The Consciometer

June 14, 2005 12:43 PM

The Consciometer - What if scientists could precisely measure when life begins and ends?
Common sense, law, medicine, and philosophy have long considered consciousness a central aspect of our moral existence as human beings. Sometime in the next decade or so, neuroscientists will likely identify the specific neural networks and activity that generate the vague but vital thing we call consciousness. An interesting read from Slate
posted by cbjg (39 comments total)

I don't think a test can help us define the word. A test might lead to redefining the word though, I guess...
posted by Chuckles at 12:52 PM on June 14, 2005

Religious conservatives want the law to define life as the existence of a single living cell containing human DNA.

Is this entirely accurate? I guess it could be, but it just seems so far out there that I didn't really think that was the standard for anybody. Aren't there plenty of living human cells on whose behalf no one would campaign?
posted by PhatLobley at 12:54 PM on June 14, 2005

As the Terri Schiavo case demonstrates, there are many people who do not equate consciousness and life
posted by TedW at 1:03 PM on June 14, 2005

Yeah, we wait until the human beings reach 15 or so years old, when they become really aware of the pain of their futile situation, and then we begin the real torture and lack of care. It's truly inhumane to kill a fetus. Letting a 50 year old starve to death. Well, that's OK.
posted by nervousfritz at 1:06 PM on June 14, 2005

PhatLobley, I think that statement was just pulled out of thin air, that he's really trying to talk about non-viable stem cells and up. Otherwise -- well, is anyone boycotting spas because of all those skin cells they're killing with that evil, heathen loofa?
posted by nflorin at 1:08 PM on June 14, 2005

PhatLobley writes "Is this entirely accurate?"

I don't think so. There are plenty of "single living cells containing human DNA"--from cheek scrapings to blood samples to non-embryonic research cell lines--that religious conservatives couldn't care less about. Reproduction seems to be the crux of their concern.

It seems a "consciometer" will have little impact on the debate. The religious argument is based not on consciousness, but on the idea of the "soul". If such a thing does exist, it's not going to be amenable to quantitative mechanized detection any time soon.

Little tangent here: I know that Catholic theology holds that a human being is imbued with a soul upon the moment of conception. How does this theory jibe with cloning by nuclear transfer? If a human clone were to be created by transferring the nucleus of an adult cell to an egg cell (and recent work performed in Korea suggests that such a thing is certainly possible), conception never takes place. Without conception, there is no opportunity for the embryo to be imbued with a soul. Or does God insert the soul into the embryo upon the first cell division? Upon insertion of the nucleus? When the molecular signal for division arrives at the cytoskeletal machinery? I'm sure that Catholic theologians are working on this exact question, and I'm really honestly curious about how they're dealing with the complexities. Any insight would be welcome.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2005

I've always believed that life begins the instant the parents open the bindle after the stork drops it off.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:26 PM on June 14, 2005

mr_roboto: whether they are up in arms about a soul or consciousness, the uber-religious build their house on the sand of the layperson's common sense. As new science changes how we view the world, the moderate, consensus view grows to embrace the new knowledge.

Someone said that western civilization consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. Within the framework of socratic inquiry, formal debate, our society adapts to and encompasses new ideas without simply discarding the old; we know that life has a beginning and an end. We also generally hold that human life has more "value" than that of the animals we eat, because of this thing called consciousness. The "soul" is an animistic theory for WHY we have consciousness and dogs and squirrels do not. Philosophically, the concept of a consciousness regulating neural network, which can be identified and measured, is much more in line with traditional western thought as traced back to the revered Greeks, than is the religious concept (soul).

What I'm trying to get at here, is that the value of human life was long ago pegged to the difference between an animal's mind and a human mind. The old theory of soul will be displaced (if only gradually) by the new.

Great article.
posted by modernerd at 1:34 PM on June 14, 2005

Oh yeah, almost forgot to snark;

And if the religious right doesn't like it they can darn well lump it. They didn't like the idea of a spherical earth and you see how that turned out. Zing!
posted by modernerd at 1:35 PM on June 14, 2005

That's what I was thinking, nflorin and mr_roboto. Physical science will not in the foreseeable future be able to settle any debates about the soul, and only when it does will the two sides be speaking in the same terms.

