. A paper on which a few sentences are written, cannot13. Why bother about an infinite loop, why not does not know the meaning of these sentences. The consider a finite loop instead? The computer can person that wrote them knows their meaning. A person certainly complete writing a finite number of sentences who utters a word knows its meaning. The sound does in the self-awareness loop but clearly, it does not not. The computer is similar. It does not know the know what it is doing even then because the computer meaning of its memory contents. On the other hand, usually produces logs of its past activities but it does the brain does. Let us try to see what if any, aspect of not know their meaning. On the other hand, it is our storing representations happens differently in the common experience that unlike in a computer, there computer versus the brain. is constant observation going on in a human brain at least when awake. When I observe an object I Self-Awareness Loop remember the object and also the act of observation. According to our definition of awareness, we can For example, while reading a book I am aware that I see that a computer cannot know what it is doing (call am reading, and what I am reading every instant. This it self-awareness for brevity noting that this self- leads us to wonder whether in a brain, there is a awareness has nothing to do with metaphysics or self- computer-like but continuous reading and writing awareness described anywhere outside of this article) taking place in such a way that the read and write as follows. Let us try to simulate self-awareness and operations take infinitesimal times for completion. see what happens. Suppose that a digital computer Interestingly, although Edelman does not mention knows an object O; hence a representation of O as a any infinite loop explicitly, the REENTRY, A sequence of ‘0’s and ‘1’s is already written into its RECURSIVE PROCESS CRUCIAL FOR memory. To be self-aware, the computer must know CONSCIOUSNESS, in his theory of dynamic core that it knows O, so it must also contain in its memory hypothesis, may actually be doing this loop. Edelman the sentence “I know O (or O is in the memory)” and defines reentry as “the dynamic ongoing process of for the same reason, it must also have the sentence “I recursive signaling across massively parallel reciprocal know that I know O” and “I know that I know that I fibers…” One function accomplished by the reentry know O”, and so on. So, the computer must be process is called recursive synthesis, which allows equipped with a mechanism which would write all the higher-order perceptual constructs to be used as inputs sentences in this infinite sequence, once a for lower-order maps through repeated reentrant representation of O is written into its memory. Then signaling9. the machine enters into an infinite loop and write, write, 5 Hari IJALSE Object O precede its effect. Even microscopic lifeless systems O = I know O which are subject to laws of quantum physics obey the so called weak causality principle5, which states Current input that a controllable message cannot be sent backwards in time in any reference frame. The relativistic causality I know O principle limits causes to the past light cone of the Actual state of memory effect, based on the principle that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Infinite loop of writing in a computer Circular Causality Let A and B be two statements such that B is true whenever A is true. Then we say that A implies B o r B f o l l o w B. Deriving a new s f r o m A a n d w r i t e A statement B whose validity solely depends upon the validity of one or more statements, say set A, by a chain of implications, is called deduction. If B is true whenever all the statements in A are true, then we again write AB. On the other hand, given a statement B, to figure out a set of statements, which will imply B, is one form of induction. There may be slight variations of statement of the causality principle but they all agree that if a set of events A causes an Re-entrant loop connecting value-category memory to event B then any event in A cannot occur later than B. current perceptual categorization in a recursive way. A lifeless computer (digital or quantum), implements Taken from Edelman (2000, p 108). only deductive reasoning even when it simulates inductive reasoning and obeys the principle that a Inductive Reasoning and Causality cause must precede its effect. On the other hand, In our daily lives, human beings’ actions are living beings often do inductive reasoning because often initiated by desires, purposes, needs, and goals, their actions are often initiated by motives. The search which are all associated with our future states for an appropriate course of action and the action (activities of other living beings have purposes too). itself depend upon some information about a future Living beings choose to do whatever they do, in order state; for example, if I want to go to Delhi from Vizag to achieve a goal. A person takes a plane, bus, train, I will take a train to Delhi but not to Bangalore. or some other transportation in order to go to a place Therefore, the change from my present state depends other than where he or she is at present. A cat jumps upon information regarding a future state. In the case on a mouse in order to kill it. Note that jumping of inductive reasoning, when one tries to figure out a happens now and killing the mouse later but the cat set A of events that will