Whether consciousness arises entirely within the brain or involves processes beyond it has long been debated in scientific and philosophical circles. Historically, most academics have associated consciousness with neurons firing and communicating information; however, precisely how neural activity gives rise to subjective experience remains an open question.

Neuroscientist and consciousness researcher Christof Koch, a former faculty member at institutions including MIT and Caltech, challenges academics to take a closer look at what philosophers call the “hard problem” of consciousness: how the physical processes of the brain could produce subjective experiences in humans.

Earlier this year, Koch presented his arguments at the “Behind and Beyond the Brain” Symposium organized by the Bial Foundation, where he argued that the nature of consciousness, as well as phenomena like near-death experiences, may require a broader scientific framework.

Koch focused on three areas. First is the physical brain itself; second is the question of how we can truly agree on what is “real.” What does blue actually look like to you? What does pain feel like? These questions are difficult to answer scientifically as universal truths.

Third are unexplained experiences that may not fit neatly within a materialistic scientific framework, such as near-death experiences.

Revisiting an old approach 

Looking at older philosophical models might lead researchers toward new understandings or modern ways of approaching consciousness. Koch points to concepts such as idealism and panpsychism.

Idealism holds that consciousness or mind is fundamental to reality—mind comes first, matter second—while panpsychism holds that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe.

If mainstream science adopted such a shift, it could profoundly change how we understand ourselves. A paradigm shift of sorts may be coming for humanity, potentially through the integration of these ideas and a move away from strictly materialistic approaches to consciousness.

Koch points to these concepts as potential frameworks in which consciousness remains a fundamental aspect of reality. He also supports the controversial Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which proposes that systems possessing sufficiently integrated information may have some form of subjective experience.

Consciousness in Perspective

For additional perspectives, The Debrief reached out to Julia Mossbridge, a neuroscientist and Sr Distinguished Fellow in AI, Mind and Society at Florida Atlantic University, and co-author of Transcendent Mind: Rethinking the Science of Consciousness (2017), the first American Psychological Association textbook on consciousness to not assume consciousness is reducible to brain activity.

“To many neuroscientists, the brain is starting to seem more like a radio receiver and potentially also a transmitter of consciousness,” Mossbridge said in an email to The Debrief. “The idea that’s losing more ground with every new credible report of so-called ‘anomalous cognition’ is the old one—that the brain creates consciousness like the gallbladder creates bile. Maybe it’s more apt to compare the brain to the heart—it doesn’t create blood, it circulates it. But because you can use a machine to circulate the blood, it’s very clear the heart is important, but in modern times, not essential for circulation.”

Mossbridge points to reports of what she calls “veridical conscious observations” that occur when a patient’s brain shows little or no measurable activity to researchers, or what is described as “brain death,” as proof that consciousness may not be produced entirely by the brain.

These experiences led Mossbridge to consider the brain as a “transformer of consciousness rather than a creator of it.” She compares the relationship to a broken radio: “If you have a disruption in your brain, like a broken radio, you might have a disruption of consciousness.”

To test this hypothesis, Mossbridge says researchers could investigate whether people can perceive and later accurately recall “veridical information” while in deep sleep or under general anesthesia. Although she acknowledges that even positive findings might have another explanation, noting that they “could be explained by basic psychic functioning using some unknown physical mechanism.”

“So if that kind of experiment produces a positive result, and is replicated, you either have to argue that psychic ability is real but is something the brain does nonlocally (like maybe through entanglement) or that consciousness can wander from the body and observe things, or both,” Mossbridge concluded.

“The physical but nonlocal explanation is a bit like a heart pumping the blood, the brain guiding consciousness. The consciousness-wandering explanation is a bit like a heart being fully separated from the blood–and another method is used to circulate consciousness.”

“Either way, the standard model fails,” she added.

Taken together, Koch and Mossbridge’s perspectives point to a provocative possibility: that understanding consciousness may ultimately require science to reconsider some of its most fundamental assumptions about the relationship between mind, brain, and reality.

Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and founder of VOCAB Communications. She hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on The Debrief’s YouTube Channel. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton and at chrissynewton.com.

