Consciousness

                                         Consciousness

Consciousness

I was engulfed by a sense of sadness when I woke up this morning. I have been feeling lonely for quite a few days. I went for a morning walk. It was a beautiful day, with a clear sky and bright sunshine. The fall season had started, and the trees bloomed with myriads of color. Kids were playing in the nearby park and making merry. The cool breeze soothened me. A small leaf fell from the tree and landed on my palms. The leaf presented itself to me with its utmost vividness. Suddenly, I had this strange realization - How blessed am I to be born a human?

As you see, within an hour in the morning, I had gone through various subjective experiences of sadness, happiness, and a 'self' realization. This is possible for humans and, in a primitive way, for animals and plants because we have what is called 'consciousness.' Consciousness has always remained a mystery to scientific and rational thinkers. While consciousness has been deeply explored in Eastern philosophy and to some extent as a soul phenomenon in Christianity, Science has always avoided the topics of subjective experiences and consciousness. But in recent years, significant advances in the neurology and biological fields have helped us get some insight into 'consciousness.'

Before getting into the various theories of consciousness, Let us go through some essential questions surrounding consciousness.

Does consciousness have a physical reality? In other words, does it originate due to neurochemical activities of the brain or independently of it?

Our brain is a parallel processing engine; each independently functions and, when needed, interacts with the other regions. But still, we have only one consciousness. How can we explain this? What causes the unity of consciousness?

Our consciousness flows like a continuous stream in time. What causes this?

Does consciousness drive our actions, or is consciousness just a passive spectator?

Consciousness is an extra ingredient to our perceptible experiences like feelings, thoughts, etc., or inseparable from it. In other words, if we remove consciousness from our system, will our functioning be precisely the same as with consciousness?

Even if it is assumed that the brain and the neurochemical changes in the brain are the causes of consciousness, why is consciousness not conscious of this very brain and neurochemical activity?

What is the exact location of consciousness? Is it in some part of the brain, or is it encompassed within the entire body?

Don't worry if these questions overwhelm you. These are the very questions that have troubled thinkers for several thousand years, who yet are unable to find satisfactory answers. However, it would still be interesting to probe into 'consciousness.' The goal of human knowledge is not the definitive answers but to explore and feed our curiosity about this beautiful universe we live in. Our small steps may be the foundation we build for the next-generation thinkers. And we sincerely hope they can complete the sentence that we left incomplete.

Let us start our journey exploring this mystery called consciousness.

Dualism

From a biological perspective, there are two forms of consciousness: "Phenomenal" and "Access" consciousness. Phenomenal consciousness is the subjective experience of mental states. A phenomenally conscious state is the state of mind where there is something "it is like" to be in that state.

"Access" consciousness encompasses cognitive aspects such as language, voluntary control, attention, and reportability, which build upon and utilize the subjective contents of consciousness to direct behavior. 

In the 17th century, French philosopher Rene Descartes proposed the theory of dualism. According to this theory, our world can be divided into physical and non-physical mental worlds. The body with the brain occupies space and is part of the physical world. The mind or the consciousness is non-physical. But how do they both interact? Descartes suggested it happens at the pineal gland in our brain. This is still disputed.

Contrary to Dualists, Materialists suggest that the matter is the only reality. So, the thoughts and consciousness could only have a physical cause, i.e., the brain. The entire Western science, and in particular Newtonian physics, is based on materialism. There is no place for the observer's mind in the whole picture. But still, materialists could not account for our subjective experiences. 

Another school of thought, monism or non-duality, states that our conscious experience is the only reality. For example, Color perception is a deliberate, not a physical reality. Our eyes are perceptive to color only for radiations within a specific wavelength range. Radiations that cover ultraviolet and beyond are invisible and not perceived as colors. Color perception is made possible only due to our sensory organs. It has no physical reality and is just a biological visual manifestation of radiation. So, the universe before consciousness evolution should have been colorless. Similarly, sound, taste, hot, and cold are only human perceptions and have no physical presence.

