Ashford 1

Aaron Ashford
Suzanne Thomas
UWRT 1103 035
2 December 2015
Consciousness Explained

It is the remark of the misinformed is what one Arthur Koestler would probably say
towards the misguided soul who speaks the incorrect ideal that a consciousness does not exist.
Too those who brandish themselves as expert of consciousness merely by owning a
consciousness does not make one who owns a heart much more an expert on heart problems as a
cardiologist. Obviously, I am not better than the rest of us but it is not I who is doing the digging,
I am the medium of information. That information that I seek to spread is less of an informative
backdraft but more of a guideful breeze seeking to turn the spurns of your mind unto the
direction of the question in rhetorical hands. Does a consciousness exist?
Look today at your fellow man, they carry the characteristics of human do they not?
Coupled with arms and legs and a head all wrapped up nicely in a coating of fleshy tissue all atop a dense bony frame. This is what stimuli we first experience when we soak in the presence of
a fellow member of our species. But then, an outlier! What of those people who lack that
physical profile? People with missing limbs or discolorations or strange marks? They are still
human are they not? It is apparent that if we do not follow a physical profile to classify and
identify our fellow humans that something else is. When you listen to people talk on the radio or
take a phone call, you do not have a physical profile for your mind to identify, only a voice. The

Ashford 2
point in mind is that we do not use a physical profile at all, we humans use the presence of a
consciousness to identify our fellow humans.
A bold statement it is to say that other forms of stimuli do not hint our minds in on
what makes a fellow human but that statement is also not being made at all. Of course other
forms of stimulation clue us in on what is human and not human but there are times in this
technology wave this culture is experiencing that we are caught in a sticky web of right and
wrong answers and what is humanitarian and inhumane. Calling in a question brought on by the
themes of The Ghost in the Shell, what makes a human any different from a machine? The Ghost
in the Shell is an animated movie by Masamune Shirow which is based in a cyberpunk themed
fictional city in Japan, themes of the movie also include what defines a human, evolution and
philosophy. In this animated movie, the main character named Major Motoko Kusanagi goes into
long monologues based on her thoughts on what identity is, what it means to be human. Later on
in the movie, Motokos consciousness is put into another robotic body and she maintains her
identity though she lacks the physical form she maintained previously. Here, take in this quote
from the movie:
There are countless ingredients that make up the human body and mind, like all the
components that make up me as an individual with my own personality. Sure I have a face and
voice to distinguish myself from others, but my thoughts and memories are unique only to me,
and I carry a sense of my own destiny. Each of those things are just a small part of it. I collect
information to use in my own way. All of that blends to create a mixture that forms me and gives
rise to my conscience. I feel confined, only free to expand myself within boundaries.
This quote is said by Motoko during one of her several monologues on her thoughts of
the existence of consciousness. Interpret her quote as you please, in the crazed themes of

Ashford 3
philosophy, there is more good done in one's own perspective of a topic then someone elses. I
could ramble on and on about what Motoko means and how it connects to the existence of a
consciousness but that would do about as much good as completing a puzzle for someone else
and that takes out all the fun to be had.
The existence of a consciousness is a difficult theme in the world of academia, the
overflowing hordes of skeptics and naysayers overwhelms a decent chunk of progression in the
field. Neuroscientists do manage to get by but at a snail's pace. In order to understand why the
existence of consciousness is in question, we must delve into why so many refute the existence
of consciousness. The book The Ghost in the Machine, the inspiration for The Ghost in the Shell,
was written by the previously aforementioned author by the name of Arthur Koestler. Koestler is
a Hungarian novelist, essayist and journalist whose writing themes fit into a large scope. A scope
made up of aspects of science, philosophy, politics, fiction and nonfiction. His work is highly
regarded and lead to him receiving multiple awards, one of his most notable pieces is a novel
called Darkness at Noon. Putting the background of Koestler aside, let us return back to the
novel in hand, the book The Ghost in the Machine covers a lot when it comes to consciousness,
so much in fact that I struggle to read it. Connecting passages from the book to the topic the start
of the paragraph was center upon, Koestler spends a whole chapter and mentions several times
throughout the book a naysayer group called Behaviorists.
The Behaviorists was a group in the world of psychological academia started by a
physician from Johns Hopkins University by the name of Watson. The theme of Behaviorism
was started in the early 1920s which was a time of weakness in the psychological field of
academia. While the world of psychology was in shambles during those rough years in the
1920s, Watsonian Behaviorism became the trend of those lost scholars of psychology. Koestler

Ashford 4
dislikes the behaviorists for many reasons. Behaviorism in the eyes of Koestler led to a gross
decline in advancement in the world of psychology due to the simple and blunt explanations
Behaviorism put behind all things. Watsonian Behaviorism refuted the concept of an existence of
consciousness, love, and creativity. Behaviorists believed that all things humanity did was
merely out of reaction to stimuli. In other words, the S-R theory which is a theory most notably
known for the Pavlovs dog experiment, where Russian psychologist Pavlov had conditioned a
dog to drool as if food were prepared from just the sound of a bell. This theory can almost be
applied to any situation and any situation it couldnt be applied to was immediately brandished as
an outlandish cause. To Behaviorists, the existence of a consciousness was just some petty theory
thought up by old and outdated information conjured up by the barbaric thoughts of ancient
philosophers such as Rene Descartes, the philosopher who first stated this I think, therefore I
am. Behaviorists viewed such statements as inane and due to its lack of physical evidence, a
lost cause. Behaviorists thought themselves to be realists of the community but in the end they
were entirely wrong from the beginning. Koestler explains in his book that a consciousness does
indeed exist because of several reasons which I will state now. Look into the themes that
Behaviorists wrote off and then think long and hard about what made them something
Behaviorism could not explain and then notice the pattern. Behaviorism failed to explain human
concepts of self-awareness, critical thought, needs beyond what is physical and why our
rhetorical artist knew to try a specific style over another. Koestler finishes off the bleating
undead abomination that was Behaviorism in the early 1920s by poking holes in every written
document and experiment each notable Behaviorist published. Koestler was no mud thrower, he
was a flame thrower.

