In any functional sense, organism and environment are inseparable and form only one unitary system. The organism cannot exist without the environment, and the environment has descriptive properties only if it is connected to the organism.
Mental activity is activity of the whole organism-environment system, and the traditional psychological concepts describe only different aspects of organization of this system. Therefore, mental activity cannot be separated from the nervous system, but the nervous system is only one part of the organism-environment system.
When concentrating on himself, man has forgotten the most essential factor in his life—his environment. In studies of human behavior the latter has always been taken as self-evident and unproblematic; the main problems were seen within man himself, in the processing capacity of his brain or in his cognitive abilities. It is, however, not at all easy to say what really is the environment of man, what it consists of, what its relation to the past and future is, how it should be described, and how useful it is to abstract man from his environment in any study of human behavior.
We have a better understanding of the propagation of the different forms of energy, mechanical and neural changes in the receptors, generation of nerve impulses, interaction between the neurons, selection of stimuli, influences on the activity of sense organs, processing in the central nervous system of neural models of stimuli, and so on. Psychological theoretizing has supported this development by describing mental activity as information processing, as the construction of inner models, or as the formation of cognitive maps and schemata of the environment.
Experimental work and theoretical development have consistently been based on the idea that organism and environment form two separate systems and that mental activity is located in the organism, that it is an inner and private activity of the organism. It is this basic starting point which seems to lead up a blind alley. Could it be that this basic assumption is simply not correct?
The starting point of most explanations for human behavior is based on our everyday experience. This may be summarized as follows: there is a human being which we may see and an environment in which this being is acting. Thus we have basically two different and separate objects: man and environment. This separation seems to be so self-evident that we usually do not see any reasons to doubt it; actually it would be strange to maintain anything else. There is the physical environment, the world surrounding any organism, and there is the organism with its private inner world (which we may of course doubt in the case of animals, sometimes even of other human beings). The border between the two worlds or systems seems to be clear; it may be located somewhere close to the skin. The two systems are, of course, not separate in the sense that they are in continuous interaction. The organism acts on the outside objects, and these objects exert influences on the organism which reacts through its inner processes.
Can we somehow define at any instant a clear border between the two systems? The coffee in the cup is clearly part of the environment, and when the subject is drinking it it becomes a part of the organism system—or does it? Is it possible to say when the coffee is in the organism? When it is in the mouth? Or in the intestines? Or when the chemical parts of the coffee are in the blood? In fact, it is impossible to define any exact border which should be exceeded so that we could on this basis unequivocally determine whether the coffee has moved from the environment into the organism. The same is true in general of metabolism and, especially, of breathing. When is the breathed air outside and when inside? Or what about spectacles? On the table they are certainly part of the environment; on my nose they are part of the organism just in the same sense as is the lens of the eye. At what point in the air is the "border" between the two systems exceeded when I move them from the table to my nose?
Any attempt to develop an explanation of human behavior on the basis of an assumption of two systems meets considerable difficulties right at the beginning. In contrast to our common-sense impression, critical scrutiny shows that we cannot define unequivocally any of our basic concepts on this basis. We cannot simply define whether any object which we study is part of the organism or part of the environment. This follows from the fact that we are not able to show any absolute border between the organism and the environment.
What would happen if we decided to reject the idea of the two systems and, against our common-sense thinking, assume that the organism and environment form from the beginning only one system, an organism-environment system? This idea in itself is not a new one. In fact, several lines of thinking in philosophy, psychology, biology, and even physiology have started with the idea of unity of the organism and environment.
The theory of the organism-environment system starts with the proposition that in any functional sense organism and environment are inseparable and form only one unitary system. The organism cannot exist without the environment and the environment has descriptive properties only if it is connected to the organism. Although for practical purposes we may separate organism and environment, this common-sense idea leads to problems which cannot be solved and therefore cannot be the basis of any scientific explanation of human behavior. Therefore, in the theory of the organism-environment system we define living organisms as systems consisting of integrated cells and tissues and of specified parts of the environment, with which they form a system.
An organism exists as an organism only together with its environment, and both are bound together in behavior.
Environment is not something passively surrounding the organism, but an active part of the system leading to the results of behavior. Subject and object are also inseparable and represent only points of view into the organization of the organism-environment system.
As all parts of the system are active in relation to the result, mental activity is not something located in the organism but extends into the environment. All concepts referring to mental activity—like perception, emotion, memory, et cetera—describe only different aspects of the organization and dynamics of the whole organism-environment system. Therefore, mental activity cannot be localized in any part of the organism; it is not an activity of the brain, for example, although it may not exist without the brain.
The unity of the organism and the environment is a genuinely new and broader concept than the traditional one.
