MULTIPLE DRAFTS THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS &
ITS RELEVANCE TO THE HOMEOPATHIC MODEL

By Charles Wansbrough published The Homeopath No 87 Autumn 2002

I wish to discuss a particular theory of consciousness proposed by Daniel Dennett in his rather inflated but worthy tome, Consciousness Explained. Since the rather controversial subject of consciousness has developed into an extensive and veritable flurry of activity which is cross-disciplinary in its extent and now occupies some of the best minds in our scientific community, I think it may well be fortuitous to engage in a discussion of one particular theory that may be very useful when applying to the homeopathic model.

 I make no apologies with equating the ‘vital force’ to consciousness; it leads to many interesting associations, most of all to the fact that both interact with the human condition in an inexplicable and indefinable way. One abstraction, that of consciousness, may inevitably have replaced another even fuzzier abstraction, that of the ‘vital force’, in our scientific culture. Nevertheless, I will not dwell on the similarities and differences though metaphorically we can see many inevitable similarities between two such ephemeral concepts.

One Theory of Consciousness

I have chosen to explain in some detail Daniel Dennet’s model of consciousness as it may throw some light onto the thorny problem of what actually constitutes a ‘remedy state’ in homeopathic practice.  Furthermore, I wish to suggest in this article that the term ‘constitutional’ may be now a rather outmoded concept, which is misleading and ultimately redundant. 

The best way to write a book or article is by ensuring that the different processes that occur during that process, i.e. writing, editing, proofing, checking facts, the layout, graphic content, and so on, occur in a linear manner one after the other. But the pressures of time, together with so many other commitments, may narrow this process down or create different versions.  Facts may not be checked, additions may be made, editing may lead to complete new versions of the original. Yet as a reader you would probably be blissfully unaware of all these changes, since you only ever read one edition and, as far as you are concerned, this is the definitive version of that article[i].

A brain, Daniel Dennett suggests, is like a cerebral version of a book or newspaper. It simultaneously works on different aspects of the same ‘mental narrative’ and is constantly updating the final version. He has dubbed this model ‘the multiple drafts theory of consciousness’. According to this view, there is not a single stream of consciousness in our heads; rather the brain analyses sensations, perceptions, belief structures etc, in different ways at different locations. Dennett calls it ‘a parallel multi-track process of interpretation and elaboration’. The brain works on many different drafts of the same ‘story’ but like the reader of a particular edition of a book, we are only conscious of a single mental narrative. Consciousness, according to Dennett, is simply one draft among many that you happen to ‘read’. Like a book, the narrative of consciousness can be changed many times during production. Which one of the many drafts becomes definitive is according to Dennett, ‘ a matter of circumstance’[ii].

Dennett makes one further point in his theory - the need to abolish the ‘belief that there exists at some location in the brain the self which acts as ‘the Boss’, a place where ‘it all comes together and consciousness happens’. ‘There is no Oval office in the brain’, Dennett insists, ‘the brain is Headquarters, the place where the ultimate observer is, but there is no reason to believe that the brain itself has any deeper headquarters, any inner sanctum, arrival at which is necessary or a sufficient condition for conscious experience. In short, there is no observer inside the brain’[iii]. In fact he replaces this rather abstruse idea of an observer within, with his elegant ‘multiple drafts theory’ and dubs the human brain a ‘Joycean machine’ because it creates a stream of consciousness, similar to that fictionalised in James Joyce’s Ulysses.

