Chopra’s Deep Confusion: The Brain & Doubts about the External World

By | September 16, 2010

In an article titled “A conversation: consciousness and the connection to the universe” Deepak Chopra recounts an interview (March 27, 2010)** that he held with Dr. Stuart Hameroff of the Center for Consciousness Studies of the University of Arizona.

The interview is interesting on a number of points, e.g., Hameroff’s attempt to explain perceptual consciousness in terms of quantum physics. This is an ambitious project that cries for scrutiny and critique. But presently I shall focus on another aspect of the interview. The interviews discloses some fundamental misconceptions and fallacies committed by both men. Let us look briefly at a few excerpts from that interview and see where they fell into old traps and confusion.

The interview starts with some statements and a question directed to Hameroff by Chopra:

“You’re an anesthesiologist as well as an expert in consciousness. Here’s my question: Our brain inside our skull has no experience of the external world. The brain only responds to internal states like, pH, electrolytes, hormones, ionic exchanges across cell membranes and electrical impulses. So, how does the brain see an external world?”

Right from the start, the good doctors Chopra and Hameroff fall into some basic misconceptions. To recap the main points:
First, they note (Chopra states and Hameroff agrees) that the brain resides inside the skull (obviously!).
Then we have the inference that the brain has no direct experience of the external world: “The brain only responds to internal states.”
From this Chopra raises the profound question: “[H]ow does the brain see an external world?”

The very notion that the “brain sees anything” is suspect. (More on this later.) But for now let’s look at what Hameroff replies to Chopra’s heartfelt question as to the mystery of how the “brain sees the external world.”

“Well that question goes back at least thousands of years, and the Greeks said that the world outside is nothing but a representation in our head. Then of course Descartes recognized the same thing. That the only thing of which he could be sure was that he is, that he is conscious. I think therefore I am. So, we’re not really sure the outside world is as we perceive it. Some people would say it’s a construction, an illusion, some people would say it’s an accurate representation. It’s kind of a mix of views. And then when you add quantum properties to it, it’s really uncertain if the world we perceive is the actual world out there.”

Chopra then brings up the example of seeing a rose:

“So, Dr. Hameroff lets just take an example. I’m looking at a rose, my retinal cells are not actually looking at the rose they’re responding to photons aren’t they?”

This gives the good Dr. Hameroff the opportunity to expound on the processes that go into our “looking at a rose”:

“Yes. It’s also possible that quantum information is transduced in the retina in the cilia between the inner and outer segments before the photon even gets to the rhodopsin in the very back of the eye. So it’s possible that there’s additional quantum information being extracted from photons as they enter your eye through the retina. They might somehow more directly convey the actual essential quality or properties of the rose and the redness of the rose. . . .”

I don’t know about all this extracting of quantum information, but I doubt that there’s anything approaching consensus among physicists and neurologists on these speculations. However, the points I wish to focus on are conceptual points: the identification of the subject who ‘sees’ or doesn’t ‘see’ the external world with the brain; and the inference that all this leads to the ages old skeptical problems about our knowledge of the external world.

Hameroff seems to think that the Greeks (which ones?) held that the “world outside is nothing but a representation in our head” and that Descartes recognized the same thing. In short, we cannot know for certain that the world is anything like what we perceive.

Of course, none of this follows from the initial premise that the brain is located inside the skull and the brain processes our perceiving of the features in the world external to the brain.

The first gross confusion is to hold that the brain is the subject which sees anything. Let us grant that the appropriate sciences can describe and analyze the processes by which the nervous system (sense faculties, brain) enable the animal to perceive and negotiate its environment. But this is an analysis of how the animal (e.g. human, apes, monkeys, dogs, etc.) perceives the world; the brain is a vital element of this process, as are the sense faculties; but the brain is not the subject who sees X (the object of perception) and then faces the problem of connecting ‘X’ to the external world. Furthermore, the skeptical issue (that we face the problem of connecting ‘X’ to the external world) does not follow.

Furthermore, we are not rationally compelled to affirm that “the world .. is just a representation in the head”. Which the of the ancient Greeks held this view? Likewise, there isn’t any cogent argument for inferring the dualistic Cartesian picture (that the mental subject is distinct and apart from the material world). Furthermore, for Descartes the brain, being a physical organ, is found in the ‘external,’ material world. The isolated brain – encased in the skull and separated from the object perceived – which worried Chopra, has nothing to do with Cartesian skepticism about the external world.