No organism can be thought of without an environment. The organism as a skin bag is no system at all; it may be a system only together with the environment. We cannot define even a single cell as a system when separated from the environment, because the basic character of the cell is metabolism, and the elements of metabolism necessarily include metabolites both in the cell and in its environment. Metabolism is a continuous cycle which may not be limited only to inside the organism.
The theory of the organism-environment system makes possible the definition of mental phenomena without their reduction either to neural or biological activity or to separate mental functions. Mental activity cannot be separated from the nervous system, but the nervous system is only one part of the organism-environment system. Mental activity extends to the environment and its different forms refer to different aspects of the organization of the organism-environment system.
If a thought or consciousness is located in the brain, what does it exactly mean? Is it located in the cells or between them? Or is it simply activity of the neurons? Moreover, if it is a property of the activity of neurons, do all neurons have such a property? If not, how then do the neurons which have “conscious” properties differ from other neurons? Do only certain kinds of neurons have mental activity?
The most important feature of the nervous system (which as such is no system at all) is its ability to organize, together with all other parts of the body and environment, systems producing useful behavioral results.
Evolution is not the selection of organisms, but of forms of behavior. We may express the same in different words by maintaining that, in evolution, organism-environment systems are selected, not any single structures or mental functions.
Before the existence of the nervous system, the relations between the cells of the organism were relatively fixed and static. Therefore, plants, for example, cannot vary their actions much when the environment is markedly changed. Only neurons made possible the development of dynamic systems joining parts of the environment and the organism. With these cells (which could influence directly other neurons and other cells of the body) it was possible to form systems which dynamically changed their organization in accordance with varying life conditions in different parts of the world.
The basic principle of nervous functioning is not that of information processing, but creation of such constellations of neurons which—joined to the other parts of the body and environment—may achieve behavioral results which are useful for the metabolism of neurons and through this for the whole organism. The neurons are in many ways the most sensitive cells in the body and their large-scale destruction leads necessarily to the restriction of the action possibilities of the whole organism.
The necessary condition for forming systems leading to useful results is not from the systemic point of view that nervous organization should reproduce the organization of the environment as some sort of representation or model. The only essential is that a system may be formed in which elements belonging both to the body and to the environment are fitted together. The structure of the body, of course, “reflects” the structure of the environment in the sense that by inspection of the bodily structure we may also conclude something about the possible structure of the environment. When looking at the body of an organism we may speculate on what kind of environment would be appropriate. The study of the organism is simultaneously the study of the environment.
The theory of the organism-environment system maintains that mental activity is realized in a system consisting of neural and environmental parts. As to the concepts of learning and knowledge, this means that they are not based on transmission of information from the environment into the organism. There is only one system. Thus, all increase of knowledge means only the reorganization or widening of this system. Knowledge may be defined as the form of existence, because it is impossible to have any living system without knowledge. This means also that knowledge must be created; it cannot be transmitted or moved from one head to another.
With neuronal data only, we will never be able to explain consciousness or any other human action. Such acts are not carried out by neurons, but by a system which consists of the neurons, of many body parts, and parts of the environment, including other human beings.
When looking at the principles of brain function it is usually forgotten that neurons are living entities which try to maintain their metabolism in a similar way to that of all cells. In this process they have, however, several advantages in relation to other cells of the body: they may influence other cells, they may move around in the brain, they may grow their dendrites and axons to get useful connections, et cetera. If, however, they fail in the maintenance of their metabolism they will be destroyed.
The senses are not transmitters of environmental information, but create a direct connection between the organism and the environment, which makes the development of a dynamic living system, the organism-environment system, possible.
Consciousness means the appearance of a social environment, shared activity, and the possibility for the description of the own action and its objects. Consciousness is not a property of the brain or even an individual, but always presupposes the existence of several individuals joining their action for common result. Such a system is created by communication; thus language, for example, is not a means of information transmission, but a way to produce common organization and common results. The knowledge that may be communicated is only part of all knowledge that exists in the social system.
Mental activity or consciousness will not be found in the brain, but in a system of relations including both the organism and environment, and the traditional psychological “functions” (such as sensation, perception, memory, et cetera) describe only different aspects of the organization of the whole organism-environment system.
The brain is not the only place (and not even the most important one) to look if we want to understand what it means to be conscious, and it is a serious conceptual confusion if we think that consciousness will be eventually “found” in the brain. The brain is an organ like the other organs of the body; there is no more “psyche” in the brain than in the heart, for example. The brain—which can be neatly localized within the cranium only in anatomy books—consists of a huge number of specialized living cells which are organized together over the whole body and carry out physiological, but not psychological processes.
Why is it a commonly accepted fact that organism and environment are two separate systems?