'Consciousness' as an idea not only intrigued Western thinkers. There are versions of consciousness discussed in Hinduism and other Eastern philosophies. Indian Advaitha philosophical school of thought emphasizes that the body is mortal, but the soul or Atman is eternal and immortal. This 'Atman' could be interpreted as the Eastern version of consciousness. Atman is even beyond consciousness. It permeates the entire universe and is not limited to a single biological organism. Even in Western science, after the advent of quantum physics, scientists like Schrodinger, Oppenheimer, and David Baum showed tremendous interest in Advaitha. 

Now, the building block of the human body is the cell, which has a primitive consciousness. This implies that, being a multicellular organism, we should have multitudes of consciousness. But we don't feel like we have multiple consciousnesses. We only experience a single consciousness, leading to the theory of unity of consciousness. It is not possible to limit consciousness to just the brain.

Advaita tries to explain the unity of consciousness. The Atman is a unified single entity that encompasses all human beings and includes God as well. Unlike other philosophical ideas of souls, it does not argue for multiple individual Atmans (of each human) and a Paramatman (of supreme soul). 

Schrodinger gives a scientific analogy to explain this. We know even single cellular organisms have a primitive consciousness. Similarly, it can be argued that each cell in the human body has a consciousness. Our human body has billions of cells, and these billion cells do not count to billions of consciousness. The human being experiences only a unified single consciousness.

In the same way, multiple human beings also share the same consciousness. Hence, no supreme soul or Paramatman exists but one unified Atman that encompasses all living beings, God, and the entire universe. Therefore, Atman does not have a physical origin or a particular location within a human brain or organ. But is universal, limitless, and is omnipresent. Advaita even gives counterintuitive statements like the body is contained within the mind and not vice versa.

But how can all the above theories account for physical reality, bodies occupying space? We know when we hit a wall, we feel pain. So there is pain, a conscious reality. But there is also a wall, a physical object. So, the physical reality and the world we live in cannot be completely ruled out.

Brain and consciousness:-

One interesting question is, what is the exact location of consciousness? Is it possible to pinpoint the precise location of consciousness? Can we say consciousness originated in a particular brain location? Eastern philosophies and Dualists have entirely ruled out 'physicality' or the brain as the source of consciousness. Materialists have wholly ignored the subject and his non-physical experiences. Both arguments are mere speculations, ideas that the proponent's imagination concocted.  

So, if both sides are wrong, is it possible to find the answer? With recent scientific advances and the use of EEG, it is possible to pinpoint locations in which brain sections get activated during our subjective experiences. Hence, now, we cannot rule out the brain from our discussions regarding consciousness. 

Through EEG, it has been observed that when we experience pain, there is an increased neurochemical activity in specific brain sections. The more the brain, the more the neurochemical activity is seen in that location. This phenomenon is called the neural correlate of consciousness (NCC). 

However, the neural correlate of consciousness does not imply that the neurochemical activity of the brain or the physical activity of the pain causes the consciousness. Nor does it mean that our consciousness is the cause of the neurochemical activity seen in the brain.

Interestingly, studies of patients' behavior when part of their brain is damaged give some valuable insight into consciousness.

For example, patients whose one side of the brain is complexly affected lose the other half of their visual world. Our left brain controls the right side of the visual perception and vice versa. Patients with damaged left side of the brain have only the right side of their visual world. For them, the left side does not exist. It is not that they cannot just see the right side, but they do not realize there is a right side. This proves that the brain is essential for our conscious or mental reality of the world.

Another interesting brain-related defect is Agnosia. Patients with this defect cannot recognize forms and shapes. When asked to post a letter to a slot, a patient could do it. But when asked to draw the shape of the slot, she was unable. Without a conscious recognition of the shape, she could still know where precisely the letter needed to be posted inside the slot. From studying this case, the patient could see the slot but did not have the conscious experience of seeing. But this understanding needs to be corrected.

