States of Consciousness
Charles T. Tart
3. Conservative and Radical Views of the Mind
An almost universal theory in Western scientific circles,
sunk to the level of an implicit belief and thus controlling us
effectively, is that awareness is a product of brain functioning.
No brain functioning—no awareness, no consciousness. This is
the conservative view of the mind. It is dangerous as an implicit
belief for two reasons. First, many experiences in various altered
states of consciousness are inconsistent with this theory, but
implicit faith in the conservative view makes us liable to distort
our perception of these phenomena. Second, parapsychological
data suggest that awareness is at least partially outside brain
functioning, a condition that leads to very different views of
human nature. The radical view of the mind sees awareness as
this something extra and postulates that physical reality can
sometimes be directly affected by our belief systems. We must
be openminded about the radical view to guard against maintaining
too narrow and too culturally conditioned a view of the mind.
Although in general speech we tend to use the terms awareness
and consciousness to mean basically the same thing, I use them
here with somewhat different meanings. Awareness refers
to the basic knowledge that something is happening, to perceiving
or feeling or cognizing in its simplest form. Consciousness
generally refers to awareness in a much more complex way; consciousness
is awareness as modulated by the structure of the mind. Mind
refers to the totality of both inferable and potentially experiencable
phenomena of which awareness and consciousness are components.
These are not precise definitions because the three key words—awareness,
consciousness, and mind—are not simple things. But they are
realities, and we must deal with them whether or not we can give
them precise logical definitions. Since logic is only one product
of the total functioning of the mind, it is no wonder that we
cannot arrive at a logical definition of the mind or consciousness
or awareness. The part cannot define the whole.
Awareness and consciousness, then, can be seen as parts of
a continuum. I would use the word awareness to describe,
for instance, my simple perception of the sound of a bird outside
my window as I write. I would use the word consciousness
to indicate the complex of operations that recognizes the sound
as a bird call, that identifies the species of bird, and that
takes account of the fact that the sound is coming in through
my open window. So consciousness refers to a rather complex system
that includes awareness as one of its basic ingredients, but is
more complex than simple awareness itself.
Few psychologists today would argue with the statement that
consciousness is awareness resulting from the brain's functioning.
But if you ask what is the basic nature of awareness, the simple
basic behind the more complex entity consciousness, you meet the
common assumption in Western culture generally and scientific
culture in particular that awareness is a "product"
of the brain. When psychology was fond of chemical analogies,
awareness was thought of as a sort of "secretion" by
the brain.
I believe that seeing consciousness as a function of the
brain is sound, but I think that explicitly or implicitly assuming
that awareness is only a function of the brain, as accepted
as that theory is, can be a hindrance, for two reasons.
First, as psychology deals more and more with the phenomena
of altered states of consciousness, it will more and more have
to deal with phenomena that do not fit well in a conceptual scheme
that says awareness is only a product of the brain. Experiences
of apparently paranormal abilities like telepathy, of feeling
that one's mind leaves one's body, of mystical union with aspects
of the universe outside oneself, of supernormal knowledge directly
given in altererd states, fit more comfortably into schemes that
do not assume that awareness is only a function of the brain.
I have nothing against competent attempts to fit such
phenomena into our dominant Western scientific framework, but
the attempts I have seen so far have been most inadequate and
seem to work mainly by ignoring major aspects of these altered
states phenomena. Thus the assumption that awareness is only
a function of the brain, especially as it becomes implicit, tends
to distort our view of real phenomena that happen in altered states.
We dismiss their possible reality a priori. We cannot build
a science when we start with such a selected view of the data.
The second reason for questioning this assumption is the
existence of first-class scientific data to suggest that awareness
may be something other than a product of the brain. I refer to
excellent evidence of parapsychological phenomena like telepathy,
evidence that shows that the mind can sometimes function in ways
that are "impossible" in terms of our current, physical
view of the world. I review our knowledge of the paranormal in
Studies of Psi {131}. "Impossible" means only
that these phenomena are paraconceptual, that our conceptual
schemes are inadequate because they exclude this part of reality.
