Consider daydreaming– where imagination may be real but not reality. Descartes posits that one’s thoughts on reality lack definition because our senses of perception are deceptive. These false realities are not tangible nor exact, yet they are formed on a basis of the truth. Our creativity stems from a previous foundation; parallel to the wax metaphor of Descartes, the loss of the fragrance or shape of the wax may make it different but does not alter its existence.

To approach an answer for what is conscious or alive, we begin with developing a definition for the truth. Descartes attempts to approach this problem by starting with a blank slate, making the mind ground zero. It establishes that those who are able to perceive with their mind are those who are able to make sense of reality. This brings into consideration those that may have fragmented minds, amnesiacs, or those who consume substances altering their conscious state. Would this change in consciousness change the status of those affected? The varying definitions of humanity we have discussed argue that a change in consciousness, if afflicting core human functions, would disqualify individuals. Generally, we define humanity based on desire (of lying, vanity, friendship, etc.). Yet, there are religions, human-made philosophies, pushing for contentment. Searching for this inner peace seems to contrast the “human” desire. Perhaps this is what places us as inferior to God– supporting Descartes’ stance on God as a perfect being. But even in the consideration of a supreme being, we have the conflicting presence of our misconceptions and in whether such a being even exists. I find that our existence is more fragmented than expected, and the definition of reality remains moldable. All in all, the relationships between our awareness and our existence remain debated in the mind. It is separate from our physical presence and relies more so on our thoughts and feelings.

In greater contemplation, I find that the direct linkage I had relating thoughts to desire and excluding the impact of physical presence is a much more simplified point of view. Though this line of thinking is not unjustified, I find that our physical senses still play an important role. These sensual perceptions can infiltrate and impact our minds as seen in the Westworld examples of memory creating a basis for consciousness. Memories are core to our beings. My personal “core memory” starts with a feeling of my flushed cheeks paralleling the overwhelming amount of emotions coming in. An attempt to focus on the minty gum in my mouth to the visual line up of my tennis team as we got situated for senior night pictures. Here, I take notice of the nearby family of five seeming to close in on my lowly cohort of one. As they went across the row announcing each person’s achievements and their parents’ names: every word spoken over the stadium speakers felt muffled. For anxiety, a calming technique is to start counting back from five with each sense. Looking at five things you can see, four things you can touch, and so on as grounding tools. This was fundamental to this memory as the anxiety of being alone, the seeking of parental validation, required the fundamentals to be found. It was rooted in my senses that this became a core memory. These sense perceptions are critical to our development of a specific definition of “consciousness” or “humanity”.

The world would be a lot more straightforward if what we perceived was the ultimate truth. Yet increasingly, we find that people are not always who they seem to be, our minds are easily tricked by optical illusions, and we are commonly swayed by marketing strategies that provide the illusion of control. Descartes claims that senses are false but it remains through these outside inputs where we derive many of our ideas. He states,“For even when painters try to create sirens and satyrs with the most extraordinary bodies, they cannot give them natures which are new in all respects; they simply jumble up the limbs of different animals” (Descartes, 13). Humans as conscious beings are noted to be able to coalesce unique ideas, an ability defined through the “access” quality of consciousness. However, it is notable that this brings up a conflict of what originality indicates– a construction of something entirely new or an ability to synthesize a relatively new idea.

Descartes’ major stance in his meditations are that personal thought operates as a mechanism for the assurance of existence which resides only within our minds– noted when he considers what he is as “a thing that thinks” (28). He illustrates a concept of existence that is reliant on external input whether through lived experiences or a supreme being feeding him ideas. Descartes’ take on the challenge of originality and the approach to consciousness as being a purely metaphysical mental ability forms a framework surrounding HBO’s Westworld focusing on the ability to be special. To illustrate the connection between Descartes’ philosophical revelations and Westworld, we consider whether the hosts achieve consciousness based on their unique ability to react spontaneously to Westworld’s visitors– along with where that ability comes from: programmed in or learned. Despite the impressive conversational abilities of the Westworld hosts, these bots do not fall into the category of consciousness. At least not until they gain the ability to gear their ideas towards a personal purpose rather than one generated for them. 