When seeing an object, one stream goes to the brain that does the visual motor control. This was working perfectly fine for the patient, and she posted correctly. Another stream goes to the part of the brain related to recognizing objects' shapes, which is damaged for the patient. Hence her inability to recognize the shapes of the objects.

Another critical point is that the visual control part of the brain is faster than the visual perception consciousness side of the brain. This explains why a cricket or baseball player can time the ball before he can even see it.

Blindsight is a defect whereby the cells of the patient's brain (location V1) that visually represent the world are damaged. The patient looks ahead, but there is a small area before him that he cannot see. Such patients claim they cannot see that area, but when asked to guess, they were right 90% of the time. This is because visual information reaches our brains in ten different neural pathways. So, even if the path to V1 is affected, there are other pathways through which the same information reaches the brain.

Based on all these experiments, consciousness is not independent of our brain. It can even be cautiously stated that the brain manufactures our conscious experiences. The physical and mental worlds are not separated but interconnected. Hence, duality stands refuted.

Consciousness & Time:-

The human mind also does not perceive the change in the environment to the minutest time unit. Our mind always perceives a change in discrete time intervals. Whatever happens in between this time interval is blocked out by our consciousness.

Libet was a famous scientist whose experiment related to consciousness has sparked controversies and been widely debated. His experiment proves that our consciousness of a real-life event needs to catch up to our response to those events by half a second. It takes half a second of continuous neuronal activity to produce consciousness. This is called neuronal adequacy of consciousness. The motor neurons, on the other hand, reach the brain within a few milliseconds. We do not notice the delay because the events are referred back to time once neuronal adequacy is reached. What we observe at a moment has always happened in the past. Because there is always a lag between when we act on something and when we actually realize the same thing, this proves that it is not consciousness that drives our actions, but consciousness is just a passive observer. 

Sometimes, we are unconscious of our actions yet complete them to perfection. We should be more attentive to what we do all the time. For example, when we are used to driving on a particular path, sometimes we need to pay attention to the road details and our driving actions. In our daydreaming state, we stop at signals, make lane changes, and accelerate our vehicle speed. While doing all these actions, our consciousness is filled with daydreaming and not really on our driving.

Attention is the allocation of neural resources to a particular action. When I focus on daydreaming, more resources are allocated to trance, not driving.

Let us now look into the various theories that explain the link consciousness has with visual perception.

Theatre of the Mind theory states that the mind is like a theatre inside the brain. This mind theater is filled with senses related to visual, auditory, taste, touch, emotions, and thoughts. In this theatre of mind, consciousness flows like a stream, with auditory and visual perceptions flowing one after the other, similar to the flow of imagery in the actual theatre.  

Global Workspace Theory is another version of the theatre of the Mind theory. Thoughts are conscious only if processed within the workspace of the brain. Going back to the inattentive driving example, when inattentive, our driving and sensations related to road conditions move to the fringe in the mind workspace, and the images of our daydreaming take center stage.

Multiple Drafts theory states that the mind is neither a theatre nor images move in and out of it. Our brain processes parallel descriptions of the universe and is filled with multiple imageries and other sensory perceptions. When our system is probed in a certain way, we become conscious of only those sensations related to the question to find the answer. But until then, we are not conscious of it. 

When we look at an object, we do not see the image with all its finer visual details. There are gaps in our visual perception. Some scientists theorize that our brain fills these gaps so that we perceive a smooth visual representation. Other scientists argue that what we see is not a detailed picture of our world but rather a guess or hypothesis. When probed, we look further for information and perceive a detailed picture of our surroundings. This is called the 'Filling in the Gaps' theory.

The Grand Illusion theory portrays the visual world as a grand illusion. Neither the movie nor its vivid pictures exist in the brain. They are both part of an illusion. Seeing is not a matter of passively receiving information but as an activity. We 'enact our worlds' by purposefully and selectively interacting with them. You see only those visual aspects of the world you are actively manipulating. Those parts of the world you are not working; you don't see them and are not conscious of them.

