Let me warn you ahead of time that today’s post is vague and speculative. I’m sharing it because I think the core idea could be very valuable, and maybe you will agree.
But if you are looking for a quick tip to improve your conversion rates, you won’t find that in today’s post, so maybe it makes sense to stop reading now.
And now that you’ve been warned, let me jump to the big question:
What’s up with consciousness? It seems to be a trendy question these days. And since I am a trendy person, I clambered onto this bandwagon.
So I just finished reading a book about one theory of how consciousness arises, called The Feeling of Life Itself. The book was written by Christof Koch, formerly a professor at Caltech and now chief scientist at the Allen Institute for Brain Science.
At the heart of Koch’s book are two diagrams. Each diagram shows a network of logic gates, the kind of stuff computers, or human brains, are built of in the abstract.
One diagram shows a network with three gates. The other diagram shows a much bigger network, with 66 gates.
And here’s something non-obvious:
The 3-gate network and the much bigger 66-gate network actually do the same computation. In other words, start with the same inputs, run the thing for a while, and you will end up with the same outputs with these two very different-seeming networks.
How is this possible? Well, the 3-gate network is richly interconnected, with each gate doing double and triple duty. On the other hand, the big 66-gate network is much more linear, with each gate serving just one tiny role.
Rich interconnectivity is why the 3-gate network can punch above its weight, computation-wise.
And it just so happens — so says Christof Koch — it’s also why the tiny 3-node network has some small bit of consciousness… while the much bigger 66-node network has none.
In other words, Koch’s claim is that consciousness is the same as how tightly integrated a network is, and how many distinct roles its elements serve.
That’s why certain parts of the human brain give rise to consciousness… while a computer, no matter how fast or smart it gets, will never be conscious.
I can’t judge Koch’s argument one way or another. But I feel there’s something there, because his idea stimulated an analogous idea in my own mind. I think something similar happens in writing and communicating ideas.
Let me show you. Here’s the intro to the 1994 reprint of Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media:
“Thirty years ago this past summer Herbert Marshall McLuhan published Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, and within a matter of months the book acquired the standing of Holy Scripture and made of its author the foremost oracle of the age. Seldom in living memory had so obscure a scholar descended so abruptly from so remote a garret into the center ring of the celebrity circus, but McLuhan accepted the transformation as if it were nothing out of the ordinary, nothing more than the inevitable and unsurprising proof of the hypothesis that he had found in the library at the University of Toronto.”
How did McLuhan go from obscure scholar to oracle in a matter of months? From the same intro:
“Despite its title, the book was never easy to understand. By turns brilliant and opaque, McLuhan’s thought meets the specifications of the epistemology that he ascribes to the electronic media – non lineal, repetitive, discontinuous, intuitive, proceeding by analogy instead of sequential argument.”
So that’s the idea I wanted to share with you.
A textbook and a book of the Bible both convey information. Possibly even the same information.
But a textbook creates no experience, no consciousness in the reader’s brain. A textbook might be useful. But it’s too linear, and that’s why it’s forgettable, and it inspires nothing.
On the other hand, take writing like the Bible or McLuhan’s Understanding Media.
These are non-linear, self-referential works, where each passage is doing double and triple duty. The more integrated the writing, the more it creates an experience of consciousness in the reader’s brain.
That’s why these books are remembered, absorbed, and acted upon. That’s why they can transform somebody from obscure to celebrity. And it just so happens, that’s why they punch above their weight, influence-wise.