lead to B, not only A is a has figured out that it should jump on the mouse first cause for B but A also depends upon B. In the Delhi and it does just that. Intelligent behaviors involve example, whether to take a train or not depends upon inductive reasoning and therefore they are associated whether I want to go to Delhi or not. Similarly whether with a type of causality different from that of lifeless to take a train to Delhi or to Bangalore depends upon material systems. Macroscopic lifeless systems obey whether I want to go to Delhi or to Bangalore. Thus laws of classical physics that a cause should always deductive and inductive reasoning involve different 6 On Scientific Explanation of Consciousness IJALSE types of causality and both types are present in our else no action happens), into my present memory. So, thinking1. This state of affairs seemingly violates the THE PRESENT MEMORY CONTENT DOES causality principle of physics that a cause should DEPEND ON A NOT YET REALIZED always precede its effect. Hence, if actions of living PHYSICAL STATE. Hence alternatively, one may beings take place because of information about some ask the question: How does the brain create in its future states as said above, then an interesting and present memory, a mapping of a future physical state yet-to-be-answered question is “Are such actions of itself? Is there causality violation while creating the consistent with the principle of causality of either goal in the present imagination? Note that there is no classical or relativistic physics, and if not how does causality violation in a computer (which plays chess one justify them?” for example) because the programmer enters what One may argue that there is no causality violation in the goal should be into the computer, whereas in a inductive reasoning because the brain already contains brain, the goal is created by the brain itself. We are the future state information which is required to initiate so much used to thinking inductively and being the appropriate action. However, the goal in my motivated to act by our desires and goals that we PRESENT IMAGINATION is not the same as the hardly ever recognize that our brains may be following future physical state of my body because I am not in circular causality where not only a future state is the Delhi yet. The imagined goal is a mapping of the future effect of the present state but action in the present is physical state (different from the present physical state, also the effect of a future state. A computer can exhibit subjectivity In a slightly different way, Searle16 explains subjectivity as follows: “Conscious states only exist when they Subjectivity is often explained as follows: are experienced by some human or animal subject. In perception is not independent of the individual that sense, they are essentially subjective.…. perceiving but conditioned by personal attitudes, qualitativeness implies subjectivity, because in order personal views, previous experience, or background. 1. The deduction AB is said to be deterministic if B is a single statement. Instead, if B is a set of statements B1, B2, …, and each of them is implied by A but with probabilities p1, p2, …, respectively and p1+p2+.. =1 then the implication AB is probabilistic and not deterministic. If A and B are sets of events, and AB is probabilistic, it means that one of the events B1, B2, .. must occur if A already occurred but the probability of B1 occurring is p1, that of B2 occurring is p2, and so on. A and B obey the causality principle if all events A happen not later than any of the events in B. 7 Hari IJALSE for there to be a qualitative feel to some event, there robots’ memories are different. So, a robot can have must be some subject that experiences the event. No its own point of view and human perception is subjectivity, no experience.” Searle calls subjectivity subjective in the usual sense (dependent upon the a first-person ontology “as opposed to the third- subject’s background) for a similar reason. What two person ontology of mountains and molecules, which human beings learn, perceive, remember, or can exist even if no living creatures exist. Subjective experience from the same situation in the external conscious states …… are experienced by some “I” world tend to be different because their pasts are that has the experience, and it is in that sense that they generally different. have a first-person ontology.” Searle17 also points Hence, to have a subject or to have first person out that a subjective experience is not EQUALLY ontology (to distinguish oneself from everything else) ACCESSIBLE to any observer. Since an experience is not the difference in the qualities of an experience owes its existence to its subject, Searle’s definition of a living being and that of a robot. But the difference that subjectivity is to have a subject, does not is that in the case of a living being’s experience, the contradict the usual explanation of subjectivity as the subject is aware of the experience whereas the robot perception’s inevitable dependence upon the is not aware of its experience, it is not aware of background of the perceiving subject. anything. Anyone who searches its memory for the Let us consider applying Searle’s definition of record obtains the same record and therefore another subjectivity to a robot for a moment. An experience robot can have exactly the same experience. On the by a subject (a living being or a robot) is nothing but a other hand, in the case of