On preview, modernnerd, I don't think many fundamentalists are going to view a consciometer as a soulometer, so their view won't change.
posted by PhatLobley at 1:38 PM on June 14, 2005

How can you test for something you can't even define?

Arg, I get extremely annoyed at 'bad science' and bad arguments, etc, and this seems to be pretty bad. I mean, when we talk about consciousness we talk about something that people have, and, little else.

Transitory consciousness (we lose consciousness when we fall asleep, or are hit on the head) or whatever is already measurable in general and measurable in fetuses in the womb. And measurable in monkeys and dogs and fish, I think.

What's even more annoying is that this guy doesn’t mention any current scientific research that would lead one to believe that a "consciometer" is on the way, he only talks about the political implications of such a device. Wow.

Will slate pay me to write about the political implications of warp drive and time travel?

God what a bunch of garbage. I feel stupider just for having read it.
posted by delmoi at 1:41 PM on June 14, 2005

PhatLobley: I agree that the fundamentalists view won't change quickly if at all. But it will either change, even if subtly and slowly, or they will be marginalized as kooks on this issue.

Besides the fact that their view will take a sound thrashing rhetorically, the religiously-based right wing is on its way out politically over the next 30-50 years. The demographics of the US won't hold up the old-boy white male Jee-zus hallalujah party as the supreme political power forever.

Of course, I'm not a moderate (can ya tell?) so my view is skewed toward what I find comforting. Hey, whadayaknow, I have something in common with them.
posted by modernerd at 1:49 PM on June 14, 2005

Is this entirely accurate? I guess it could be, but it just seems so far out there that I didn't really think that was the standard for anybody. Aren't there plenty of living human cells on whose behalf no one would campaign?

I can vouch for the fact that both my parents and at least ~200 of their church friends really, truly believe that to kill a fertilized egg immediately after conception is to commit murder.
posted by Ryvar at 1:52 PM on June 14, 2005

Most people may welcome an end to torturous end-of-life ambiguities; religious conservatives probably won't.

Religious conservatives favor torture?

Leaving that rather strange, spurious, and unexplained assertion aside, I agree this process wouldn't make any difference at all. It would just potentially move the legally acceptable time around within the 9 month period. Conservatives will not start thinking any time during that period is a good time for an abortion.
posted by scheptech at 1:52 PM on June 14, 2005

I will say, though, that there are a wide variety of opinions present amongst the same group with regards to the stem cell debate - since those fertilized eggs were going to be tossed out to begin with. My mother, at least, seems to feel that if they're doomed either way they might as well do some good for the human race while they're at it.
posted by Ryvar at 1:54 PM on June 14, 2005

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Life Begins at 40", so I suggest we go with that.
posted by Capn at 2:09 PM on June 14, 2005

What I'm trying to get at here, is that the value of human life was long ago pegged to the difference between an animal's mind and a human mind. The old theory of soul will be displaced (if only gradually) by the new.

Perhaps such inquiries will do something to explode the artificial and frankly, chauvinistic definition that reserves recognition for only human consciousness. We've discussed before the oft-vilified Peter Singer and his theory that a chimpanzee may be more conscious, and therefore more worthy of protection than a mentally challenged human; the development of such technology could go a long way to providing a demonstrable basis for his hypothesis being true.
posted by norm at 2:53 PM on June 14, 2005

Capn, if the AARP wasn't so busy campaigning against our troops and for teh gay, you might have been able to get them behind your proposal.
posted by PhatLobley at 2:54 PM on June 14, 2005

I rather doubt the premise of the Slate article.
posted by troutfishing at 3:09 PM on June 14, 2005

I think that not just philosophers, but also many or most neurologists, would think the basic premise of this article is bunk because we still don't really know what consciousness actually is.
posted by matildaben at 3:39 PM on June 14, 2005

Can't be done. There was a magnificant episode of NOVA some years ago. Featured a girl with pre-natal hydroencephaly, whose life was save by having a metal shunt put into her neck, preventing more fluid from displacing brain tissue.