Self:- Does our subjective experiences have an experiencer? Is there an 'I' or 'Me' watching myself and the external world? Is this 'me' just the brain, body, or someone who owns them? If there is such a 'me,' then that entity is called a 'self.' The self lives your life story and is the owner of the movie in the brain.

There are many conflicting opinions related to self. Ramachandran calls it the 'greatest scientific and philosophical riddle of all. The 'Ego' theory states that 'self' exists. Bundle theory claims there is no experiencer but just a bundle of sensations. 'Gautama Buddha' was referred to as the first bundle theorist. He rejected Vedanta's idea of 'Atman' or the inner self. He preached that the self does not exist. Suffering happens due to clinging to the false notion of self-caused by desire. Everything is dependent upon prior causes, and nothing arises independently. 'Actions exist' and the consequences, but the actor does not.

Splitting brains:- How it feels like to have the two halves of a brain split. Does there exist two 'selves'? In the 1960s, to cure epilepsy for a patient, the corpus callous that connects the two hemispheres was removed. So the traffic between the left and the right hemispheres stops. Such patients recovered and still lived an everyday life. However, Michael Gazzaniga performed some experiments on those patients that revealed interesting facts. 

Generally, information from the right ear goes to the brain's right hemisphere and left to the left hemisphere. However, for visual information, the right side is processed by the left, and the right hemisphere processes the left. For the patients who were subjected to the experiment, if a picture was flashed on the right side, they would identify the shape. But when the image is shown on the left, they can see but not describe. This is because speech is restricted to the left side, and the right side can only see but not describe, as the connection between the left and right halves was severed. The two halves behave as two independent entities. Does this make them two separate conscious people? Is there a second conscious self trapped inside the split-brain and unable to communicate? Psychologist Sperry thinks so. But Gazzaniga argues only the left half uses language and organized beliefs and ascribes action and intentions to people. Only this hemisphere has a 'high level' consciousness. There is no way to find out which one is correct.

Another interesting fact to explore is that patients with dissociative identity disorder exhibited two conflicting personalities in the same body. Psychiatrists thought one brain can sustain many conflicting selves alternately or simultaneously. But it does not seem convincing.

Scientists are still unable to find an answer to the above questions. Many psychologists blend science with their practice of meditation and introspection to conclude that the conventional self is an illusion. Neuroscientist Sam Harris claims there isn't a place for a soul inside your head'. 

So we have a difficult choice whether to believe in 'self' or not. We can hang on to our precious selves and believe in soul or spirit. Alternatively, live with the knowledge that the self is an illusion. We hope future developments in neuroscience answer this.

Body and Near Death Experiences:- Out-of-body experiences are when the person seems to leave their body and perceive the world from a different location outside it. Some people believe their spirit or the soul has left the body, and hence, the soul is immortal and can survive even physical death. 

About 15 - 20% of the population claims to have an OBE, and it is highly prevalent among creative people and those with tendencies for hallucinations. OBE was considered to be beyond the reach of psychology. But in 2002, Swiss neurosurgeon Olaf Blanke was operating on a patient. He stimulated her right temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and provoked an OBE. TPJ is involved in constructing our body schema and location in space. When this area is stimulated, it creates an OBE experience. 

When people come close to death, they report strange experiences. This involves - their self leaving the body, going down a dark tunnel towards a bright golden light, and watching events from above. Glimpsing another world and then reaching a barrier, suddenly deciding to return to the body and then stay. 

Among people who have a cardiac arrest, nearly 10-12% report NDE. After such experiences, people are often changed, claiming to be less selfish or materialistic and less afraid of death.

Descriptions of NDE led to widespread claims about the existence of soul, heaven, and life after death. However, neuroscience is gradually discovering how these can be explained regarding the excessive firing of some brain areas. This can be caused by stress, lack of oxygen, or the brain's endorphins inducing positive emotions.

