My Conclusion
Consciousness is problematic. It is ambiguous, and it is fluid. It is something that we all think we understand, but when we begin to look at it closer, it loses focus. It becomes an amorphic blob of loose definitions and characteristics. It is something that no one person can fully grasp, and with the scientific tools available to us now, trying to pinpoint exactly what consciousness is is like trying to nail jello to a wall. If I have learned anything from this project, it is that the investigation of consciousness transcends fields and is something that will likely require a a combination of science, philosophy and more in order to comprehend it fully.
​
It is clear that consciousness cannot be localized to one part of a persons brain, at least given our current technology. It is also clear that until we have the technology to grasp more fully the differentiations between the human brain and the brains of other species, there is no way to decipher where on an evolutionary timescale the development of modern consciousness began. Personally, I subscribe to a belief that consciousness is entirely spectral, existing at all levels throughout evolution. To think humans are special in any way, or that evolution somehow specifically decided our lineage should exclusively have access to this higher level thinking, is to go against everything we know about nature. Nature does not produce individual traits that it deems fit for individual species. Nature acts upon innumerable random mutations to produce generations more 'fit' than the last. I believe consciousness is the result of many 'accidents' along the path of evolution that proved useful to the species in which they occurred. To believe we are somehow special or above the laws of nature is a tenet to an entirely anthropocentric view of the world, a view that I cannot condone.
Consciousness is something we certainly cannot understand now, and it is something we may never hope to understand. But this is okay. The search for an understanding of consciousness has contributed to so many other helpful insights as a byproduct. Scientists who have studied consciousness have discovered an incredible amount about the inner-workings of the brain. Philosophers who have contemplated consciousness, such as David Chalmers and Renes Descartes, have as well created branches of philosophical thought charged with this topic that have developed and contributed to popular views of consciousness presently. Can we understand consciousness completely right now? No. But we have discovered so much along the way. In this way, the study of consciousness is similar to the study of quantum physics. We may never be able to visualize multiple dimensions in physics, however the strive to do just that results in the discovery of new theorems and laws to help understand the universe that we can visualize. Similarly, we investigate space not because we think it is possible for us to fully comprehend it's vastness, but because we want to understand as much as we possibly can. Consciousness may be out of our grasp, but many of it's components and properties are not. If we continue to investigate the root of consciousness, we will continue to learn about ourselves and our universe.
​
As for my definition, through the course of this project I have come to the conclusion that until we learn more, it is impossible to define consciousness as one singular entity. Instead, it is a confederation of many understandings between many fields. There is no way for us to disprove one understanding of consciousness in favor of another, therefore it must assume many forms. Consciousness for the purpose of neuroscience is a level of awareness, both awareness of ourselves and the stimuli around us. But I believe it is also something more. Something spiritually relevant that ties us to one another as well as to something bigger than all of us. It can be quantified on many levels according to its different interpretations, and in my eyes none of the ways in which it is viewed are incorrect. I cannot refute the defense for any interpretation, and because of this I believe in the many rather than the few. Perhaps in the future, consciousness as a term will be split up into component parts, with new terms allocated to the different definitions. Until then, consciousness must serve as an umbrella term for any and all of its un-disproved understandings.
​
Consciousness will continue to be explored in our generation as well as the many that follow. It would not surprise me that in a thousand years from now, the popular view of consciousness has morphed into something entirely different, just as it has since the first neurosurgeons of 100 AD first contemplated the structure of the brain. It is my hope that as the topic of consciousness continues to be investigated, scholars from all fields will join forces in their studies to bring the vast multi-dimensionality of this topic into the light. Consciousness is not something that could be solved by one individual scientist or philosopher. If the hard problem of consciousness can be solved, it will be solved by a combination of great thinkers from all fields.