At any rate, the skeptical problems outlined by Hameroff have at best a loose connection with Chopra’s initiating question: How does the brain see the external world? Furthermore, any putative skepticism about the external world is in order only if we fall into the initial trap of taking some entity inside the head (the brain?) as the subject who perceives the world. But of course, the animal acting and reacting in its natural, social environment (e.g., the small ape on the tree) is the subject who perceives features of that environment. Hameroff has simply fallen into some basic misconceptions here, misconceptions set up by an even more confused Chopra.

The words used in the title that Chopra gives this dialogue with Hameroff “….consciousness and the connection to the Universe” suggests another fundamental confusion at work here: this is the confused idea that ‘consciousness’ is a mysterious ‘thing’ of sorts, which may or may not be “connected with the universe.” Chopra’s assumption, like many who talk this way, is that consciousness involves more than a commitment to the facts that certain animals (including human in a social setting or small apes sitting on a tree branch) are capable of taking in or being aware of features in their environment. But there aren’t any good reasons for asserting that we’re committed to something called “consciousness.” (Imagine someone proclaiming that in addition to the small ape on the tree, the ape’s consciousness sits there as well.) As some philosophers (e.g.,Gilbert Ryle, Richard Rorty, D.W. Hamlyn) have argued, one can dispense altogether with the idea of consciousness as an entity (?) or as a mental state and still give adequate accounts of all the mental, perceptual capabilities of complex, evolved animals as humans. Science can account for my seeing the rose or being aware of the cool temperature in my environment without anyone having to posit my state of consciousness or an actor called “consciousness.” That I see things and am aware of things is beyond dispute. But this does not commit us to the reality of some mysterious state or entity called “consciousness.”

When we speak of a person being in a state of consciousness, or perception, or awareness – we simply resort to a way of talking. We don’t make an ontological commitment. The same may be said for a statement like: “There was an awareness that we were in trouble.” None of these require that we posit a mysterious state or entity called “consciousness” or another called “awareness,” which may or may not be connected to the external world. Chopra is just falling victim to an age-old confusion here.

All the ensuing talk by Hameroff concerning the “fine structure of the universe,” and “quantum information extracted from photons” is at best questionable speculation, at worst, a bit of New-Age, post-modernistic “mumbo-jumbo.”
————————-

** The full interview can be found at

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-07/news/20840306_1_quantum-information-interview-brain

8 thoughts on “Chopra’s Deep Confusion: The Brain & Doubts about the External World

  1. Firooz R Oskooi

    The whole thing as per Juan is (Mumbo-Jumbo), simply because it takes a super(?) human to analyse a human attribute of conciousness. Imagine a horse or dog trying to provide an image of itself! Seeing with all its connections is not and cannot be a quality of the matter of brain. Matter cannot see itself, let alone interpreting it!

    Reply
  2. china nfl jerseys

    WakeMed Health & Hospitals, a major area employer that faces its first financial loss in years, will be dinged about $650, 000 by Medicare because too many patients treated at WakeMed were back in the hospital within 30 days after being discharged.Wakemed is among a number of triangle hospitals that will have to pay a medicare penalty for excessive readmissions, but only two of those hospitals saw their excessive readmissions increase from a year earlier:Wakemed in raleigh and johnston memorial hospital.The readmission penalty will cost 2, 225 hospitals nationwide about $277 million in the coming year in reduced medicare payments, according to an analysis of federal data by kaiser health news.Out of north carolina s 88 hospitals, none will have to pay this year s maximum penalty a 2 percent cut in medicare payments and 27 will pay no penalty at all, kaiser health news found.The medicare penalty, part of the patient protection and affordable care act, is designed to slow runaway medical costs by creating a financial incentive for hospitals to keep patients from coming back.In past years, hospitals had little incentive to keep patients away because they profited from charging the medicare system for treating the patient a second time.The key to this is coordination of care to try to get patients the best care once they leave the hospital so they don t have to come back, said j.West paul, wakemed s vice president for quality and safety.Hospital stays are among the most expensive items in the health care system, and some of the reasons patients end up in the hospital can be treated less expensively through early intervention and monitoring.Most penalties declinethe medicare penalty system wholesale new nfl jerseys focuses on readmissions of patients who were initially admitted for three conditions:Pneumonia, heart attack and heart failure.However, the readmission can be for any reason say, a bicycle accident or a snakebite and it counts against the first hospital even if the patient ends up at another hospital within 30 days.About half of wakemed s excessive readmissions were the result of readmissions to hospitals outside wake county, paul said.One of the excessive readmissions was for a patient who came in for a previously scheduled bypass operation, he said.The first round of medicare penalties kicked in last fall, and the second round begins this october.By 2015, the maximum penalty will go up 3 percent, which could translate to more than $1 million in lost revenue for some hospitals.The approach seems to be working.Most triangle hospitals will pay a smaller penalty in the coming year than they had to pay in the previous year.The average penalty for north carolina s hospitals will be a 1/3 percent cut in medicare payments this coming year, kaiser health news found.Rex hospital in raleigh expects its medicare payments to be cut to $66, 400, which is about half the penalty rex paid last year.All three hospitals in duke university health system had excessive readmissions last year, but this year only duke university hospital will pay a penalty, and it will be nearly half the $600, 000 the system paid last year.Income a factorreadmissions are reduced when hospitals follow up with patients at home and give care instructions to family members.Duke university health system created a same day acute heart failure clinic, which provides medical infusions and other treatments outside the hospital so that a return visit is not counted as a readmission.This year s penalty is based on readmission numbers over a three-Year period ending june 30, 2012, and doesn t reflect hospital improvements in the past 12 months.During the review period, wakemed treated about 1, 700 heart attack patients and about 300 were readmitted to wakemed or other hospitals, paul said.That was 19 readmissions too many by medicare standards.The kaiser health news analysis found that hospitals that treat a high number of low-Income patients are more likely to experience readmissions and get penalized.Hospital industry officials have repeatedly said this aspect of the obamacare penalty system is troubling.It s worrisome because it doesn t reflect hospital quality, and the penalty may impact their ability to deliver care in the community, said thomas owens, duke university health system s chief medical officer.

