…and he is describing the fiction of the self, the fictive self. He posits that life is really only a series of discreet but connected perceptions tied together by the capacity for reflection we call consciousness.
The crux of his view is that the self I think of as me does not exist. It is an illusion. Instead, I am only a series of analog moments that came about through subconscious stimulus-response reactions. What we attribute to decisions, whether the habitual decisions of living day-to-day or ethical decisions based on some moral code, are really responses to ingrained genetic, biological and cultural programming. Nor do I remember more than a nanoscopic (my word) subset of the responses I have made. Indeed, those conscious moments I have assembled into a “self” are only the few I actually recall, whether by choice or otherwise. As such, this illusory self has neither a future nor a past (as we tend to think of these), and never has had. Instead, we exist (we, that is, as in our thoughts, not our physical bodies) only moment to moment. Our construction of those moments into a past, like our projection of them into a future, is only an unconscious intellectual exercise. [Note: Gray does not say this (maybe because he didn’t think if it), but he makes me think of Alzheimer’s patients…of whom we often say, “The body is here, but the person is gone.”]
Gray’s point is that we think we are free-willed and sentient beings consciously choosing our paths. But to him, free will is a chimera. Our actions are programmed by eons of prehuman and human evolution to react to incoming stimuli in ways far more unconscious than conscious. He makes these points by comparing us to non-human animals. We differentiate ourselves from them by assuming that they, as opposed to us, do not have conscious selves . Unlike us (in our conventional view, anyway), they do not construct histories (either personal or cultural), nor do they project futures. Instead, they respond in the moment to biological drives or environmental stimuli. Gray’s premise about humans is easier to see in this approach because we do not think of other animals as having conscious selves. They are simply the gene carrying robots of Richard Dawkins (my allusion, not Gray’s), whereas we convince ourselves that we are something more.
I’m not saying I agree with all this (yet), but I have to consider it. But, when I place myself in Gray’s metaphor, when I think of my life, my days, my moments as mere perceptions of a gene carrying robot reacting to ever changing stimuli in some manner programmed by biology and culture and circumstance, it is extremely disorienting. I lose my compass. Suddenly, I am walking on quicksand, nothing solid either behind, ahead, or under me. My life becomes a single footprint, those behind washed into oblivion, and ahead only an empty beach.
In considering my own response, I think I see Gray’s great omission. The self we construct, however illusory, is a functional mechanism that keeps us sane and enables us to move forward. Everything about it serves a purpose for us as a species. I expect there is some practical value within his premise, but so far in my reading Gray has failed to offer it. Even if he is correct about our true existential situation, for all but the strongest of souls, it merely engenders hopelessness.
Nice piece of prose Bob, I enjoyed reading it. OK, now for the “technical discussion”:
-“…and he is describing the fiction of the self, the fictive self. He posits that life is really only a series of discreet but connected perceptions tied together by the capacity for reflection we call consciousness.”-
This connected series of discrete perceptions is the basis of my Reality Model. The Reality Model comprises this and also the interpretations necessary tying it all together so that predictions can be made which, may be the reason for this thing called consciousness, whatever it is. It is indeed unfortunate that he uses this as a description of “life” because “life” is definitively not that. Our interpretation of reality is based upon this but it is not life.
Your interpretation or conceptualization of “you” could be considered an illusion. However, there is no indication that “you” as an entity does not exist. Your existence is a starting point for a grander conversation the rejection of which is not interesting and it leads nowhere, I don’t think. The starting point is that you exist, illusion or not.
I can easily accept that our responses are due to coding of a thousand different varieties to and including the integration of the predictions that you have made that were wrong and those that were correct. How could it be any different? Some things are strictly intellectual and some things are strictly physical and some are mixtures of the two. The moral code itself is both built into the structure of the physical brain and the intellectual structure that is of our own creation. When I say our own creation, I am including those things that your brain accepted that were passed to it from other people. The belief in the existence in Jesus of Nazareth, for example, is something that one’s brain accepts or rejects but the whole concept came from another human. Some people accept, some do not.
I make a pretty strong distinction between the “brain” and the “self”. You are an integration of many things, including a whole fauna and flora that shares your body without which you could not exist; they are part of “you”, so are the transitory thoughts that your brain manufactures to create a reality model as well as the memories that your brain has chosen to store. I say your brain because, your conscious “mind” has virtually no say in what gets stored into memory. That is something that the brain does all by itself; at least I have no evidence to the contrary.
-“Indeed, those conscious moments I have assembled into a “self” are only the few I actually recall, whether by choice or otherwise.”-
OK, so you are defining “self” to be the “conscious” you. I do not do that. For me the “self” is all of it. Most of the decisions that your brain makes are completely unconscious. Are you separating “you” from your body and unconscious cerebral activities? Lots of people do but I fail to see the value in that particular line of reasoning.
