VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 SPRING 2015

cells and their associated molecules. Who you are is nothing but a pack of neurons.” At the beginning of the book, “to simplify the problem of consciousness”, Crick narrows it to the problem of optical perception. He presents impressive experimental evidence showing that visual perception is associatedwith distinct physiological, biochemical, and electrical processes in the optical system from the retina through the optical tract to the suboccipital cortex. And there the discussion ends as if the problem of consciousness had been satisfactorily solved. In reality this is where the problem begins. What exactly is capable of transforming biochemical and electric processes in the brain into a conscious experience of a reasonable facsimile of the object we are observing, in full color, and project it into three-dimensional space? The formidable problem of the relationship between phenomena – things as we perceive them – and noumena – things as they truly are in themselves (Ding an sich) was clearly articulated by Immanuel Kant (Kant 1999). Scientists focus their efforts on the aspect of the problem where they can find answers: the material processes in the brain. The much more mysterious problem – how physical processes in the brain generate consciousness – does not receive any attention, because it is incomprehensible and cannot be solved. The attitude that Western science has adopted in regard to this issue resembles the famous Sufi story. On a dark night, Nasruddin, a satirical Sufi figure, is on his knees under a street lamp. His neighbor sees him and asks: “What are you doing? Are you looking for something?” Nasruddin answers that he is searching for a lost key and the neighbor offers to help. After some time of unsuccessful joint effort, the neighbor becomes confused and feels the need for clarification. He asks: “I don’t see anything! Are you sure you lost it here?” Nasruddin shakes his head and points his finger to a dark area outside of the circle illuminated by the lamp and replies: “Not here, over there!” The neighbor is puzzled and inquires further: “So why are we looking for it here and not over there?” Nasruddin explains: “Because it is light here and we can see. Over there it’s dark and we would not have a chance!” Similarly materialistic scientists have systematically avoided the problem of the origin of consciousness, because this riddle cannot be solved within the context of their conceptual framework. The idea that consciousness is a product of the brain is naturally not completely arbitrary. Its proponents usually refer to a vast body of very specific clinical observations from neurology, neurosurgery, neurophysiology, and psychiatry, to support their position. The evidence for close correlations between the anatomy, neurophysiology, and biochemistry of the brain and consciousness is unquestionable and overwhelming. What is problematic is not the nature of the presented evidence but the conclusions that are drawn from these observations. In formal logic, this type of fallacy represents a non sequitur – an argument wherein its conclusion does not follow from its premises. While the experimental data clearly show that consciousness is closely connected with the neuSpirituality Studies 1 (1) Spring 2015 11 (9)

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=