Dennett further speculates about how the brain might produce a single narrative out of so many multiple drafts, by comparing the brain architecture to a multiple parallel processing computer which processes our unconscious mental processes, on top of which sits a serial processor, the output of which we call ‘consciousness’. The brain works essentially as a parallel processor. But one of its software programmes can turn it into a serial machine and therefore appears to be performing one task at a time sequentially. In other words, it appears to create a linear narrative from the parallel chaos surrounding it. This, Dennett argues, is what consciousness is: the transformation of parallel processing chaos to a serial narrative, thanks to a programme which converts the brain from a parallel processor to a virtual serial machine.’[iv]

This in essence is a summary of what Dennett, has dubbed his ‘Multiple Drafts Theory of Consciousness’. (MDTC)

Multiple Drafts and Constitutional Remedies

Within the parameters of such a model (MDTC), we can explain health ‘as a dynamic state which ceaselessly updates itself to maintain a coherent narrative that enables an optimum flexibility (other synonyms here might be freedom or flow) to be maintained under the changing conditions of human existence’.

Such a coherent narrative constantly and ceaselessly explores a multitude of different narratives, updating and constantly changing each new exploration in the pursuit of organising a ‘core self’ which becomes ‘the thread of our personality as we know it’. Such a ‘core self’ may explore different states of consciousness, micro-states of possible change, but the inherent drive for self-organisation tends to bring back that individual to the optimum narrative of health.  The point that must be emphasised here, is that  such a ‘core self’ is endlessly shifting through variations to maintain ‘a single narrative’ (the process of being conscious) in a state of coherence and well-being. 

Problems arise when we try and apply the term ‘constitution’ to this model.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term ‘constitution’ indicates:

(a) Physical nature or character of the body in regard to healthiness, strength, vitality etc.

(b) Nature, character, or condition of mind:  mind, disposition, temperament, temper.

From this definition, we can assume that the constitution represents a state of body and mind that is invariant in both time and space. It does not alter over time.  In other words, different experiences don’t ultimately change that original state or ‘constitution’.

 This is totally at variance with the model of consciousness proposed in this article. The dynamic nature of the MDTC model emphasises the ceaseless updating of its single narrative in the light of new information arising from the changing circumstances of experience. So the term ‘constitutional state or remedy’, which in homeopathy indicates a ‘fixed state’, is not only inappropriate but is actually completely redundant within the present MDTC model. The single narrative (our consciousness) conceptualises ‘the updating of multiple drafts’ as a continuous flow of energy while ‘the constitutional state’ presupposes some golden mean that can be compared to a remedy picture. Yet in the MDTC model, no one in a healthy state is a remedy; one becomes a ‘remedy state’ as one changes from an optimal state of health to a state of ill health.

If we equate ‘remedy pictures ’ to ‘discrete states of consciousness’ and emphasize the fact that homeopaths only see ‘states of ill-health’, ‘remedy pictures’ can be said to be ‘narratives that have started to become closed to the ceaseless updates that would represent health in the MDTC model. Such narratives represent threads of consciousness that cannot be edited or updated, and can be likened to macro-states of consciousness which we as homeopaths are privileged to observe.  ‘Remedy pictures’ represent crystallising macro-states in an otherwise overwhelmingly complex exploration of infinite micro-states of possibility. ( I draw a clear distinction between a micro-state which corresponds to a healthy state exploring different aspects of consciousness which can be endlessly updated and a macro-state which is becoming crystallised as a narrative or ‘remedy picture’ and is less flexible in being updated.)

Such macro-states of ill-health emerge as discrete situations that are limited in their capacity to edit or update themselves, thereby crystallising out as possible ‘remedy pictures’. Our role as homeopaths is to naturally match these ‘macro-states’ with our remedies, and this should then hopefully resolve the situation and return that individual to an optimal state of health. Another metaphor which might throw further light on this model, may be to link these ‘remedy pictures’ to habits that have become neurologically sculpted into the mind/body of the patient.

The correct remedy (the simillimum) will initiate ‘ a change in consciousness of the patient such that he/she is enabled to access some profound insights that lead to a change in his/her present state of ‘ill-being’. The macro-state, a discrete state, that has emerged as a remedy, then  dissolves back into an ‘ontological state of infinite possibilities’. Such psycho-somatic behavioural habits would tend to attenuate in strength as the correct remedy was given, until the individual had extinguished the need for such a survival state and shifted to another pasture of possibility.