Profound experiences can be felt even in the midst of ordinary life. They can be 'religious experiences' or 'mystical experiences'. These can happen during meditation or sometimes induced by drugs. These experiences are said to be indescribable. But they convey an extraordinary understanding of the universe. People with such experiences lose the idea of a separate self and feel a sense of merging with the universe in oneness.

Evolution of Consciousness:-

How does consciousness appear in the history of evolution? Are humans the only sentient beings on Earth? Which animals are conscious, and when did consciousness appear in the account of life on Earth? These questions form the basis for the study of the evolution of consciousness.

The challenges of studying animal consciousness lie in the fact that self-report methods used in human consciousness studies are not feasible. Moreover, it must be verified that the indicators of consciousness observed in an organism are not reflexive responses. 

Scientists now believe that the underlying neural structures of consciousness are not exclusive to humans. Consciousness appeared in the evolutionary timeline among many animals. The neocortex is not the only structure that creates consciousness. Other than humans, many animals, including all mammals, birds, and even octopuses, can experience consciousness. 

There are several theories regarding the evolution of consciousness. The Cellular basis of Consciousness theory proposed by Reber (2018) argues that the development of subjective experience does not depend on any neural system or brain. Instead, Reber argues that consciousness is available at the cellular level of biological organisms. Another theory, the "Neurobiological Naturalism" put forth by Feinberg and Mallatt, suggests that early vertebrates acquired visual consciousness, subsequently inherited by a diverse range of descendants. Lastly, Ginsburg and Jablonka (2019) propose that the emergence of subjective experience can be attributed to the evolution of learning, particularly an open-ended form of education called "Unlimited Associative Learning" (UAL). According to them, UAL represents a transitional marker for minimal consciousness. 

The "Cellular Basis of Consciousness" (CBC) 

The "Cellular Basis of Consciousness" (CBC) theory is a reductionist approach that attempts to understand consciousness based on cellular functions. In this model, sentience refers to an essential awareness of events and internal states, an essential component of all life forms. A bacterium does not just sense a gradient of sugar molecules in the surround; it perceives its positive valence and actively moves toward the higher concentration".

If unicellular organisms were simply robotic and hardwired, they would not be adaptable enough to survive in their constantly changing environment. The CBC theory proposes that unconscious microorganisms would not be capable of overcoming extreme conditions such as cold, heat, deprivation, acidity, salt, and competition with other species if they were solely dependent on genetic factors embedded in their DNA 

Cellular features such as intra and inter-cellular communication, molecular signaling, and information processing could be the basis for primitive consciousness. For instance, the plasma membrane provides information from the environment and interacts with other organisms and chemical/physical signals within the environment via numerous sensors (e.g., ion channels and receptors). These phenomena are potentially the basis of consciousness in sentient organisms. 

How could individual cellular consciousness give rise to the consciousness of multicellular organisms? The CBC suggests a single cellular sensation within a colony can be transformed to form a unitary experience in the settlement rather than isolated reactions from each cell. 

The "Neurobiological Naturalism" 

Feinberg and Mallatt propose a theory of consciousness's origin called "Neurobiological Naturalism." They suggest that primary consciousness, also known as sensory consciousness, evolved in the earliest vertebrates, cephalopods, and arthropods through separate evolutionary paths. 

According to this model, special neurobiological features (SNFs) are necessary for consciousness to exist, and these features are used to determine whether organisms possess consciousness. This allows organisms to build a mental model of the world by integrating information from various sense modalities, such as visual, tactile, and auditory perceptions. This feature is crucial for consciousness, enabling organisms to form a coherent and integrated representation of the external world and the self.

Unlimited Associative Learning (UAL) 

Unlimited associative learning (UAL) emphasizes that an entity with UAL capacity can continually learn about the world and itself. This means that the potential number of associations between stimuli and the possible reinforced behaviors is unlimited. UAL allows open-ended ontogenetic adjustments, and accumulating learning can lead to complex behaviors. The presence of UAL in an organism is a critical condition to consider it to have consciousness. 