These same conceptual schemes underlie the belief that awareness
is only a product of the brain, and if we question these conceptual
schemes we question that assumption. This book is not the place
for detailed argument, but I have discussed the subject at greater
length in Transpersonal Psychologies {128}, which reviews
the impact of the spiritual psychologies on the evolving science
fo consciousness.
This view that awareness is only a function of the brain—the
conservative or physicalistic view of the mind—is diagrammed
in Figure 3-1. The brain (and nervous system and body) are depicted
as a structure that has hardware qualities on the one hand and
software qualities on the other. The hardware qualities are those
inherent in the physical makeup of the brain itself, as dictated
by the physical laws that govern reality. This dictation of limitation
is shown as a one-way arrow from the physical world to the brain.
The software qualities are the programmable aspects of the brain,
the capacities for recording data and building up perception,
evaluation, and action patterns in accordance with programming
instructions given by the culture. The arrows of influence are
two-way here, for even though the programming is largely done
by the culture to the individual, occasionally the individual
modifies some aspects of the culture. Awareness is shown as an
emergent quality of the brain, and so awareness is ultimately
limited by the hardware and by particular software programs of
the brain. Consciousness is the individual's experience of awareness
diffused through a tiny fraction of the structure of the brain
and nervous system.
The radical view of the mind is diagrammed in Figure 3-2.
Two changes have been made to incorporate the radical view.
First, awareness is shown as something that comes from outside
the structure of the physical brain, as well as something influenced
by the structure of the brain (thus giving consciousness) and
the cultural programming. In religious terms, this is the idea
of a soul or life/mind principle that uses (and is used by) the
body. This is a most unpopular idea in scientific circles, but,
as I have argued elsewhere {129}, there is enough scientific evidence
that consciousness is capable of temporarily existing in a way
that seems independent of the physical body to warrant giving
the idea serious consideration and doing some research on it.
The second change incorporated in the radical view is shown
by the two-way arrow from the physical world to the hardware structure
of the brain. The idea, held in many spiritual systems of thought
that have dealt with altered states of consciousness, is that
physical reality is not a completely fixed entity, but something
that may actually be shaped in some fundamental manner by the
individual's beliefs about it. I am not speaking here simply
of perceptions of reality, but of the actual structure
of reality. Pearce {49}, for example, describes an experience
as a youth where he accidentally entered an altered state of consciousness
in which he knew he was impervious to pain or injury. In front
of witnesses he ground out the tips of glowing cigarettes on his
cheeks, palms, and eyelids. He felt no pain, and there was no
sign of physical injury. The consventional view can easily account
for the lack of pain: by control of the structures involved in
sensing pain (nerve tracts and certain brain areas), pain would
not be perceived. But a glowing cigarette tip has a temperature
of about 1400F, and his skin should have been severely burned,
despite his state of consciousness. From the radical point of
view, his beliefs about reality in the altered state actually
altered the nature of physical reality.
To argue for or against the radical view of the mind would
take a book in itself, and this is not the one. (I recommend
Pearce's book and my Studies of Psi {131} for data on paranormal
phenomena) I wnat to emphasize that the radical view of the mind,
in various forms, is often reported as an experience from
altered state of consciousness. If we are going to study states
of consciousness adequately, we hall have to confront the radical
view, not automatically dismiss it as an illusion or a product
of inferior brain frunctioning, but take it as data. I would
personally prefer not to: I do not like the radical view that
our belief systems may actually alter the nature of reality
even though I can comfortably accept parapsychological data that
show that reality is more complex than our current physical world-view
believes. But we should stay open to that view and make a decision
for or against its probability on scientific grounds, not simply
because we have been trained to believe that there is an ultimate,
immutable physical reality. Don Juan put it pithily: "To
believe that the world is only as you think it is is stupid"
{10}.
I sympathize with reader who finds himself rejecting the
radical view of the mind. I suggest, however, that he honestly
ask himself, "Have I rejected this view as a result of careful
and extensive study of the evidence for and against it, or because
I have been trained to do so and rewarded by social approval for
doing so?"