Ramachandran interview

Sashi Kumar has a conversation with Professor V.S. Ramachandran, world-renowned explorer of the human brain, on neuroscience, philosophy, consciousness and beyond.

In the mind of the brain

The old house on Luz Avenue at Mylapore in Chennai has a whatyou-see-is-what-you-get air about it. The photographs and memorabilia in the drawing room evoke the proud lineage of the legal luminary, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer.

The lady confined to her bed in the adjoining room is his daughter. I cannot see her, but I hear her calling for help every once in a while. Nursing and support staff flit in and out of the room in response. All activity in the house revolves around her. I have come to meet her son, the renowned explorer of the human brain, Dr. V.S. Ramachandran. Professor of psychology and neuroscience and Director of the Centre for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, San Diego, he comes home to Chennai – at least twice a year, he says – to be with his mother. Our conversation is interspersed by her constant summons, “Rama, Rama” – and each time, he abruptly excuses himself to tend to her. This will keep happening, he apologises. But I am as fascinated by the devoted son as the passionate scientist.

The passion is palpable in his bearing, in the onrush of words and his forceful gestures. The accomplished physician morphs into the adventurous neuroscientist, and yet again into the curious psychiatrist. His brinkmanship with science is breathtaking. The fame of the author of the path-breaking work, Phantoms in the Brain, and its coda, The Emerging Mind (delivered initially as the Reith Lectures 2003), of the recipient of many academic honours and awards, sits lightly on him as he excitedly delves into the unknown. As he expounds his findings and pet theories, one can’t help feeling that here is the messiah of the mind speaking:

Sashi Kumar: Thank you Professor Ramachandran for agreeing to this interview for Frontline. If we might begin at the intersection between philosophy and neuroscience… although a neuroscientist yourself, you seem to straddle both fields fairly comfortably. How do you see the intrusion philosophy has made into neuroscience? Are you just coping with it, or is it a familiar and friendly field?

V.S. Ramachandran: Well, you know my passion is mainly science, research, experimental work. Yes, of course, there are theoretical implications. Inevitably, when you do neuroscience – cognitive neuroscience or behavioural neurology – it throws up all kinds of philosophical questions, such as what is mind, what is the relationship between qualia, sensations, the activity of neurons, what is the nature of the self, the question of personal identity. Philosophers have thought about all of these issues for a long time. But, as often happens, as we advance in science, this has enormous implications for philosophy. Some people could regard these as antithetical, but they really are not, because, obviously, quantum mechanics has profound implications for understanding causality, the meaning of causality. Some of the greatest philosophers like Kant and Ernst Mach also inspired Einstein. So it’s always a cross fertilization of ideas.

But since the late 1980s when Patricia Churchland spoke about this concept of `co-evolution’, which – if I am summarising it correctly – introduced the philosophy of science to neuroscientists and vice versa, do you think the two are moving along abreast of each other? Or would you say that as neuroscience continues to discover more and more of what’s happening in the human mind or the brain, philosophy will recede and be painted into a corner?

That’s a good question. I think with some philosophical questions, I would even say with many, that will happen, they will be painted into a corner. But there will always be some fundamental issues of epistemology, such as: why do we exist? Why is there anything, rather than nothing? Questions of that nature. These questions are not going to go away because of science. Science doesn’t attempt to deal with these questions. On the other hand, the strange thing about consciousness is that we are not even sure whether it is a philosophical question or a scientific question.

I mean, the way we approach it is that we say, look, obviously the liver is not conscious, the brain is conscious, as far as we know. Somebody could dispute that and say: how do you know for sure? Now, we don’t know for sure. But science is not about knowing for sure. It’s about knowing beyond reasonable doubt – so there’s more in common with the law here than people realise. You can only be beyond reasonable doubt that something is true. So the brain is associated with consciousness, the liver is not.

But even within the brain, certain areas seem to be more involved in what we call consciousness. And what we call consciousness also seems to be several processes which we are lumping together in one word. And it’s possible we can dissect these different processes and map them in different brain structures. That will enrich your understanding of consciousness. And then questions like, where is consciousness, or what is it, will recede into the background. It’s a bit like when people ask: what is life? You know, living things are different, they have the vital spark. Now we know there is no vital spark, there’s the DNA molecule, DNA replication, transcription, there’s RNA, the Kreb’s cycle… once you understand all these processes nobody comes and says, yes, but you have to tell me what life is.

Full text at Frontline