However, when she was born, the butterfly-shaped container of spinal fluid in the brain had expanded so much that she had only 1cm of (higher) brain tissue on the inside of her skull. For all intents and purposes, only the involuntary part of the brain "on down" was believed to be functional. Doctors assumed that she would die within a week or two.

When the NOVA episode was filmed, she had just graduated from high school, and her only obvious deformity was a slight limp and a slight speech impediment. Otherwise, she still had almost nothing but fluid in her head, and her entire thought processes were conducted in the 1cm of brain tissue.

We are in our infancy in neurology.
posted by kablam at 3:45 PM on June 14, 2005

Can't be done. There was a magnificant episode of NOVA some years ago. Featured a girl with pre-natal hydroencephaly, whose life was save by having a metal shunt put into her neck, preventing more fluid from displacing brain tissue.

However, when she was born, the butterfly-shaped container of spinal fluid in the brain had expanded so much that she had only 1cm of (higher) brain tissue on the inside of her skull. For all intents and purposes, only the involuntary part of the brain "on down" was believed to be functional. Doctors assumed that she would die within a week or two.

When the NOVA episode was filmed, she had just graduated from high school, and her only obvious deformity was a slight limp and a slight speech impediment. Otherwise, she still had almost nothing but fluid in her head, and her entire thought processes were conducted in the 1cm of brain tissue.

We are in our infancy in neurology.
posted by kablam at 3:45 PM on June 14, 2005

Can't be done. There was a magnificant episode of NOVA some years ago. Featured a girl with pre-natal hydroencephaly, whose life was save by having a metal shunt put into her neck, preventing more fluid from displacing brain tissue.

However, when she was born, the butterfly-shaped container of spinal fluid in the brain had expanded so much that she had only 1cm of (higher) brain tissue on the inside of her skull. For all intents and purposes, only the involuntary part of the brain "on down" was believed to be functional. Doctors assumed that she would die within a week or two.

When the NOVA episode was filmed, she had just graduated from high school, and her only obvious deformity was a slight limp and a slight speech impediment. Otherwise, she still had almost nothing but fluid in her head, and her entire thought processes were conducted in the 1cm of brain tissue.

We are in our infancy in neurology.
posted by kablam at 3:45 PM on June 14, 2005

It's still a matter of definitions. The fundies won't care about consciousness, they'll want to know when the soul develops. which of course, scientists won't be able to find.
posted by orthogonality at 3:58 PM on June 14, 2005

Can't be done. There was a magnificant episode of NOVA some years ago. Featured a girl with pre-natal hydroencephaly, whose life was save by having a metal shunt put into her neck, preventing more fluid from displacing brain tissue.

However, when she was born, the butterfly-shaped container of spinal fluid in the brain had expanded so much that she had only 1cm of (higher) brain tissue on the inside of her skull. For all intents and purposes, only the involuntary part of the brain "on down" was believed to be functional. Doctors assumed that she would die within a week or two.

When the NOVA episode was filmed, she had just graduated from high school, and her only obvious deformity was a slight limp and a slight speech impediment. Otherwise, she still had almost nothing but fluid in her head, and her entire thought processes were conducted in the 1cm of brain tissue.

We are in our infancy in neurology.
posted by kablam at 4:00 PM on June 14, 2005

While people may argue about what Consciousness is (and we may never have a universal definition of the concept), I see no reason why science cannot get us closer to understanding when consciousness-esque activity, traits, etc. begin or are present. We now understand and distinguish whole-brain vs. upper/lower brain death, isn't this a logical next step - identifying the specific activities within a section of the brain?

Think about how much biology and science changed with the invention of the microscope. As the tools become more powerful, our level of understanding became more precise. As kbalam writes, "we are in our infancy in neurology".
posted by cbjg at 4:03 PM on June 14, 2005

The Solipsist Community curiously awaits this "meter".