Ashford 5
Stepping away from our silly naysayers as that has now been covered and can be put
aside for a while or even for the rest of the paper, we can now delve into our other sources for the
existence of consciousness or perhaps an even better naysayer for us to talk about. As earlier
aforementioned from the very beginning of the paper, I talk about how one is not an expert on
consciousness merely for owning one. That statement was not my own and in fact belonging to a
fellow by the name of Dan Dennett, a philosophy professor. Dennett uses his time as a professor
to speak on the matter that we speak of now, does a consciousness exist? In fact, Dennetts
specialization is whether or not a consciousness exist which is rare for a philosophy professor. In
his world of academia he is often scoffed at by philosophers as one who specializes in something
meaningless. It would seem our behaviorists have dribbled into the present as most of the
philosophy professors seem not to care at all for the existence of consciousness and deem it as a
waste of resources. In fact, Dennett himself is one who says that he does not believe in
consciousness but merely our brain tricks itself into thinking it is conscious. In Dan Dennetts
TED talks, he makes references to several non-academic books and works of literature, one even
being a book of maps with the authors notes of each area visited. Dennet does not really seem to
try and disprove a consciousness exists but merely seems to tango around it. His use of
unorthodox books of academia and rhetoric seemed to be his true tools. In his TED talks he
also showed several images that would have subtle differences and gave the audience the job of
trying to spot those differences and timed them. Supposedly the exercise was meant to show that
our brain is deceiving us at all times but then one can say that this whole reality and existence of
other beings is a deception with that kind of thought process. Call me a skeptic, as that is what I
am when it comes to Dennetts thoughts on consciousness but I cant make a proper connection
to the existence of consciousness to his images puzzles and map books. He sounds credible and I

Ashford 6
gave him open ear but I dont follow it, but then again it is not my place to follow a belief on the
matter, it is more your own.
Fearing you forget about the bread and butter of the paper, let us look back into The
Ghost in the Shell. Later on in the animated movie, a character called the Puppet Master is
introduced. This characters original name was Project-Two-Five-Zero-One and the Puppet
Master states that they are a living, thinking entity that was created in the sea of information.
Section 6 Department Chief Nakamura: Nonsense! There's no proof at all that you are a
living, thinking life form!
Puppet Master: And can you offer me proof of your existence? How can you, when
neither modern science nor philosophy can explain what life is?
What the Puppet Master originally was, was an AI designed to steal information for
military use. Somehow, while being in the stream of information and being hidden for so long
due to his discrete design, the Puppet Master had evolved into a sentient state of being and
started searching for Motoko. Due to Motokos blurred lines between human and robot and
ability to still remain fully conscious despite the fact that 98% of her body was now machine,
including her brain, she was the idle partner for the Puppet Master to ascend with. This is
where it all gets tricky, apparently the Puppet Master wanted to further advance his evolution by
bonding with Motoko and becoming a single living, thinking entity. The Puppet Master, never
being human to begin with, forfeited his synthetic life willingly and merged their consciousness
with Motoko while still maintaining her identity. This bondage of knowledge, spirit and
personality calls onto a lot of things at once.

Ashford 7
Puppet Master: We have been subordinate to our limitations until now. The time has
come to cast aside these bonds and to elevate our consciousness to a higher plane. It is time to
become a part of all things.
What the Puppet Master is trying to achieve, though it may be a model of science fiction,
causes tension between several humanitarian ideals at once.
Major Motoko Kusanagi: You talk about redefining my identity. I want a guarantee that
I can still be myself.
Puppet Master: There isn't one. Why would you wish to? All things change in a dynamic
environment. Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you.
The Puppet Master calls onto the belief of evolution and synthetic adaption, though the
existence of cyborgs was already a step into a direction of anti-religion and brings in an even
greater fear. A fear that if humanity was to evolve, all that live now are obsolete and doomed to
die. I can understand why so many people naysay due to this opposition of beliefs, in todays
world, disagreeing with someone is apparently an equivalent to a full on assault of toxic berating
and should be responded to as harassment.
It is indeed a wild ride this thesis is. Now the spotlight falls onto you reader, with all that
has been presented previously, now you must think to yourself whether or not a consciousness
exists.
Major Motoko Kusanagi, Puppet Master: When I was a child, my speech, feelings, and
thinking were all those of a child. Now that I am a man, I have no more use for childish ways.
Now youre in the position of Puppet Masters adulthood. What do you think?

Ashford 8
Works Cited
Koestler, Arthur. The Ghost in the Machine. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Print.
Lewis, By. "Scientists Closing in on Theory of Consciousness."LiveScience. TechMedia
Network, 30 July 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.
Ghost in the Shell. Dir. Masamune Shirow. Bandai Entertainment, 2002. Film.
Dannet, Dan. "The Illusion of Consciousness." Ted Talks. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
Sejnowski, Terrence J. "Login to Atkins Library - J. Murrey Atkins Library - UNC Charlotte."
Login to Atkins Library - J. Murrey Atkins Library - UNC Charlotte. The MIT Press.
Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
Shermer, Michael. "What Happens to Consciousness When We Die."Scientific American Globa
RSS. 1 July 2012. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
Lewis, Tanya. "Will We Ever Understand Consciousness? Scientists & Philosophers Debate."
LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 31 May 2013. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.