We come to the basic difference between the inanimate and living systems: a cell as a system is not limited to its membrane, the border between the cell and environment, but it extends as a functional unit into the environment. The membrane of the living system is not a line of separation, but rather connects the inner parts of the cell with selected parts of the environment.
The difficulty in the study and understanding of life is probably related to the fact that the elements of a living system are continuously changing. The elements outside the cell membrane are assimilated by the cell, processed, and joined to the structural parts inside the membrane, destroyed, and rebuilt or expelled. The cell is maintained as long as this process goes on; if it stops then the cell is no longer a living system.
The living cell is separated from the environment by its protective membrane, making possible development of complicated structures within the cell. However, this membrane is simultaneously an organ joining the cell selectively to an abundant number of environmental factors rendering a functioning living system possible.
Physical description of a living system can never be a complete description, not only because physics has nothing to say about life as such, but also because the parts of the system are not selected according to the physical laws, but on the basis of the living structure.
The basic problem in the study of the living system is that the elements of the system define each other and cannot be studied separately. When we “separate” such an element we destroy its organic connections, and it stops being an element of the living system studied. Life is a process: when we stop it for scientific study we lose some of its essential characteristics.
Mental activity appeared when the result of action contained the whole organization of the system and aided the development of the entire system. Thus, mental activity is not some mystical “emergent property” of the organization of neural elements (the brain) only, but a form of action necessarily following from the complicated development of the organism-environment system.
The development of communication offered the possibility of directing one’s own and another’s actions towards a common result by giving orders to oneself as well as to the other. Therefore, communication developed as a tool for creating cooperative organization in which the indication given to the other also acts as an indication to change one’s own actions. In this process it is possible to see through the other participants what the relation is of one’s own action to the common result as well as to the efforts of the other participants. This was the beginning of human consciousness.
Consciousness—in a very general sense—means appearance of an organism-environment system in which every single organism-environment system acts as an element of the system as a whole which is directed towards common results that are useful for the whole cooperative system.
Consciousness is the characteristic of the structure of the social system; therefore it is not possible to regard consciousness as some sort of “inner” property of the individual. However, consciousness is not only something general, but every individual also has his personal consciousness. This personal consciousness is not something residing “inside,” but means the personal participation of the individual in the results of common action. Every participating individual realizes some aspect of the general consciousness through his own action. The different individual aspects culminate in the common result and participation in the common results widens the action possibilities and the personal consciousness of the individual.
According to the present formulation, consciousness means the possibility of a certain kind of cooperation and the production of common results which are beneficial for all participants; therefore, consciousness cannot exist in the individual, but presupposes a whole consisting of several individuals.
The subject of consciousness is not the body, brain, or a neuron, but an “I:” a person that may not be defined on the basis of the structure of his brain, but rather as a point of intersection in a net of social relations. The “I” is not an entity in the same sense as a body, but a systemic relation. The thinking and conscious subject is not a piece of flesh, but a set of relations and processes in the social system. Such relations create a person who is distinct from all other personalities precisely through those specific relations.
A word is not a symbol representing something, but a proposal for common action. It is precisely the common result which is stored in language, and therefore language reflects the history of mankind and its culture; language is the historical collection of the results of human cooperation.
With the development of consciousness s/he starts to have her own joy or pain that, however, is a result of learning and cooperation with the closest people. This leads then to the idea that something that happens to other people is not happening to “me.” With the further development of consciousness it is possible that people start to realize that this connection was, however, never really cut: everything that happens to other people happens also to me, at least in the form of development of my action possibilities and experience of the world.
It is only a cultural convention that we are used to set the point of reference of consciousness in the head, which leads to the mystical idea that consciousness is inside the brain. This makes consciousness into something very subjective and private.
If we agree that the basis of “I” is the set of relations within a system of communication, then “my” subjective experience is not really private, but also includes other people. To have an “I,” to be a conscious agent, means that the individual is the whole of humanity.
Every conscious image, memory, and thought is not something individual only, but belongs to the whole cooperating system in which it gets its significance as a shared image, memory, or thought.
Human action is the process of the intertwining of the body and environment in cooperation with other people, and the results of human action are an inseparable part of this process. The human being belongs together with the other human beings and may only in this context have his own existence. Individuality is possible only in a social system.
Each percept is the realization of an aspect of the real world. In each conscious perception the world turns one of its sides toward us, a side which can be used in joint action with our fellow humans in our culture.
The problem of consciousness has probably always been difficult precisely because consciousness has been sought in a person artificially abstracted from the environment and other people.
Locating consciousness in the brain leads to questions which cannot be answered, because for consciousness to exist we need much more than the brain alone.