Introduction
The book “Out of Our Heads” by a philosopher, neuroscientist, and cognitive scientist, Alva Noe is aimed at the reorganization of our vision of consciousness as the “secret” of the human brain. Many years have passed after Rene Descartes uttered the idea that has become almost a saying: “Cognito ergo sum” that means “I think, therefore I am”. The main aim of the analyzed author is to reorganize Descartes’ statement completely. In his book, Alva Noe poses the idea that contradicts the one that is stated above, he says that a human being exists, therefore he thinks. The approach of this scientist and philosopher is rather innovative, however, the ideas he presents are often repeated by him in the course of the book as if he aims his work at a very inattentive reader. Besides, his ideas often lack basis and the evidence is absent. The only idea that is uttered is really uncontestable: “only one proposition about how the brain makes us conscious – how it gives rise to sensation, feeling, and subjectivity – has emerged unchallenged: We don’t have a clue” (Noe unpaged). The clue is, unfortunately, not found, neither suggested by the author. The book abounds in controversies, for instance, the author makes use of the process of dreaming to show that the work of the brain alone is not sufficient for the creation of consciousness.
The formulation of the hypothesis
To begin with, it is necessary to cast light on the fact that the author enlarges the theory of consciousness that is reduced to “brains in vans” by contemporary science (Noe 4). Thus, he presents the idea that contradicts the common view of the human mind and mind on the whole. The novelty of his hypothesis is in its cumulative character: he asserts that human consciousness is not and should not be confined to the human brain only. He states that the mind is the product of the interrelation of three things: the human brain, the human body, and the environment or surroundings in which the activity takes place (Noe 10). Thus, consciousness is the activity of a human being that is generated by him.
The phenomenon of dreaming
The nature and the mechanism of the creation of human dreams is the area that is covered with the darkness of our ignorance as well as the area of consciousness. However, there is no denying the fact that the phenomena of dreaming and consciousness are interrelated. This can be observed if we consider the generally adopted definition of dreaming that can be found in every dictionary, even not a specialized one. Thus, dreaming is “a series of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations occurring involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep” (Pace-Schott 198). Thus, the very definition presents confrontation with the point of view of Noe since the word “involuntary” does not fit into his theory at all.
Dreaming as the phenomenon contradicting Noe’s theory
Judging by the philosopher’s theory, surrounding is the necessary element, without which the existence of consciousness would be impossible. However, the natural question that arises about dreaming and consciousness is about the surrounding. When a human being is sleeping, the interaction with the environment is absent, only the mind is the actor in the process of sleep. Besides, the activity of a body is also limited in sleep. Thus, dreaming seems to undermine the theory of the philosopher.
Dreams are not “bona fide perceptual experiences”
Alva Noe states that dreams are not “bona fide perceptual experiences” (Noe 179). However, this assumption is not justified by him and is not convincing. Dreams are the reflections of reality perceived earlier. If a dream is not a perceptual experience, then there is the necessity to explain its creation and existence that is not given by the author.
Stephen LaBerge’s research
When describing the relationship between dreams and consciousness, the author refers to the research of a famous dream researcher, Stephen LaBerge (Noe 179). He asserts that dream experience has a significant feature that is universal and concerns the stability of scenes in the dream. Thus, the details are not stable in dreams at all (Noe 179). This means that the human brain alone is too limited to store information and cannot be the only one that is responsible for consciousness. Thus, dreaming perception differs from real perception, the dream experience depend on the neural activity only (Noe 179). Stephen LaBerge is an authoritative scientist and the usage of his research makes the ideas of Noe seem more grounded.
Conclusion
On considering the book, it is possible to state, that the theory of Alva Noe has a grain of sense in it. In Chapter 8 the author is trying to refute the statement that “we can produce experience by direct stimulation of the brain … that it is the brain itself, independent of its larger context, that is the basic ground of experience” (Noe 173). Body and the world that is in constant interrelation with a human being are of great importance for his life. The explanation of the dream experience in comparison with real experience is rather interesting and thought provoking. However, the theory of Noe needs further improvements as it seems rather controversial.
Works Cited
Noe, Alva. Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness. NY: Hill and Wang, 2009.
Pace-Schott, Alva. Sleep and Dreaming: Scientific Advances and Reconsiderations. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.