    Hall of Fame inductees, from left, Larry Allen, Cris Carter, Dave Robinson, Jonathan Ogden, Bill Parcells, Curley Culp and Warren Sapp pose with their bronze busts during the 2013 Pro Football Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony Saturday, Aug.3, 2013, in Canton, Ohio. (Ap photo/david richard)
    jerseys wholesale cheap
    Still, his presence brings comfort in an organization where nothing has seemed settled in years.They find him blunt around the ohcheapnfl.com bills offices.They find him honest.He used statistical analysis at syracuse to help with football decisions and wants to do the same in buffalo where brandon and whaley are in the process of hiring a full-Time analyst.He is enthusiastic about the nutrition program that brandon implemented last year and quietly expanded until it dominates the bills cafeteria as much as kelly s more famous one does in philadelphia.
    OWINGS MILLS, Md.Baltimore ravens cornerback asa jackson has been suspended without pay for the nfl football jerseys first eight games of the regular season for violating the nfl’s policy on performance-Enhancing substances.Jackson received a four-Game suspension as a rookie last season for the same reason.This suspension is for eight games because it’s his second violation.Drafted in the fifth round out of cal poly, jackson played in only two games last season for the super bowl champions.Jackson will be eligible to return to the active roster nov.4 after the team’s game against Cleveland on Nov.3.He is eligible to participate in all preseason practices and games.

    Reply
  3. Xiao Schleisman

    Good day! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a collection of volunteers and
    starting a new initiative in a community in the same niche.
    Your blog provided us valuable information to work on. You have done a outstanding job!

    Reply
  4. my website

    For employing this loan, there is no dependence on lengthy formality
    or paperwork as you ought to undergo the entire process via online process my website your loan officer is going to be evaluating the job to see whether or otherwise
    not you are going to fit to the guidelines
    for the money programs they have.

    Reply
  5. best deal

    Excellent site. Lots of useful information here. I’m sending
    it to a few friends ans additionally sharing in delicious.
    And of course, thank you to your sweat!

    Reply
  6. huaswei ascend p6 test

    huawei ascend p6
    I have been exploring for a bit for any high-quality articles
    or weblog posts in this sort of area . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this site.

    Reading this information So i am glad to show that I’ve an incredibly good uncanny feeling I
    came upon just what I needed. I so much no doubt will make certain
    to do not overlook this web site and provides it a glance
    regularly. huawei p6

    Reply
  7. canon drucker

    drucker test
    I have read several just right stuff here. Certainly value bookmarking for revisiting.
    I wonder how much effort you place to create this type of magnificent informative website.
    drucker test

    Reply
  8. kaffeevollautomat test 2014

    kaffeevollautomat test
    Wonderful goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you’re just
    too fantastic. I really like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you are saying and the way in which you say it.
    You make it entertaining and you still take care
    of to keep it sensible. I can not wait to read far more from you.

    This is really a tremendous web site. kaffeevollautomat test

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *