This time, thanks to India's dear colleague Dr. Diana Vann, I came across an interesting article posted on a blog specializing in Neuropsychology (
HERE). Below I
full article for convenience:
"The basis of the assumption of the existence of a correlation between consciousness and neural activity measured with the tools of neurophysiology, there would be a deep philosophical confusion," says Ray Tallis ... The University of Manchester, the New Scientist (R. Tallis, You will not find consciousness in the brain, New Cross, 07/01/2010). The vast majority of neuroscientists and philosophers of the mind "see the day approaching in which they will finally be able to explain all the mysteries of human consciousness through the observation of brain activity. "At the same time," a minority disagrees with this orthodoxy, mainly by questioning "accuracy" of the correlations between indirect measures of brain and mental functions, salient feature of the studies conducted to date in this complex field of inquiry. In 2009 a study published by Harol Pashler and colleagues on Perspectives on Psychological Sciences was highlighted and questioned the "too high correlations between brain activity and various psychological constructs (albeit" rarely explained properly, "according to its authors) found in papers reporting the results of research conducted with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in the field of social cognition, emotion and personality. The real problem however, as we see Tallis, non è tanto nelle “limitazioni tecniche” degli strumenti, destinate a essere temporanee visto l'incalzante progresso delle neuroscienze, quanto nel metodo di indagine adottato, fondato a suo giudizio su una “confusione filosofica profonda”. Secondo il professore di Manchester infatti, sarebbero ancora numerosi gli aspetti della coscienza ordinaria che "resistono" alla spiegazione neurologica e “il fallimento dei tentativi di spiegare la coscienza in termini di attività nervosa non è dovuto a limiti tecnici facilmente superabili, ma alla natura auto-contraddittoria del compito, di cui l'incapacità di spiegare la contemporanea unità e molteplicità della consapevolezza, l'avvio dell'azione, the construction of the self, free will, the explicit presence of the past (not admitted in a physical system, synapses, as physical structures, were present only at work) and so on. are not the symptoms. " The fundamental reason for the "incomplete or impracticability" of any explanation in these terms would be tied to the "disjunction between the objects of science and the contents of consciousness: science begins at the very moment in which eschews subjective experience, experience firsthand , preferring the objective measurement that takes us away from the phenomenon of subjective consciousness to the realm in which things are described in abstract terms of quantity. "This procedure - Tallis concludes - his office would discard the essential content of consciousness that you want to explain ... Fun fact: Ray Tallis is not a philosopher, a doctor of the Academy of Medical Sciences. This article refers us to a reflection published on this Blog (
HERE), which were criticized in the investigation methods of positive science, based on experimental measurement, objective, when applied to describe the phenomena of consciousness. The ancient Indian culture, it says that you can not describe consciousness through the senses (or their extensions, which can also be the most modern measuring instruments), but you can explain this fundamental personality only with consciousness itself! Or through an inner vision, the one that can be accessed through meditation. Consciousness does not reside in the brain, including the synapses and their connections appear to be an effect (what Tallis calls the symptoms), but in the deepest part of the personality, the atman, the self which ontologically transcends the transient nature of the ephemeral body. What we're talking of two different evaluation plans, not in opposition, because obviously the brain and its connections involved in the phenomenon of consciousness, and in fact, more properly, in which case we should call it "conditioned consciousness," because the nature of pure consciousness (Cit), is to be conditioned (cittah) due to the presence of the thin material and psychic connections structured (the "hardware" consists of the interconnections of brain synapses). As Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita (VII.4-5): "Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego - these eight elements, separate from Me, My form the material energy. [...] In addition to this there is another energy, my energy more than made up by living things that use less energy resources, material nature. " The energies are two ontological: the matter (prakriti) and the self (purusha). The self can be known only with the self, not with matter, otherwise it falls into a contradiction, as evidenced by Prof. Tallis. Reflections of this type, expressed by leading researchers such as Prof. Tallis, highlight the still open debate on the issue of consciousness, and the various conflicts there. Ancient Indian Culture, in this sense, is an important contribution to all researchers are open to views that may complement and improve existing knowledge.