I would suggest that constitutional states do not exist; one is not a remedy nor a macro-state; one becomes a remedy, and continues to become that remedy or habit, until circumstances dictate another transformation in another direction.

I have deliberately called ‘remedy pictures’ macro-states, because they emerge as discrete states that can be functionally accessed as narratives in a proving and subsequent clinical practice and serve to highlight certain aspects of the human condition. Nevertheless, a ‘remedy picture’ subsumes at times a wide variety of subtle variations even within its own parameters, which would indicate the dynamic condition of even such a discrete state. I equally suspect that virtually all remedy states exist even when that individual is in a state of health as the multitude of updates never ceases.  Yet these micro-states dissolve as quickly as waves in an ocean, and as homeopaths our roles come into prominence when such a wave of consciousness ceases to actively change with the surrounding circumstances.

MACRO STATES AND SIMILARS

Neither can we state categorically that a macro-state represents only one remedy picture. The facts that enable ill-health to emerge, may indicate an inability within the MDTC model, to update or optimise its survival strategy thereby leading to a discrete macro-state or remedy picture. Yet these emerging ‘macro-states’ are still dynamic and will in principle continue to update their own status, albeit not with the full force of radiance associated with good health. This state of affairs is inherent in ‘the law of similars’, which implies finding a close enough similar remedy to stimulate the ‘vital force’, the simillimum being the closest match possible.  Obviously our aim is to attain ‘the closest possible’ similar yet it is also clear that a number of close similars might exist. This would tally with the idea of such crystallising macro-states, which represent various discreet states emerging and moving the person towards ill health. Such discreet states are still dynamic states of consciousness, yet are more limited in the breath of their scope, and represent closed narratives that can be matched with correct ‘remedy pictures’.

If we compare searching for the simillimum as statistically aligned to a mathematical Bell curve, there will be a number of possible remedies that might significantly have an effect on the health of the individual, but our methodology is obviously to try to find the best prescription at the peak of this Bell curve. However, it is obvious that a number of remedies could exist that might help a patient.  Our remit is to find the best one with the optimal benefit in the minimum amount of time. The MDTC model shows this to be a possibility since a macro-state is still evolving, albeit in a more limited fashion, so that that there would be a number of overlaps between different but close states in remedy pictures.

  SUMMARY

There are a number of models being used in the homeopathic community and the present model may well be superseded, yet it does try and make sense of one of our most confusing issues, i.e. what represents a constitutional state?  To summarise:  according to the MDTC model, states are being constantly updated so no individual remains exactly in the same state; too much editing occurs even at a subtle level to concretise our conscious narrative as one fixed personality state. Remedies possibly present a unique window into the minutiae of possible conscious states, albeit self-limiting in their discrete functionality, yet fully evolved in the wide range of psychosomatic conditions that are present.  In some ways, ‘remedy pictures’ represent digital snapshots that emerge from ‘the Joycean machine’ of continuous flow that embodies our ongoing stream of consciousness. Our homeopathic provings correspond to digital explorations; small discrete lacunae of consciousness that allow us to observe the superimposition of a potentised state on our own states of ‘core self’. The Multiple Drafts model is an analogue model i.e. characterized as a continuous flow of information, which becomes fractured into different channels, which can then emerge as different ‘remedy pictures’. Some individuals with a strong sense of ‘core self’ may well fracture into a few ‘remedy states’ while others may possibly explore a far wider range of possible states to savour the optimum state of coherence.  In the end, the pursuit of health remains the pursuit of a coherent narrative that produces optimal strategies in survival, and as homeopaths we can only glimpse the infinite variations that must exist as each individual sculpts his own unique experiences into that dialogue. Yet we remain in a privileged position, for over a period of over two hundred years, we have been mapping in endless detail the entire scope and breadth of ‘what it is to be conscious’, an awesome contribution to the evolution of the human condition.