living beings there is no record created in the subject’s memory. Most way of verifying whether two individuals looking at probably, the robot’s record does not have any the same object have the same “real” experience (but qualitative feel (phenomenal information inaccessible not merely a material representation) because the to others) to the robot but as seen earlier, the robot’s “real” experience is inaccessible to others. Moreover, outward behavior is not in anyway disadvantaged by a living being’s “I” is accompanied by an urge for lack of this mysterious phenomenal information! When survival and continuation. The computer has no such a robot records an influence from outside, the record urge. is its experience and the robot is its subject. As to the “I” aspect of the experience and the first person Free will and causality ontology, if the purpose of “I” is to distinguish oneself The computer although not conscious, can still from everything else in the universe; the robot certainly have a goal in its memory but that somebody else does that. That is why we are able to develop and (whether living or lifeless), needs to enter the goal into use computer communications. If the programmer it and initiate the program to achieve the goal. Clearly, gives the name ‘I’ to the robot, thereafter it will say “I the brain does create goals by itself, does initiate know this”, “I did this” and so on. A robot’s inferences actions to achieve those goals, and has the ability to and conclusions always depend upon the knowledge stop the action before it starts if the brain/mind changes it already has in its memory, which includes the itself (what Libet calls the veto power). Moreover, heuristics entered by the robot’s programmer as well the brain is aware of its goals and constantly aware of as all the external inputs (vision, sound, motor, etc.) the goal achieving action while it is being carried out. received so far. For example, two robots may look These abilities make us feel that we have free will.To at the same person in front of them and one robot make a decision, a computer program depends upon may say that the person is short where as the other some rules stored in the computer memory and strictly robot may say that the person is tall; this happens if follows them to arrive at the decision; the program the definitions of “short” and “tall” entered into the never violates any stored instruction. What about the 8 On Scientific Explanation of Consciousness IJALSE brain? Does it always need and use only stored and saw the woman drowning in the water. The man information to make a decision? Roger Sperry (1979) dived into the lake and saved her life. In this episode, explained free will as follows: “A given volitional choice the motorist was not expecting to see a stranger may depend additionally on things like the memory drowning in the river. He had no duties of job requiring and the mental perspective acquired by the subject him to risk his own life to save the stranger; he could (and any consultants) over a span of many decades have just passed by. The motorist had nothing going preceding the decision. ....complete freedom from on in his brain/mind related to the incident before it causation would mean behavior purely on chance, on happened.moreover, to protect one’s own life takes caprice and would result in meaningless chaos. What priority over helping others in anybody’s mind even if one wants of free will is not to be totally freed from he/she was taught at home or in a place of worship, causation, but rather, to have the kind of control that to help others and have compassion for others; no allows one to determine one’s own actions according religion would teach one to risk one’s own life to help to one’s own wishes, one’s own judgment, others. Hence the motorist’s decision to jump into perspective, cognitive aims, emotional desires and the lake did not follow from the rules existing in his other mental inclinations.” Thus usually, a human memory. The rule “I should protect my life” which being’s decisions and choices do depend upon had been in his head since birth was changed by him desires, ambitions, goals, etc. all of which already exist on the spot. The only purpose of his action was to in his/her memory. That is why many neuroscientists save the life of the drowning woman and the purpose and computer scientists think that free will NOT was chosen by free will from two possible alternatives: SUBJECT TO CAUSALITY OR CHANCE is a one is the constant purpose to protect his own life delusion. Assuming that the brain uses only stored and the other purpose is to protect the life of the information to make a decision and that it never stranger; the latter is created instantaneously by free violates any stored rule in the process, such a decision will itself. This choice does not seem to be the result is subject to causality irrespective of the fact that human of any internal or external cause. beings are aware of their decisions unlike computers The above is an example of risking one’s own which also obey the law of causality. Why does it life out of compassion. On the other hand, suicide matter whether a free will not subject to causality or bombers do more than risk their lives; they give up chance exists or not? Because if the answer is yes their lives not out of compassion but out of revenge then science cannot explain such free will, science towards a community or for a political purpose. This being a set of descriptions of cause-effect