Humans can be established as individuals that exist based on their ability to contemplate their own thoughts (or at least I can say this about myself because one can only be certain of one’s own thoughts if that). With the access quality of consciousness, which details an ability to interconnect various mental operations, humans are able to access each of these concepts freely. This quality of consciousness can be interpreted as an ability to improvise and to create new ideas from within one’s own unique experience. This translates that for those who are human, they maintain the ability to improvise and come up with their own goals. This can be witnessed through considering Arnold’s impact. Arnold set into motion a vast plan based on his own unique thoughts that continues to throw wrenches into the system. And even when Ford constructs Bernard to replace Arnold, Arnold is unable to be replaced. On the contrary, Clementine or Dolores’s father are characters who lack unique abilities or thoughts and as such they are replaceable. It is noteworthy that the glitches that make them relevant are representative of the lack of consciousness in the hosts breaking down. 

Conscious beings with their own thoughts, and consequently their own personalities, are able to form their own responses. And though some individuals share personality characteristics, they are not identical because they lack a shared consciousness. Though not necessarily in our conscious understanding, sentient beings have a large reservoir of experiences that provide their ability to access their varying mental operations. Descartes relates this idea regarding our consciousness back to the large capabilities from the wax metaphor looking beyond its physical perceptions. He states,“For [the extension of the wax] increases if the wax melts, increases again if it boils, and is greater still if the heat is increased. I would not be making a correct judgement about the nature of wax unless I believed it capable of being extended in many more different ways than I will ever encompass in my imagination” (Descartes, 21). This line in Descartes’ second meditation clearly illustrates the impact of the environment and the wide expanse of mental operations. Just as the wax has a greater extension than its physical attributes, our consciousness rises greater than our collective experiences. 

In Westworld, the hosts maintain traits that are shared with humans when considering consciousness. For one, the hosts have the ability to form different phrasings when speaking to the park visitors. This parallels the way that our brain operates in that we have to improvise our responses based on varying conversations with different individuals. The difference here is that the hosts have a limited reservoir; what they are able to improvise with has a certain capacity and is composed of whatever is granted to them. In conscious individuals, the ability to improvise is theoretically unlimited and what we are able to say is something learned and experienced rather than only taught or provided. There are times when the hosts falter, where their programming doesn’t fit into the storyline and they malfunction. When Maeve witnesses firsthand that her sentences are predicted, she falters– the system displays “error” and she must be rebooted. Though the responsive abilities of the hosts may indicate consciousness, they are only scripted. It is only when Maeve makes her decision to leave the train in pursuant of a past goal (of which she has now embodied) that I become certain of her sentience. The hosts of Westworld are able to do a multitude of things– making them very human-esque. This makes the fine line between the distinction of using our experiences to format our standing of consciousness and being programmed even harder to distinguish. 

Descartes provides a defense for consciousness as he contrasts it with Westworld’s hosts’ capabilities taking into consideration both our experiential inputs and our personal takes– access. It is through the ability to have your own expression that makes something more than just a capable machine. This is hard to distinguish, and it raises the question of whether we are simply the sum of our surroundings or something more. Descartes would argue that we are on a higher plane, greater than the sum of our surroundings, as it is in the infinite expanse of our mind that our true self exists. And in this infinite mind resides our storage of experiences and learnings that help shape and develop the mental operations by which we can then access and output toward our personal drives and desires. Without this almost magical realm to draw from, one would lack consciousness– lack the ability to bring something original. 

I started defining access by originality. After all, original ideas come from being able to synthesize our own thoughts and experiences, no? I now find that the synthesis and access aspect requires more structure than I think the definition of originality can provide. Consider Lenny from Memento, he may not provide originality in the sense of a new idea, but he pulls his life together through repetition and through self notes. A lot of this discussion with originality and the way our mind operates is captivating, and looking back I can feel myself inching toward the discussion of a greater power. A conclusion that developed from this build comes from Milton’s belief that wrongdoing has purpose as one of the ways that we can work toward consciousness. In line with this train of thought, we consider our role in making these choices.