Seriously, consciousness is private. If you define (anthropomorphic, even rudimentarily) behaviour as indicative of consciousness, then all this meter will do is identify when the physical substrate underlying such behaviour, has developed. It won't be a consciousness meter. Arguments to the contrary, solicited.
posted by Gyan at 4:23 PM on June 14, 2005

they'll want to know when the soul develops. which of course, scientists won't be able to find.

Dumb scientists. I know where I found it.

James Brown LIVE. 1982.

BTW I can tell you precisely when consciousness ends. About two minutes into "I Want to be a Hilton".
posted by tkchrist at 4:53 PM on June 14, 2005

delmoi. norm.

Word. Thanks for being smarter than everyone else. (including the author of this poo)
posted by recurve at 5:53 PM on June 14, 2005

Cogito, ergo whatever.
posted by Haruspex at 7:13 PM on June 14, 2005

We addressed the point of consciousness...
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:29 PM on June 14, 2005

the religiously-based right wing is on its way out politically over the next 30-50 years. The demographics of the US won't hold up the old-boy white male Jee-zus hallalujah party as the supreme political power forever.

You're right, hispanic-americans are one of the largest and fastest-growing portions of the US population. And they just happen to be even more religious and more Catholic (although other Christian sects are growing fast) than the average American. I wouldn't hold out your hope on "non-whites" being the key to change.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:57 PM on June 14, 2005

Gyan: arguments to the contrary solicited? Alright, here's a reductio against your position. If consciousness really is private, then no one has ever written or could ever write a thing about consciousness, because language is public. This means that it's impossible to make any sort of claim about a private consciousness, including the claim that it's private. So your claim is meaningless.

I think there are more neurologists out there who are sympathetic to the idea of a consciometer than many of you let on. Francis Crick, Semir Zeki, and Christof Koch are all top-notch scientists who are exploring the possibility of a neural correlate of consciousness. I find the enterprise totally misguided: searching for a neural correlate of consciousness is like searching for an elan vital shared by all things that are alive. I highly doubt that consciousness is an on-off binary sort of property. Hardly anything in nature works that way.
posted by painquale at 12:58 AM on June 15, 2005

painquale : "If consciousness really is private, then no one has ever written or could ever write a thing about consciousness, because language is public."

Eh? Doesn't parse. Elaborate.
posted by Gyan at 1:16 AM on June 15, 2005

Okay. It's really just a spin-off of Wittgenstein's argument against private languages. In making a claim that consciousness is private, you make an assertion and rely on an assumption:

(1) Consciousness is private
(2) Claims can be made about consciousness (namely, that it's private)

These are inconsistent, because once a claim is made about something, it becomes public. There has never been anything written about someone's private consciousness (your comment included), because by definition, there couldn't be.

If consciousness is private, then it can have no effects on the world. Imagine I have a complete map of the material world. I can tell a perfectly good physical story about why you come to say that you have consciousness, why you typed your comment, and why you come to use the concepts that you do. What's missing? It can't be anything you can express in words, because that would be part of public discourse and I could tell a physical story about it. Whenever anyone uses the word "consciousness," they're not referring to an internal private state (they can't be!); they're referring to something that is public. And so there could be a consciousness meter. (I think it's not forthcoming for other reasons.)
posted by painquale at 3:14 AM on June 15, 2005

These are inconsistent, because once a claim is made about something, it becomes public.

How so? Only the claim is public, not the phenomena it refers to. Also, you're treating consciousness the same as objects of consciousness i.e. the physical world. The fact remains that I can't observe another's consciousness, if it exists.

If consciousness is private, then it can have no effects on the world.

Unless idealism is invoked, it doesn't. Consciousness would be epiphenomenal if physical emergence is valid.
posted by Gyan at 3:40 AM on June 15, 2005

Interesting article - thank you!
posted by agregoli at 7:28 AM on June 15, 2005

Just as a science fiction plug. The book Evolution's Darling has device that tests the sentience or consciosness of human beings. One of the "human" characters turns out to be a philosophic zombie, a person programmed to go through the motions of sentience.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:39 AM on June 15, 2005

Philosophical zombies!
posted by jenovus at 4:00 PM on June 15, 2005