relations act is not initiated by free will (without a cause) because and their verifications. a lot of preplanning went into the act with the already Let us look at some examples of decision making established purpose of killing members of the other circumstances to see whether free will not subject to community. Harming the other community was already causality or chance is possible. Now and then we given a higher priority in their brains/minds over their hear stories like this: In the state of Louisiana there is own survival. a very long Causeway bridge that is rather high and A second example is as follows: A robber with a crosses Lake Pontchartrain, a massive lake, awesome gun chased a man threatening to kill him. The man and extremely large. A woman bent down to open who was being chased began to run as fast as he could her glove compartment to get something out of it. Her for his life. As he was running around a corner, he car went through some cement railings and went down passed by a clergyman just walking down the street in Lake Pontchartrain. At the same time, a motorist but he continued running without taking notice of who was about to get on the bridge noticed a piece passers by. Soon, the robber with the gun following missing from its railings. He got out to look around the fleeing man also encountered the clergyman. 9 Hari IJALSE Instead of passing by, he stopped and asked the Summary clergyman which way the man being pursued went. We have discussed the following aspects of The clergyman indeed saw which way the fleeing man behaviors of living begingswhich seem to differ in a went but told the pursuer that he did not see because fundamental way from the behavior of a lifeless telling the truth would endanger the life of the running mechanical system from a scientific piont of view: man . Probably there are ways of talking to the robber to dissuade him from his pursuit but none occurred to 1. Information in a living brain is different from any the cledgyman’s mind at that moment and he lied to of its representations used for its storage or save the life of the stranger. Thus he violated the rule communication. “speak truth, only truth, nothing but the truth” which 2. There cannot be self_awareness in lifeless had been in his mind all along because he had been matter,not even in intelligent computers of practicing teachings of the holy bible all his life. This today whereas human beings know what they ability to violate a rule of the past but not because of are doing at least while awake. already established goals, and act on one’s own is a 3. Inductive reasoning takes place in human brains self-starter or spontaneous and is the true free will. but not in computers and the causality associated This ability refuses to be told what to do and refuses with inductive reasoning is circular causality and to be told by somebody or something else; it is above different from the causality described in the well and beyond all causality. Now, one may say that known causality priciple. clergyman might have been taught that he can violate We also recognized: his principle if doing so saves the life of another person. 1. The activities of receving input data, storing, This would be an instruction in his memory which retreving, processing them, reasoning, and finally caused him to act the way he did. If so, clearly, his giving some answers to questions, solutions to decision to lie was not free of causes and therefore problems, results, or judgments do not require not free will. consciousness because the machine does them Even if free will (free of causality or chance) all! This observation leads to the open question: initiates an event, we have no way to distinguish the How does the brain perform the activities of event from one that occurs by chance. The latter event initiating a problem solving or goal achieving may have a cause. We simply may not know what process and produce awareness in addition to the cause is at the moment of its occurance; we do and accompanying the activities mentioned not know why an event with a small probability has above? occurred when the probability of its not happening is 2. Information in a computer is subjective in larger; we do not know what changed the probability. the sence that the computer is the subject of So, it is possible after some investigation (which may any record stored in it and that creation of a take several years!) that the cause may be found. In new record may depend upon alreay stored the case of free will not subject to both causality and information. A computer also has the ability to chance, there is no cause to find!so the cause will distinguish itself from everything else in the never will be found. universe and that is why computer One may be tempted to say that compassion is communications are possible. So, simply the cause of action that took place to save the life of a claiming responsibility of actions by saying “I stranger in both the stories just narrated.But it is to be know this” or “I did this” is not the real sense of noted that compassion itself consists in violating all self. Computers are subjects with such abilities. rules already existing in the brain. The difference in living subjects and computers 10 On Scientific Explanation of Consciousness IJALSE is that the former are aware of their experiance 6. Crick F Koch C. Neural Basis of Consciousness. (which is stored information) where as the latter International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral are not. Sciences. Elsevier Science Ltd. 2001; 2600-2604. http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/Elsevier-NCC.html 3. Almost always.a human being’s decisions and 7. Eccles John C. How the Self Controls Its Brain. chioces depend upon desires, ambitions, goals, Springer-verlag. 