Exploring Consciousness (review)

Rita Carter's Exploring Consciousness complements her 1988 book Mapping the Mind. In this second book Carter, a science writer, successfully turns her investigations from the mind and brain to the somewhat more philosophical domain of consciousness studies. Linking the two books is the delectable layout and design of Weidenfeld and Nicolson. These visuals enhance the text and immediately draw the reader to the book. One example is the graphic depicting John Searle's famous Chinese Room. So many have critiqued Searle's argument that it frequently seems there is little to add to the ongoing debates. Although the visual doesn't present new insights, it is so delightful that it seems something has nonetheless been added to the discussion.

Turning to the text, one finds a representative group of ideas and contributions from key players in the field such as O'Regan, Chalmers, Dennett and Blackmore (among others). Effectively integrating the spectrum of views, the book successfully conveys that particular theories are firmly established in consciousness studies, and that there is also much disagreement among theorists. The book benefits from the way Carter allows the many points of view to speak for themselves as they are used to structure the book's presentation and scope. This does not translate into a linear textbook, but is rather a mechanism that allows her to convey that the field is not easily defined. As a result, the discussion is woven around a number of trajectories and she never links them together in an easily characterized form. This is not to say the writing is confused or amorphous. To the contrary, it is because so many points of view are clearly stated that the book succeeds in mirroring the interdisciplinary framework that defines (or fails to define) consciousness studies. Overall the book's format might be characterized as a mirror of consciousness if one adopts a first-person perspective. If a third-person point of view is preferred, the idea of a mirror of consciousness research is the more appropriate characterization.

The format is perhaps best conveyed by an example of how the book works. My favorite section, a part of the "Hard Problem" chapter, demonstrates how the author balances points of view. Inserted in this chapter's general description of the "hard problem" are discussions of this "problem" by David Chalmers and Daniel Dennett. Placed face-to-face, the two views are, in effect, given equal weight. Chalmers, of course, has championed the idea that we can never explain what he has termed "the hard problem of consciousness." This, according to Chalmers, is the problem of experience and how physical processing gives rise to a rich inner life. He writes: "It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does" (p. 50). Dennett, on the other hand, writes: "Chalmers' attempt to sort the 'easy' problems of consciousness from the really 'hard problem' is not, I think, a useful contribution to research, but a major misdirection of attention, an illusion-generator" (p. 51). Similarly, Stuart Hameroff and Alywn Scott debate their views on quantum theories of mind. In Exploring Consciousness, as in consciousness studies overall, art is never adequately positioned. Like the prevailing two-culture (science and the humanities) paradigm of this field overall, this book relegates art to a secondary position. As is often is the case when the two-culture model is adopted, art is utilized to explain many key points but rarely discussed on its own terms. Even on the periphery, the inserted work is effective and compelling. Common perceptual illusions and the well-known drawings of autistics (e.g. Nadia) are in evidence. In addition, a number of less widely circulated visuals offer explanations of scientific research. For example, Bridget Riley's Cataract 3 (1967) adds a visual element to Carter's explanation of how V5 firing gives the illusion of movement. Mark Tansey's The Innocent Eye Test (1981) comments on the idea that we use interpretive mechanisms...