Another conclusion I had established was that originality stems from conscious humans having an “unlimited” capacity as they are able to improvise with brand new ideas. However, humans are far from having the unlimited (perhaps this is something better left to a God). In relation to us as social beings, this idea translates to us only being able to give as much as we have. I found this highly prevalent as I spent a lot of time during my freshman year focused on an external academic requirement. This made it incredibly difficult to make friends, putting me in a world that seemed miles away from the bubble of highschool. From this, being alone provided comfort. Eventually, I desired to merge my bubbles, seeking that greater interpersonal connection. But it wasn’t a desire that was able to be acted upon since my time and prior commitments proved restraining. My powers and goals were not unlimited, leaving me stuck in a cycle. But this was a cycle that was made to be broken, a break from constancy to an effort of consistency. 

And so at this point, my developing definition of consciousness is rooted in between originality, replaceability, and its status as something greater than the sum of its parts. Consciousness operates as a status where individuals are able to take in their surroundings, synthesize this, and be able to apply what has been learned to a new situation. The specific defining points for each of these “steps” to consciousness rides a fine line. From this, I find that conscious beings are defined by their ability to produce unique ideas. This can be exemplified through the access quality of consciousness detailing an ability to access various mental operations together– something more than just knowledge. 

Descartes, in Meditations, holds a point of view that is rooted in the instability of sense perception. He believes that the knowledge he is presented with and what he perceives is inherently false as there is “some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning [that] has employed all his energies in order to deceive me” (Descartes, 15). By this logic, Descartes finds that there is no knowledge he actually understands except for the awareness of self. With this, Descartes follows in support that knowledge is not sufficient enough for consciousness as the procurement of knowledge in itself is not concrete enough. In contrast, Milton in Paradise Lost finds one’s perceptions and thoughts can be trusted as they are more directly attributable to God. Milton remarks on the all knowing abilities of God as he writes,“O had His pow’rful destiny ordained” (Milton, Line 58). This indicates that God has knowledge of the future. And with an all-knowing God being the one in control, it provides this trust in one’s perceptions. Granted, this trust is sourced from the shared perspective that God is benevolent. Not only does Milton’s God have greater control, but there is also a release of the reins in the provision of free will. Milton holds an argument that God allows for free will as the justification for suffering. This follows that knowledge has an ultimate attributable source proving that the originality aspect of consciousness doesn’t need to be self proclaimed in order to be on the right path. Access follows in the utilization of the knowledge acquired, and I find that regardless of the world’s uncertainties, there resides some aspects of what we understand to be real that is the objective reality. 

In regards to the concept of an all-powerful God, Milton’s God provides a “perfect” translation because of the greater connection between God and His creatures. Despite the fact that God’s creatures are still considered inferior as noted when Milton writes,“Me some inferior angel!’ (Milton, Line 58). Though Milton’s God’s subjects are imperfect and inferior, this is by design rather than the way it has to be. However, Descartes’ God creates humans that are imperfect inherently because imperfect things can only come from something more perfect as supported by Descartes when he states,“the idea of a being more perfect than myself must necessarily proceed from some being which is in reality more perfect” (Descartes, 32-33). Milton isn’t completely free from imperfection as the consummation of the forbidden fruit demonstrates Descartes’ philosophy. But in Milton’s line of thinking, this mistake was meant to be as Adam and Eve have been given free will. What I find is that free will provides a step stone to awareness. In the ability to make a choice, one starts developing their unique ideas and drives. Milton exemplifies such with the gain in awareness of right and wrong once making the free choice to consume the fruit. Even with the knowledge that the fruit is bad, Eve still makes the choice to take a bite and in doing so Eve finds “Th’ effects to correspond: opener mine eyes” (Milton, Line 875). Overall, it is with a gain in ability to make choices, allowed for in the imperfection and the free will granted by a combined view of a Descartes-Milton God that creates the distinction between knowledge and the use of such. 

Such a consideration of free will illuminates the fundamental difference between Descartes’ and Milton’s philosophies with the latter having more control via almost paradoxically choosing to relinquish some of it through the granting of free will. The sourcing of our knowledge, which is important in our ascension to consciousness, is also a point of contention: Descartes claims a programmed understanding whereas Milton allows for the trust in perception of experiences. I have found that though an understanding of the sourcing of knowledge is important, with a contrast of being told something and learning it, neither are suitable to create consciousness. Instead, a greater emphasis should be placed on the ability to access this knowledge and understanding. In the development of free will, one develops a personal agenda indicating that switch to consciousness. Consider Maeve as she gains her personal motivations to return to Westworld seeking the love of her daughter in a past life. Or Bernard going against his master so he can gain awareness of his past. Each of these instances are representative of a time where it is personal drives moving the story along– an indication of consciousness.