1994. etc., all of which already exist in his/her memory. 8. Edelman G Tononi G. A Universe Of Consciousness: Living being’s actions are initiated by motives. How Matter Becomes Imagination. New York: Basic If the brain uses only stored information to make Books 2000. a decision and never violates any stored rule in 9. Edelman G. The Remembered Present: A Biological the process, such a decision is subject to Theory of Consciousness. Basic Books Inc. 1989. causality irrespective of the fact that human 10. Hari, S. (2002). http://primordality.com/ beings are aware of their decisions unlike consciousness.htm#living computers. However, somehow we feel that 11. Hari, S. A Few Questions about Consciousness ahuman being has the capability to suddenly Suggested By Comparing the Brain and the Computer. violate all rules that he/she has been obeying until To be published in NeuroQuantology (2012). the beginning of an action and may indeed 12. Hiley BJ and Pylkk¨anen P. Can Mind Affect Matter Via Active Information? Mind & Matter 2005; 3(2): 7–27. exercise that ability sometimes; in other words, free will not subject to causality or chance is not 13. Hirvensalo M. Quantum computing. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2004. impossible. If such free will exists then science 14. Libet B, Wright EW, Feinstein B, and Pearl DK. cannot explain it because science consists in Subjective referral of the timing for a conscious sensory describing cause-efect relations and their experience. Brain 1979; 102: 193-224. experimental verifications. 15. Libet B. Do We Have Free Will? Journal of Consciousness Studies 1999; 6 (8–9): 47–57. References 16. Searle, John. R. (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. 1. Beck, Friedrich and Eccles, John C. (1992). Quantum Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3): 417-457 aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness, 17. Scarle, Johan, R. (1992) The Rediscovery of the Mind, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 89, pp.11357-11361. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. 2. Bohm D. A new theory of the relationship of mind and 18. Tulving, E. (1985) Ebignhour’s memory : what did he matter, Philosophical psychology, 1990; 3 (2): 271-286. learn and remember. Journal of Experimental 3. Bohm D and Hiley BJ. Undivided Universe. Routledge Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 11: 485- London & New York; 1993 490. 4. Chalmers David J. Facing Up to the Problem of 19. Watson D E, Williams B O. Eccles’ Model of the Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies Self Controlling Its Brain:The Irrelevance of 1996; 3(1): 4-6. Dualist-Interactionism. Neuro Quantology January, 5. Cramer J G. Generalized absorber theory and the 2003; 1:119-128. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physical Review D 1980; 22: 362-376. 11  CONTENTS Review Articles 01 On Scientific Explanation of Consciousness (Syamala D Hari) 1-11 02 Impact and Strategies for Yield Improvement of Arid Legumes under Drought (S. P. Vyas) 12-19 03 Experimental Validation of Indigenous Knowledge for Managing Crop Diseases in Arid Rajasthan (Arun Kumar) 20-27 04 Integrated Farming System-Need of Today (L.N. Dashora and Hari Singh) 28-37 05 Biotechnological Interventions to Enhance Food Security Under Abiotic Stress Conditions (N.K. Gupta, V.P. Agarwal, S. Gupta, G. Singh and A.K. Purohit) 38-43 Research Articles 06 Scanning Electron Microscopic Study Reveals Stomatal Malfunctioning in In Vitro Grown Celastrus paniculatus Willd. (Manohar Singh Rao, Dimple Suthar and Sunil Dutta Purohit) 44-50 07 Effect of Calcium and Potassium Supplementations on Shoot Necrosis and Recovery of Healthy Plantlets of Jatropha curcas L. (Vinod Saharan, M.A. Shah, B.R. Ranwah and Birchand Patel ) 51-57 08 Direct Use of Rock Phosphate along with Lignite on Cowpea (N.C. Aery and D.K. Rana) 58-61 09 Agronomic Efficiency of Rock Phosphate in Fine Size with Ammonium Sulphate and Ammonium Nitrate (Mahesh Ganesa Pillai, Sumedh Sudhir Beknalkar and Saket Sanjay Kashettiwar) 62-65 10 Application of Low Grade Phosphate Rock as Fertilizer with Urea and Urea along with Organic Manure in Alkaline Soil: A Preliminary Study (Shashank Bahri, Satyawati Sharma and Sreedevi Upadhyayula) 66-69 11 High frequency Multiplication of Jasminum sambac (L.) Aiton using Plant Growth Hormone Solutions on Stem Cuttings (Surya Prakash Sharma and R.S. Brar) 70-73  Short Communications 12 Nitro PROM using Wool Waste: A Preliminary Study (Praveen Purohit and G. Prabhulingaiah) 74-76 13 Eshidiya Phosphate Deposit-Jordan (G. Prabhulingaiah, Hanna Qutami and Yasser Dassin) 77-78 14 Lignite in PROM A Preliminary Study (D.S. Xanthate, Zeba Rashid, P.K. Mathur and G. Prabhulingaiah) 79-80 15 Marine Phosphate Deposit - Namibia (Hans Hückstedt and DMR Sekhar) 81-82 16 The “Twins” Paradox (R. Rapparini) 83-86 17 Direct Application of Phosphate Rock with Ammonium Sulphate (Raguram Sandeep Mutnuru and Ch.V. Ramachandra Murthy) 87-88 Opinion 18 Evolution of Species (DMR Sekhar) 89-96 News and Views 19 Life as a Phenomenon (Georgi Gladyshev) 97-98 Correspondence 20 Future of Phosphatic Fertilizers (DMR Sekhar) 99-100