Dreaming ghosts

Do ghosts dream? I posed that question since it will tell you why the idea of ghosts is, at the very least, a “no comment” area in science. To be able to dream would mean that you will be “unconscious” from a state of being conscious, and I think it is safe to say that being “conscious” has a pre-requisite in the form of a brain. I do not think it is a leap of logic to assume a brain when you refer to “consciousness.” If you are just a body part without a brain, unless you are in a special effects movie, you are not “conscious” — you cannot vote or have thoughts of your own or write a column. The brain is a complex organ, which is supposed to be the Mission Control of the mission that is you. The human brain is inhabited by 50-100 billion brain cells or neurons, which connect with each other to animate the person that you are — from physical movements to thoughts and feelings. And as far as science knows, these neurons have to be in your brain, inside your head, which in turn is attached to your living body, in order for these babies to do the neuronal dance of your consciousness. Ghosts, on the other hand, are not especially known for volunteering to have their heads examined and with good reason: they have none — not in the sense that we have “heads” that can be examined by neuroscientists. So if you have no head, science, with its peculiar way of requiring evidence, has no comment on your reality, much less on your dreams.

But I was very conscious when I came across this interesting article entitled “How Does Consciousness Happen?” in the October issue of the Scientific American. It featured an article by two prominent neuroscientists whose work it is to peer into the little fires in our brains to see the shapes of “consciousness.” Think of these shapes of consciousness as infinite kinds of lanterns — where light assumes a pattern. The bulbs and their connections in these “lanterns” are what neuroscientists call neuronal coordinates of consciousness (NCC). In the article, the two scientists differ on how the lantern is lit to make it the lantern that it is. 

Meet Dr. Christof Koch. He is a professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Biology at the California Institute of Technology. He thinks that there is a special kind of neurons that fire in specific areas of the brain for every conscious experience. Not only is there a specific kind of neurons but also a manner in which they fire when we are conscious. Dr. Christof singles out the cerebral cortex, known to house the “higher” faculties” like reasoning and planning, as essentially the area of the brain that houses these special neurons, as they connect with other neurons in other parts of the brain. For him, the lanterns of our conscious state depend largely on a special kind of bulb and a “fixed” area where the bulbs are placed.

But Dr. Susan Greenfield disagrees with him. She is a professor of pharmacology at the University of Oxford. I have seen her speak on some BBC shows involving the workings of the mind. She thinks that consciousness is a property of the whole brain — and not its parts. Like Dr. Koch, she supports her position with studies that show that even birds, which have no cerebral cortex, are considered “conscious.” For her, each lantern pattern of consciousness corresponds to assemblies of neuron clusters that form for a fraction of a second and then disband — like galaxies in our head that burst in instant glory. She said that consciousness corresponds to connections among neurons and that the degree of consciousness is indicated by the number of neurons that are clustered like momentary chrysanthemums in the fireworks playing in your head.

Koch and Greenfield have been busy at work trying to see what is the parallel event in your brain, in the form of those micro-fireworks that matches what we experience as “consciousness.” Note that what the scientists are looking for are “correlates” — a match between consciousness and neuronal activity — and NOT cause and effect. They are not saying that the way neurons line up and fire causes consciousness. They are also not saying that they are close to knowing the shape or pattern of neural lanterns are “indices” of consciousness; the scientists are not connections that causes you to be aware and say, “I am!” We are far from saying with utmost confidence: “I light, therefore I am.” They are saying, for now, that whenever subjects are tested when they are reportedly “conscious,” a pattern, as in a lantern, can be observed in the connections of our neurons. Greenfield reiterated that they are not saying that these lanterns inside your head create consciousness.

The study of consciousness is an extremely fascinating field. But it must also be equally frustrating. I have written in a column before that studying consciousness is like a hand trying to hold itself. Imagine trying to understand “consciousness” armed with no less than “consciousness” itself as one performs the science. It is indeed the deepest mystery to understand consciousness.

Maybe we perceive ghosts to deal with that deep mystery inside ourselves. Maybe to assign some outside hosts for pockets of our own consciousness in the form of ghosts is more bearable. Maybe, ghosts “exist” ironically to keep us sane. Will ask some psychologists and psychiatrists about this.

Under the blanket of science’s way of knowing, ghosts cannot dream. But we can dream them. I think that is the beauty of it. The shadows of love lost, youth that has passed, abandoned homes, missed opportunities, broken friendships as well as the light of love’s triumph, the joy of new and renewed friendships, the richness of continuing understanding — they all live in the deep recesses, canals of the universe inside our heads, and in moments unexpected, they burst out as if to say “Boo!” to bathe moments of our lives with such clarity, with such light. And then we know, we just know why they happened. If these are the ghosts that could make us more awakened, may we all have lives generously punctuated with ghostly “Boos!”

* * *

For comments, e-mail [email protected]