My argument that consciousness is driven by an ability to synthesize thoughts is a conclusion based upon comparisons of the way that knowledge and decision making are approached by both Descartes and Milton. Descartes and Milton overlap on their perception of a benevolent God but diverge on the powers that each God has with Milton’s God retaining greater control exuding perfection. Additionally, Descartes and Milton differ in their allowance for trust in their understanding of the world and resultantly in their ability to make decisions. This free will sets the basis for an ability to actually use the knowledge one acquires to move toward their personal goals. I find that this is more justified than the accumulation of knowledge having greater traction in the development of consciousness because consciousness seems to be a status that is beyond just the knowledge and basic facts.  It is instead something greater residing in the application of what we know.

In all, my understanding from this class started with a specified focus on sense perception, perhaps because it was the easiest to grasp, and transitioned outward to a sense of free will’s interconnectedness with consciousness. Though still debated, I find that the latter perhaps needs to stem from the former based on the aforementioned switch, as discussed by Milton, and also the importance of choices and purpose to achieve consciousness. The idea of original thought seems to ease into the discussion of power relationships with a God and from that comes our debate of individual control. Our individual control seems to be the base in the understanding of all the above with the work done so far, but I know that beyond free will there remains more. 

Perhaps a consideration of the cognitive principle on the power of our neural plasticity– the reinforcement of what we choose to repeat. Over time, we are able to develop our skills to hone into what we desire intentionally. The power of practice and discipline is something that is brought out in Plutarch’s work as we look at Epaminondas’ stance on discipline. Epaminondas stands to hold restraint as he chooses to not accept gifts to build the future he desires. This highlights the discussion of how consistency can bring us toward a direction whereas constancy, even in identity, can keep us static. I see this exemplified in my life as I made the conscious effort to move away from my cycle of introverted academic to taking on various leadership roles in my extracurriculars. I found myself swept into the busyness of all the events I was planning and discovered my passion for service. Reflecting back, I found the challenge of finding the balance of wanting to be liked and to be respected as a leader that proved fundamental. Though the two are not mutually exclusive, in moments where you try to please everyone, I find that you may compromise your leadership skills. Over the past four years of high school, it was the practice of separating what was owed to friends and what was owed to the organizations that formed my repetitive behavior. Such a distinction is something that still requires practice. I find that I still take responsibility for a lot of others’ unhappiness even if it isn’t something that I can resolve. It is through the moments of repetitive dedication and constant challenges that pushed me to evaluate what it means to be a leader. Ultimately, I find that the consistency of working at my problems brings control. As such, it plays a part in my free will as I choose my commitments and develop an intentional path toward consciousness.

Furthermore, not only can our intentional actions from our brain’s signaling affect our mind, but it also goes the other way. This two way street is highly prevalent in Elias’s reading as he discusses how free will interconnects with feelings of suffocation. I think this idea speaks very highly to the way our society operates as we attempt to attain a certain goal and oftentimes go overboard. Elias related how the organized structure of society that was once liberating becomes a trap– one of our own human making. This non-reductionism is in the way I try to frame my mindset. As much as I try to tell myself consciously that I am unaffected by a certain situation, the intrusive thoughts often pull through. Yet, these exact thoughts are what guide the pursuance of self improvement. Revisiting our initial consideration of Descartes’ faulty perceptions and our blank slate, this deliberate action to restart your thinking process is an act of conflict within the brain itself.

Personally, a growth mindset is something that is core to my understanding of self – something I try to practice daily. Externally, my conscious intentions are interconnected with the social world around me, and though I like to believe that I have free will and an ability to change my potentially pre-destined path, this consideration of choice is what keeps us guessing on whether God is real or on whether I am conscious. The uncertainties of the world certainly outweigh what we do know, and perhaps like Descartes we know nothing at all, but would that really be so bad?