UAL is present in most vertebrates, some cephalopod molluscs (specifically, the coleoid cephalopods: octopods, squid, and cuttlefish), and some arthropods (such as honey bees and fruit flies). 

The UAL model is based on features not necessarily grounded in experimental evidence but on consensus among scholars and philosophers. This rules out other features of minimal consciousness that are not included in the UAL framework. The UAL model does not address whether all animals who show evidence of UAL are equally conscious or how the subjective experience in one animal species compares to that in another. Is the subjective experience in an octopus the same as in an elephant? 

More importantly, the UAL model raises questions about the nature of subjective experience. Suppose UAL is an absolute marker of phenomenal consciousness as a biological phenomenon. In that case, it raises the question of whether computers that might acquire the ability of unlimited associative learning possess consciousness and how the UAL model addresses this issue. 

Learning and Consciousness:-

UAL Learning has raised whether the ability to learn is a primary criterion to consider as sentient beings. Looking at this from a different perspective, Is learning only enabled by being in a conscious state? Let us try to find an answer to this with an example. 

While driving a car, as long as the external conditions are usual, the driving process is sub-conscious and deterministic. Even our biological actions, like breathing and digestion, are subconscious as long as they are normal. We are conscious of it only when our internal processes become abnormal. Deterministic actions are pre-learned either through evolution or by past learning. A repetitive event does not require any new learning.

We may also be confronted with a new situation for which the individual has to decide. The individual has to choose for which he has to apply reason. The individual must apply rational thinking, learn about the new situation, and choose several alternatives. When choosing among multiple options, free will plays a role. For example, if there is a sudden traffic warning, the driver becomes conscious, and free will has to be applied as to how to react - take a different route, drive slowly, etc. Our actions become conscious under these conditions.

In short, deterministic actions are static, pre-learned (by evolution or past practice), and sub-conscious. Free will actions are rational, require learning, and are conscious actions.

Consciousness is only present when there is no repetition of prior situations, and learning has to be applied to confront a new situation. In short, free-will actions are generally conscious actions.

Biological and genetic conditions influence the way a person learns. Different people make different interpretations and derive different lessons from their experiences. Also, a person could not learn anything from prior experiences and make the same stupid decisions all the time. Hence, learning is influenced by his genetic and biological conditions.

However, this theory cannot explain other phenomena. We cannot simply say that consciousness is the only thinking required to apply learning or creative thought. Sometimes, a scientist may spend hours solving a problem without success. A writer may need help to move forward on his plot. His conscious problem-solving skills and creative thinking are not helping in such instances. But a spark suddenly appears when the scientist or writer gives up and starts focusing on something. The unconscious mind has worked on the problem and presented a solution. It cannot be definitively said that only conscious thinking is required for creativity and problem-solving.

Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness:-

Can machines think? Until two decades ago, robots could not do simple human tasks like walking, image, and speech recognition. Computers were considered better than humans in specialized tasks like chess and solving scientific problems involving massive calculations. Natural evolution has endowed human beings with some valuable gifts. Things that come quickly to human beings, like navigating through a crowded street, quick visual perception, and common sense understanding of language, were beyond the realm of Robotics.

With the arrival of Artificial Intelligence principles like Machine Learning and Neural Networks, human-like thinking machines seem like a real possibility. The phenomenal increase also aided this in computing power. 

Neural Networks, Convolutional Neural Networks, and Reinforcement Learning are AI concepts modeled after the human brain. A simple back propagation neural network called Perceptron is a mathematical model of a biological neuron. Electrical signals must exceed a certain threshold amount for the synapse to fire at the junction between the dendrite and axons. The Perceptron is modeled in a similar way. The input, a signal in a neuron, is modeled as numbers. The varying strength of signals is achieved by multiplying the input number by weight. When the weighted sum of inputs exceeds the threshold, it is treated as positive output.