My Reality Model includes the unconscious mind; the combination of the “a priori” physical brain construction and the prior Reality Model. The physical brain in concert with the *unconscious* part the Reality Model determines what you will remember. What the brain remembers is the “only” thing from which which one can construct a Reality Model. As far as I know, nothing else exists. The construction of the Reality Model is mostly unconscious. I can demonstrate that if you wish.
“As such, this illusory self has neither a future nor a past ” Absolutely. It is an illusion, a mental construct that changes. We all have false memories. It is the current story and nothing else.
” is only an unconscious intellectual exercise.” You may have meant to say “conscious”? I may be confused?
“But to him, free will is a chimera.” Only because he has defined it to be that way.
I define free-will differently; with *my* conceptualization, it is real and not everyone has it in all areas of their existence. The concept of free will can only hold for the conscious portion of our existence. For the most part, you are not “free to choose” your memories, for example. My conceptualization is different. I think that it is useful.
-“Our actions are programmed …”- You might mean our inclination toward certain types of responses/actions? Maybe? It is pretty clear to me that much of this in unconscious. So what about those things that are brand new to the human experience? Reading is new, so is money. Are you saying that the decision making process is programmed? That may very well be true but I have the impression that I have modified my decision making process considerably over time. I can even describe how I have changed it and why and what the results have been.
And now the killing blow …
-“We differentiate ourselves from them by assuming that they, as opposed to us, do not have conscious selves “- THAT, under almost any modern definition of consciousness is simply false. One can, of course assume anything at all. Animals clearly construct histories and project futures. This is something that can be and has been demonstrated. If Gray’s conclusions rests on this assumption, then I totally reject the entire thing out of hand. The assumption has been demonstrated false. Other animals clearly have consciousness at least in current technical usages of the word.
Now, it is you that makes an assumption when you say, “Everything about it serves a purpose for us as a species.” This is a hugely questionable statement and it is a totally unnecessary assumption that will raise lots of eyebrows. How does it serve your argument. Your conclusion is that Gray’s thesis is not viable in your particular understanding of the world. I totally agree. I am not inclined to expend any time reading him. Your assumption, however, is one of the grand philosophical battles. We need a bottle of whisky for that one. Cheers ;-)
Great piece of writing, by the way !
Michael,
Thanks for both the kind words and the thoughtful response. You offer too much to reflect on point by point. To be honest, I just don’t have the mental energy right now. But the next time we are together we can work through it over that whiskey (or whisky, as I learned to spell it in Scotland…). But in general (and in some particulars), these are my thoughts:
First, please don’t write off Gray. It would be a real mistake. Remember that, in my post, you are not reading him, but only my impressions of him. I wrote the post, in fact, only to work through the discomfiture I feel when reading Straw Dogs. There is nothing to say I am correct in my impressions.
Next, keep in mind Gray is not discussing reality, either in the physical or existential sense. Even as I write, I’m trying to recall how often I’ve even seen the word. Not often. Nor is he addressing the physical body nor any question of what the body is. My use of the Alzheimer’s analogy was to make this very point. His purpose (as I read him anyway) is in fact to illustrate the illusory sense that, while we have physical bodies just like other animals, we convince ourselves that we are something more than them because of our abstract or self reflective cognitive ability. The most notable fallacy among our perceived differences from other animals is that we believe we can “rise above our limitations,” (my quotes), when in fact our very ability to even conceptualize such a rise (much less accomplish it), is limited by our brains innate sensory and cognitive abilities.
Gray by no means says that animals lack consciousness. In fact, he offers various examples of “conscious” behavior among animals. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but in reading my post, I suggest you missed my phrase “in the conventional view, anyway.” I believe Gray uses the descriptor “dominant” view, but it’s the same thing. That popular (however incorrect) distinction most people make in differentiating ourselves from what we call the lower animals serves Gray well. He is trying (as I read him, anyway) to make us realize that, in the end, the conscious, free-thinking, self-directing and limitlessly progressing being we think we are is an illusion. First, even the self we construct is a product of both our cognitive and physical limitations; and second, that self is fleeting and tenuous and easily annihilated.
I think that you and Gray would agree on the ubiquitous role of the unconscious in how we see both the world in general, and both our selves and our species in particular. The unconscious, plus the physical and sensory limitations of our bodies (including the brain) are a part of why he argues against free will. His point is that this “thing” we call the self or the conscious self has been shaped by, responds to, and is limited by vast parameters that we are powerless to control (and, for the most part) even conceive of.
Nor would I write off Gray because you prefer an alternative interpretation of free will (or of reality, for that matter). You and I have had that conversation many times. And I would again offer that such terms are often defined for the sake of a given discussion, and can be changed for the sake of another. Indeed, it’s about the only way such discourse can be managed, don’t you think?