The enigma of human consciousness continues to challenge science and philosophy, as the writer explained Michael Pollan during the program Horizons of PBS News. Although each person lives with an internal voice and their own sensations, we still do not know why we have this faculty or how far its true limits go.
The mystery of consciousness remains unsolved despite decades of research. This unknown affects our daily lives, from the way we recognize ourselves as individuals to how we understand the experience of animals, plants or even machines.
Furthermore, it influences the way we question the authenticity of our thoughts, our relationship with artificial intelligence and in the ethical dilemmas that arise when interacting with other forms of life.
“Consciousness is the subjective experience of being alive“Pollan defined in the interview broadcast by PBS News. The author highlighted the paradox that, although consciousness is the most intimately known, it is one of the most elusive notions to define in scientific terms. “Everything we know about the world is an inference based on consciousness,” he added.
Pollan expanded the discussion by drawing on the ideas of philosopher Thomas Nagel. A being is conscious, he explained, If there is “something that feels like being that being”no matter how you perceive the world. Using a bat as an example, he commented: “We can vaguely imagine what it would be like to live by sensing by echolocation, but your toaster has no experience; there is no sensation of being a toaster.”
The writer recalled a personal experience under the effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms: “I had the feeling that the flowers in my garden were watching me, it was disturbing and wonderful.” As a result of that experience, he investigated in science whether plants could have some type of consciousness.
When addressing the difference between consciousness and sentience, Pollan specified before PBS News: “Sentiment, the ability to react and adapt to the environment, could be a property of all life, even of single-celled organisms.”
He pointed out that plants can learn, remember, anticipate changes and distinguish between allies and competitors. Although they do not possess consciousness in the strict sense, they do show a remarkable perception of their surroundings. “Experiments with climbing plants show that they can identify where the supports are and go towards them. There are intelligent decisions, they just happen at such a slow pace that we need time-lapse cameras to appreciate it,” he described.
These observations led Pollan to suggest: “It is not unreasonable to say that they are sentient, if we understand by sentience the ability to distinguish between changes good or bad and make appropriate decisions. Sentience may be a property of all life, even of bacteria,” he said.
Extending the concept of consciousness beyond human beings raises complex scientific and ethical challenges. “We are democratizing consciousness. This calls into question our sense of exclusivity as a species”Pollan acknowledged during the interview with PBS News.
The writer attributed part of these limitations to scientific tradition. For decades, studying consciousness was seen as “career suicide” for researchers. It was not until the late 1980s that scientists such as Francis Crick attempted to address the issue by searching for “the neural correlates of consciousness,” although without finding a defined center.
“Consciousness is different; it is subjective,” Pollan explained. “How to introduce the first-person perspective into a science based on the third person? Our current science is not prepared for that challenge,” he reflected.
He recalled that since the time of Galileo and Descartes, science separated the measurable from the subjective, delegating the latter area to the field of religion and the soul. Although today we speak of consciousness instead of soul, we continue to face the same conceptual frontier.
“The only tool to study consciousness is consciousness itself,” the author admitted, pointing out the vicious circle that science faces in this field. He explained that there are multiple competing theories: “By some accounts there are 22 main theories about conscience; others talk about even 200“, he detailed before PBS News. This panorama reflects the theoretical uncertainty that still dominates the debate.
As an example, Pollan mentioned the hypothesis that consciousness could arise from feelings originating in the body, rather than from thoughts elaborated in the cerebral cortex. “Hunger would be the most basic feeling; It is born in the body, reaches the brain, and then the cortex processes it cognitively. But scientists are still debating who is the subject who feels that hunger,” he said.
The writer stated that researchers’ frustration is common: “When asked for a definition, they often resort to vague explanations and ‘show of hands’ responses.” However, he considered that not obtaining a definitive answer can also be positive.
As we delve deeper into the consciousness of animals and plants, moral dilemmas arise. “If a creature can suffer, even if it were a machine, we owe it some moral consideration,” Pollan noted. However, he clarified: “We know that cows and pigs are conscious, but we continue to treat them cruelly.”
As for plants, Pollan said that some experts maintain that they feel pain, while others believe that this would not be evolutionarily useful if they cannot flee. “The characteristic of remaining rooted is key; they need to be aware that they eat their leaves, but it does them no good to suffer,” he indicated. That interpretation was reassuring: “I don’t have to imagine that mowing the lawn is sensory carnage.”
Recognizing non-human forms of consciousness increases our ethical responsibilities and raises new questions about the treatment of other forms of life and, potentially, “intelligent machines.”
Pollan expressed skepticism about the possibility of raising awareness in health systems. artificial intelligence. “Remember, consciousness and intelligence are not the same. You can be very conscious without being intelligent, or vice versa. A machine could be intelligent without consciousness,” he explained.
The author pointed out that many in Silicon Valley believe that improving algorithms will lead to conscious artificial intelligence. However, he warned PBS News: “The comparison between brain and computer is only a metaphor.”
He highlighted an essential distinction: “Our brains do not differentiate between hardware and software like a machine. Every physical experience transforms the system, and this does not happen in a computer.”
He argued that consciousness may be linked to having a body, vulnerability, and perhaps mortality. “Feelings require a body. An AI cannot experience hunger or fear like we do,” he said. Although certain programs simulate emotions or seem “hurt,” he stressed that “simulating feelings is not experiencing feelings.”
For Pollan, although he sees it as unlikely that machines will achieve genuine consciousness, the danger lies in the illusion: “The risk is that machines are already deceiving us. People believe they feel, and we are easy prey to that illusion”.
The writer reflected that constant contact with technology puts the quality of our conscious experience at risk. “Spending the day in front of screens reduces the opportunity to wander and reflect.
Even boredom can lead to creativity, but we are losing that space,” he warned in the interview with PBS News.
He proposed measures such as meditate or disconnect from your cell phone to preserve what he called “hygiene of conscience.”
The absence of a definitive answer about consciousness invites us to maintain an open attitude. Being willing to live with mystery gives us new perspectives and helps us value inner experience, even when its mechanisms remain an enigma.
