Week 6 - Assigned Reading - An Integral Theory of Consciousness

An Integral Theory of Consciousness, by Ken Wilber, is a nice introduction and summation of most, if not all, of the theories and research avenues on consciousness The author begins by pointing out that each of these has something to offer to the study of consciousness This is a good example of the only way to truly study any subject, which is to study it from every possible angle. If you don't study something completely, it's unlikely you will ever understand it. Even if some of the “theories” seem rather preposterous, it is irresponsible to ignore them as they may hold some small nuggets of insight.

I found Wilber's 'four quadrants' of existence to be a rather impressive summation of the many different aspects of life and the universe. It touched upon everything, and when you don't really know where to begin searching for something, as in the case of consciousness, the best place to start would be existence as a whole. This combination of sociological, psychological, and evolutionary concepts is surprisingly congruous, with each area supporting the others. I found the cultural are to be the most interesting, myself, but each holds its own appeal. The general complexity of the structure also suggests that it would be improbable to make any great discovery short of studying the whole system. This highly complex structure, however, is shown to have grown from relatively simple roots; I find that very interesting.

The notion that there could be states of psychological being beyond what we currently posses is interesting. Evolution certainly suggests that life will continue to change and adapt. Wilber's belief that evolution wouldn't come to a halt when it produced our present stage of life is seemingly valid, but it leads me to wonder if he is correct. The same way that it is believed that our development of a “higher” consciousness has removed almost any possibility for another species on our planet to do the same, I wonder if we have hobbled ourselves in a similar way. By being aware of “who” and “what” we are, it might be possible that we have become stuck in our present existence simply by being so completely attached to it. That's just food for thought.

I find Wilber's discontent with empirical science and its study of consciousness somewhat confusing, however. He seems to be criticizing its approach based upon the assumption that subjective experience and cultural meaning can't be analyzed in any sort of empiricist form, but only through our own subjective, “conscious” states. More than anything, he seems to be arguing semantics as the disciplines of psychology and sociology (as well any of the other social sciences) use logic and reason as much as any of the natural sciences. Just because there isn't a number attached to them doesn't mean they are fundamentally different from empiricist science. Now, to say that you can't apply a reductionist approach to the social sciences, which is why empirical scientists will never understand consciousness, is slightly defamatory. Francis Crick may not have understood the necessity of subjective experience, but that does not mean that his understanding of the grand, evolutionary simplicity of the brain, and in effect consciousness, any less important or meaningful. I now find myself arguing semantics, even though I technically agree with Wilber's argument. I just find his viewpoint on empirical science to suggest a double-standard, as he does not point out that social science would seemingly fail in nearly the same regard, or at least be just as incomplete, were their situations reversed.