In a time when most philosophers, theologians, psychotherapists and scientists agree that the greatest mystery of human existence is to ask what is the origin of consciousness and the very nature of consciousness, we can say without hesitation that men have come to a remarkable point in human evolution. It seems safe to argue that contemporary humanity finds itself facing the opportunity to marry the fields of psychology, science, philosophy and religion and eventually find a common ground for exploring the field of consciousness as partners, rather than combatants. It is the first time in human history that these conditions are coming together. Philosophers and scientists have been at war for decades over the question of what consciousness is and what makes up conscious experiences. Thankfully there are joined efforts by diverse fields, like the Mind & Life Institute, who continuously work on bridging the gulf between the two world views of materialism and perennial philosophy – the outer edges of the spectrum of explaining consciousness, while other worldviews such as panpsychism, idealism or solipsism reside between these two opposites.

In modern science consciousness is considered as one of the ‘final frontiers’. Today the most common worldview in academia is that of mechanistic materialism, aka reductive materialism, probably best known as the scientific view, in which the seat of consciousness is considered being in the brain. Even though many prominent scientists indicate that the brain itself is conscious, it is more frequently assumed that the brain creates consciousness. The key assumption of materialism is the idea that the brain causes and determines the qualities of conscious experiences and therefore every conscious state ‘must’ be implemented materially by some brain state.

How can this be understood?

A neuroscientific explanation of consciousness adduces characteristics of the brain, commonly the brain’s electrical properties. We know by now that the brain itself is basically a giant network of interconnected neurons that themselves generate an electric charge. While each neuron is composed of a body, dendrites (a short branched extension of a nerve cell) and the axon (the long threadlike part of a nerve cell) the axon carries the electric charge all the way to its terminals, the very end of an axon. The release of certain chemicals at the terminals are called neurotransmitters, which are either excitatory or inhibitory, depending on whether the neurotransmitters they released increase or decrease electric charges of connected neurons. When this happens the neuron is said to have fired. Next, the neurotransmitters stimulate the dendrites

of the close-by neuron by fitting into chemical receptors. Depending on the neurotransmitters released the corresponding stimulus can be once again either of excitatory or inhibitory character.

Arguably brain activity is therefore associated with firings of neurons in a neural network. The entire process contains two qualities: electrical, by building up electrical charge, and chemical, by releasing of neurotransmitters. Simply put, according to the materialistic perspective conscious experience is nothing but a neural process. The sought-after target of contemporary neuroscience is to find neural processes in the brain that correlate with conscious experience. The acronym for these are NCC. In a widely cited definition, the Australian philosopher and cognitive scientist David John Chalmers defines the NCC as a minimal and sufficient neural system, whose activation leads to a conscious perception.

It seems important to point out that even though this reigning materialist tentatively explains the correlations between mind states and brain states, it is safe to argue that this theory does not necessarily provide a solid explanation of the precise nature of the relationship between subjective phenomenal states and neurophysiological processes. It therefore fails to offer an explanatory framework for tackling the mind-body problem, also called the heart of the classical hard problem of consciousness, which essentially asks: What is the nature of the relationship between the conscious experience and the electrochemical interactions in the brain?

By studying the latest publications around this matter it becomes evident that this question is far from simple. Instead it involves fundamental empirical, methodological and philosophical arguments about the origin of consciousness and the correlation to the brain. Despite the fact that there is a great progress in analyzing the mechanism of our brain, and up to this point research has provided significant and reproducible findings, it has yet only scratched the surface in the attempt to tackle the origin of consciousness. The assumption that we will someday explain the very nature of our conscious experience based on the full understanding of the brain’s operation system is the big promise of modern science. However, that assumption is considered an absurdity for the schools of thought, like the ones mentioned earlier, that refuse a dualistic worldview altogether.

Without taking a stand for one or the other conceptual framework, we can agree that it is legitimate to state that the challenge for an objective science of consciousness is to dissect an essentially subjective phenomenon. As Carl Jung, one of the 20th century’s most influential psychologists pointed out: “One’s psyche is the sole carrier of reality that one can ever know.”

It seems essential to keep in mind that ideas about any viewpoints can be either stepping stones for a deeper exploration and expansion of habitual thinking patterns, or obstacles to vision, leading to a dead-end of intellectual and contemplative evolution. We can’t deny that we are in

the midst of a headlong rush to find answers for everything in life through data-based science and technological developments that penetrate not only how we live our daily lives, but also how we perceive the world. The urge for progress has been an essential and necessary part of human evolution. However, if we truly are interested in the fundamental truth of consciousness, the current status of that evolution seems to require an unbiased, critical, and unfiltered perspective (both individual and collective).

For this process, the development and cultivation of a soshin mind – beginner’s mind (beginner’s mind is a Buddhist approach that calls for a fresh view of whatever is being considered, without preconceptions) – is an absolute necessity and crucial ingredient in order to bypass the pitfalls of buying into programed and/or inherited worldviews offered by academia, media, and thought- leaders. As the Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti proposed, while exploring the origin of consciousness on a scientific as well on an ontological level, there must be a process of what he called “freedom from the known.” This approach ensures an exploration of the fundamental reality of experience through a fresh and unfiltered perspective. The mind’s character is too prone to conditioning and conceptualizing to be trusted without some intentional approach to perception and interpretation. In our cultural zeitgeist the investigation of consciousness — whether through philosophical or spiritual means, or through scientific discoveries — may need to be viewed as an inner revolution first and foremost, as we seek to understand how we understand. This must be the very foundation of all inquiry and research – a process that is not optional, but rather a necessity, if we truly wish to tackle consciousness, and therefore reality.

As the philosopher Teilhard de Chardin, a pioneer in the field of consciousness studies eloquently put it: “Evolution is an ascent towards consciousness”.

__________________________