“The mystery of consciousness: you are your brain, you are without your brain, or you have a brain”

 

The Interdisciplinary School of Psychology (ISOP) hosted a seminar on 13 May 2025 in Merensky Library Auditorium, Hatfield Campus.

 

 

The topic reflected the content of Prof Pieter Craffert’s new book, The fabric(ation) of consciousness: A neuro-ecological perspective (Cape Town: Aosis: 2024)(available through open access at https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2024.BK500).

 

Three respondents reflected on the book, after which Prof Craffert responded. The three respondents were Prof Danie Veldsman (Head, Dogmatics & Christian Ethics, Faculty of Theology, UP), Prof Werdie van Staden (Director, Centre for Ethics and Philosophy of Health Sciences (CEPHS), UP) and Prof David Maree (Department of Psychology, UP & Head, ISOP). The seminar was chaired by Prof Gerhard van der Heever (Department: Biblical and Ancient Studies, UNISA).

 

Pieter F. Craffert, is Professor in New Testament and Early Christian Studies at the University of South Africa. He is author of The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books: 2008), and The fabric(ation) of consciousness: A neuro-ecological perspective (Cape Town: Aosis: 2024). The book is. His research focuses on the study of alternate states of consciousness and the neuroscience of consciousness.

 

The seminar’s discussants explore the critical analysis of consciousness research by Pieter Craffert, highlighting its central role in understanding the human condition and the nature of reality. Despite a consensus on the importance of consciousness, significant disagreements persist regarding its theoretical frameworks. The book argues for a crisis in consciousness research, drawing on a comprehensive review of existing theories and concepts, including the hard problem of consciousness, neural correlates, and dualistic thinking. By framing the discussion within a neuro-ecological perspective, this work presents an innovative approach that encompasses the diverse landscape of consciousness research, aiming to stimulate dialogue and reflection on the future directions of the field.

 

 

Prof Veldsman opened by describing his initial confusion when reading Craffert's book, comparing it to being lost on Irish country roads. His presentation systematically worked through Craffert's argument structure, identifying three interpretive traditions in consciousness research: "you are your brain" (mainstream materialism), "you are without your brain" (non-local theories), and "becoming you" (neuro-ecological perspective). He examined the nested assumptions underlying each tradition and highlighted four fundamental aspects of consciousness that Craffert addresses: whether consciousness is an entity or process, neurobiological or non-biological, a feature of brains or organisms, and unidimensional or multidimensional. Veldsman particularly focused on Craffert's neuro-ecological perspective, which views consciousness as a biological process and multiplex distributed ecological phenomenon involving brain-body-environment interactions.

 

Prof van Staden addressed the extensive confusion in consciousness research, noting that the term "consciousness" refers to incommensurable phenomena and ontologies captured in the three slogans from Craffert's work. He described consciousness as a "multiplexed term" that functions as a cluster concept, often reduced to single features through what Craffert calls the "mereological fallacy" (like saying "the petrol tank drives down the road"). Van Staden outlined the vast scope of consciousness definitions, ranging from basic wakefulness to complex experiential phenomena. He emphasised that this is fundamentally a conceptual problem requiring philosophical work rather than more empirical research, noting that solving consciousness won't come from more brain imaging but from critical conceptual reflection. He suggested potential "ripple effects" from Craffert's work, including whether consciousness should be understood in singular or plural terms and exploring non-relativist pluralism.

 

Prof Maree approached consciousness from a critical realist perspective, arguing that consciousness study is both realistic and viable despite the failures of much current research. He explained critical realism's distinction between epistemology (our knowledge) and ontology (what exists), emphasising that knowledge of being is not the same as being itself. Drawing on Searle's distinctions between ontological and epistemological objectivity/subjectivity, he argued that consciousness is ontologically subjective but epistemologically objective, meaning conscious states are real even if experienced from a first-person perspective. Maree outlined consciousness as having three key characteristics: it's qualitative (experiences differ based on intentionality), subjective (first-person perspective), and manifested in a unified conscious field. He emphasised the "ontological temporal gap" between reasons and actions that enables choice and agency, arguing that consciousness provides continuity in thought and self-awareness.

 

Prof Craffert explained how he came to study consciousness through his work on altered states of consciousness and religious experiences. He outlined his book's three main arguments: consciousness research is in crisis, this crisis emerges from the Cartesian dualistic legacy, and a neuro-ecological perspective offers an alternative. He responded to specific points raised by each presenter, particularly agreeing with van Staden about the need for conceptual work over empirical research, engaging with Maree's critical realism while proposing his own "integrated realism" based on "intra-activity" rather than subject-object interaction, and addressing Veldsman's theological questions about evolutionary epistemology and the image of God. Craffert emphasised that consciousness should be understood as a process of living organisms in interaction with their environment, not as a thing located in the brain, arguing for a fundamental shift from machine metaphors to an organismic understanding of human beings.

 

The seminar concluded with an open discussion touching on topics including the role of discourse in understanding consciousness, the possibility of machine consciousness, and the broader implications for how we understand ourselves as human beings.