Convolutional neural networks (CNN) are another technology extensively used in image recognition. This network can be fed a series of images, classifying if the image is a dog or a cat. This is modeled after the visual cortex pathway. Like the visual cortex, the CNN uses multiple layers for visual perception. Like the visual cortex, the earlier layers deal with simple visual abstractions, and the deeper layers focus on complex abstractions.

Another idea used in CNN is pooling. Pooling is a mathematical principle that results in an ideal approximation of a set of values. For example, an input to CNN can be represented by 16 16-value matrix. This can be approximated to 4 a value matrix by applying pooling on the input data. This way, small fluctuations in pixel images do not create massive variance in CNN processing. A similar idea is also used by visual cells. The simple visual cells are responsive to even more minor fluctuations in spatial locations. The complex cells, present in the layers at the later stages of visual perception, pool the response from simple cells by approximation and, hence, are invariant to smaller fluctuations in visual input.

Reinforcement Learning is another interesting AI idea modeled after human learning and extensively used in Video Games and Driverless cars. As kids learn by reward system leading to positive or negative reinforcement of what is learned, a reward function is used in Reinforcement Algorithms. 

It is interesting to note that it is not just machines that are modeled after the human brain. The other way is also proving to be true. In cognitive studies, training the AI models can deduce what neural structures can lead to optimal brain performance. Valuable insights about efficient neural structures of the brain have been deduced by tweaking the machine learning algorithms to derive the best and most accurate performance.

In the previous sections, we discussed how the 'ability to continuous learning' can be considered as a criterion for consciousness. So, are thinking machines 'Conscious' by applying the same principle? This is an exciting science question and something with deep moral and Philosophical connotations, too. If thinking machines are conscious, they should have the same rights as humans. Because these machines learn, they cannot be treated as conscious. After all, these machines are just passive learners, or they know what they learn.

Also, human beings have the desire and drive to act. The machines, till now, are just passive executors of human command. They don't have their own will or desire to act. So then, can the argument be made that learning alone is not the only criteria for consciousness, but the will or desire to perform an act should also be considered?

Consciousness and Free Will:- Science can reveal which neurons fire, which part of the brain is responsible for an action, and how actions are enabled by neural transmission of signals. It still does not feel that decision-making is as simple as neuron firing but rather a conscious self inside me making those decisions. This is a classic example of free will, i.e., we ourselves are responsible for our actions and not our genetic makeup or brain neural activity.  

Consciousness gives an extra dimension to this debate of free will versus determinism. As a highly evolved species, we are endowed with consciousness or conscious self that plays a vital role in decision-making. Hence, we are responsible for our actions simply due to these advanced decision-making abilities. They think that it is consciousness that makes decision-making and free will possible. Otherwise, it would be a simple deterministic universe.

So, is it free will or consciousness that enables decision-making? Wegner suggests that there are three prerequisites for free will-enabling actions. Thought must be before the action. Thought must be consistent with the action. Other causes must not accompany the action. He conducted an experiment using the Ouija board. Two players had to move their mouse over a board. They heard words in the microphone and had to move the mouse over the board until they heard the word stop. The stop was manipulated by the gamekeeper when the stop was announced. The players were deluded; it was they who stopped when, in fact, it was by someone else. 

So, just like the illusion of consciousness, there is also the illusion of free will.  

Can justice and upholding moral values still be relevant in a deterministic world where there is no place for free will? Should criminals not be punished for their actions when it is not 'they' who did the crime, but their genetic, neural, and external conditions that factored in it? There is still scope for detaining criminals just to deter them or others from future crimes. Criminals could be treated with kindness and empathy. This could lead to a fair justice system.

If there is no place for free will, is there a need for us to act? Ending your life doing nothing is not enjoyable. Studies show people with traditional belief systems on free will had higher life satisfaction. Others who do not believe in free will made a compromise and lived as though free will existed. But few little learned to live wholly and satisfactorily with the idea that free will does not exist.