Eliminative materialism is best seen as a nice try at cementing materialism in a world where it faces mounting serious challenges.

Source

A University of St. Andrews-led research team has proposed that the red wavelengths of flickering light emitted by early human ancestors’ campfires helped reprogram the human brain to boost social and verbal communication, leading to modern language and storytelling behaviors found only in humans.

The team, which included researchers from Dartmouth College, said the study builds on earlier theories linking fire and language to the extra hours it added to the day.

However, their findings suggest that the biological changes caused by fire use may have enabled complex language as much as fire-associated behavioral changes, accelerating the evolution of verbal communication away from the ape-like systems still used by modern apes toward more complex, “uniquely human” interactions.

Researchers Wondered if Firelight Reprogrammed the Human Brain

Catherine Hobaiter, a Professor of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of St Andrews and the lead author of a paper detailing the team’s idea, said she has always been fascinated by the origins of language.

“What was the first word?” the professor asked. “The first story?”

Unfortunately, Professor Hobaiter noted, many questions about the origin of humanity’s complex and diverse forms of verbal communication remain unanswered.

Some earlier research has explored a possible link between the first spoken words and the advent of controlled fire use. However, the team notes that most studies have focused primarily on the extra hours of practical light added to the end of each day.

Curious whether other biological mechanisms also contributed to the evolution of language and complex storytelling behavior, Professor Hobaiter and colleagues examined the effects of sitting around a campfire to see whether the emitted light could reprogram the human brain.

Potential Effects of Red Wavelengths and Flickering Lights

First, the team noted that one potential catalyst emitted by firelight that could help reprogram the human brain for complex language is the color of the light wavelengths emitted by campfires. Specifically, Hobaiter and colleagues noted that campfire light emits almost no blue wavelengths but instead mostly in the visible red spectrum.

Many modern studies have focused on the potentially adverse effects of exposure to blue light wavelengths from modern technology on sleep patterns and overall health. Conversely, the paper’s authors described the red wavelengths emitted from fire as ‘uniquely suited’ for human socializing, “allowing an extension to the day without negatively impacting sleep.”

Another component of firelight the study authors suggest could have reprogrammed the human brain for speech is the way a campfire behaves. Unlike a modern, steady light source, the authors noted that firelight “flickers.”

Hobaiter and colleagues said that neurons in the human brain synchronize firing patterns with external flickering lights. For example, flickering lights in movies and TV shows often come with warnings against possible neurological effects on vulnerable viewers. The research team said this mechanism might also help synchronize the behavior of those seated around the campfire, resulting in a much deeper feeling of connection.

Finally, the researchers noted that firelight emits infrared wavelengths, which may have also contributed to helping firelight reprogram the human brain for complex verbal communication.

Are We the Storytelling Ape?

When discussing the potential impact of their proposal, study co-author Nathaniel Dominy, the Charles Hansen Professor of Anthropology at Dartmouth College, said many of the chemical properties have been well researched. However, Professor Dominy also notes that understanding the properties of light that capture our attention and focus, thereby instilling “harmony and cooperation,” has received far less attention.

“Measuring these features is an exciting part of this project,” the study author added.

Professor Hobaiter agreed, while also noting the conundrum scientists face when explaining why humans speak, when “decades of research with other species has shown us that you don’t need language to learn from each other, to organize where and when to forage, to learn cultural knowledge about tools and songs, to co-ordinate hunting, or navigate social politics.”

“While other species share all these skills, there is a fundamental puzzle: we struggle to find evidence of key differences between human and ape communication,” Professor Hobaiter explained. “And yet, we are surrounded by evidence of human distinctiveness. For all their incredible, rich communication and cultures, no other ape is inventing algebra, writing King Lear, or heading out into interstellar space.”

“So, it’s especially exciting to be able to generate testable predictions, to be able to ask if, at the end of the day, we are the storytelling ape,” the professor added.

The paper “Firelight and the Origins of Spoken Language” was published in Proceedings of the Royal Society. 

Christopher Plain has spent the last six years as Associate News Editor and Head Science Reporter at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on X, learn about his novels at plainfiction.com, or email him at christopher@thedebrief.org.