Over at x4mr's blog there have been a couple of posts (here and here ... read the comments too) and comments discussing the underlying nature of consciousness. Well, really almost any x4mr post is interesting and thought-provoking in one way or another, but I find this discussion particularly enjoyable, for whatever reason.
X4mr, who clearly has thought about this in far greater depth than I ever have, asserts there is more to human consciousness (or any form of consciousness) than simply that which is found in the physical realm - that feelings, intuition, thoughts, sensations all have some non-physical element to them. For example, how is the fact I find this set of threads on x4mr's site "particularly enjoyable" denoted in any physical sense?
Well, I don't have a firm position on this question, but what position I do have is on the other side of the fence, so I am going to attempt to make a case that consciousness does ultimately come down to a question of matter. (I'll note I don't have my feet firmly planted in this position, and it's entirely possible that, over the next few months as x4mr expands on his views he will persuade me to his camp - in which case this post will likely be viewed as some horrible embarrassment).
Let's start by considering the universe as a whole - a big task, I know. However, no matter how vast the universe is, all the physical elements of it can be broken down into some collection of very small parts: photons, gluons, quarks, etc. One effect of this is the sum total of all the physical elements of the universe comprises a countable set of particles. A very large countable set, but a countable set nonetheless. I would expect that set would consist of substantially less than a googolplex of elements.
The issue becomes tying non-material things (such as thoughts) to the material world (such as our actions). This is the mind-body problem, one of the great questions of philosophy, and for which there is yet no real consensus or agreement as to a solution. As x4mr notes, there are many great minds who have determined "There has to be more to reality than the physical world." However, many great minds have also decided concluded only the physical exists.
Ultimately, memories, thoughts, sensations are denoted by electrochemical reactions in our brains. One argument in favor of a physical approach would be to simply note those reactions are defined by a series of interactions between very small particles. An electric current is the flow of electrically charged particles, and those particles are physical. Chemistry is the study of interactions of various forms of matter, and matter is physical.
Further, in recent decades we have been able to do more and more research on the brain. We can tell which parts of the brain are in use when different thoughts are occurring, different things are being perceived. We can tell what physical locations of the brain are responsible for what. Suffer brain damage to some small, specific part of your brain, and you may lose short-term memory, while still being able to recall your childhood.
If I physically remove part of your brain, why would your ability to recall short-term memories be permanently affected unless, in the end, this ability was described by physical processes?
Our greater understanding of the physical working of the brain is further exemplified by the recent news of a man regaining significant functionality after use electrical stimulation of specific parts of his brain. Doctors were capable of doing that because they were capable of isolating the physical locations within his brain which needed stimulating. They didn't stimulate non-physical locations.
It's inarguable consciousness has, at a minimum, a physical element. The only question is whether or not there is something more to it. X4mr and other dualists believe there is. Monists, or specifically physicalists, believe there is not.
Well known sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke (of "2001 - A Space Odyssey" fame) formulated three laws. The best known is the third: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I assert recent scientific advances/studies, as well as Occam's Razor, lend increasing support to the physicalist view. Things like how memory and thoughts work, how the mind and body interact, only seem magical now because our science isn't advanced enough ... yet. We're getting there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Outstanding post, Sirocco. First rate.
You surmise correctly that I have farther to go and more to say. The navigator knows some of what is coming. I have strong reason to believe that he has spent time at the border.
Of course border is a metaphor operating on several levels. You have already guessed one of them, I think. We also have the border between the physical and, well, ...
We also have the border between mind and soul, if you believe in a soul, and that inquiry dives rich and deep quickly. If we have one, what does that mean? If we don't, what does that mean? In either case, what would one be if it in fact existed?
Would it be physical?
Oh, and if no distinction between mind and soul exists, it sure flies in the face of human experience.
If you are willing to take the step and say soul refers to something different, what is that difference?
Can evil be extremely intelligent? How?
As I will write with greater detail and clarity at a later time, the Sufi masters have a saying:
Every stick has two ends.
Well, in my world-view the concept of "soul" is a purely human conceit, so it becomes moot.
I must be missing a point, but I see no reason whatsoever why intelligence would also imply benevolence in a monist universe.
WOW, Sirocco. Fascinating.
I am going to have to think about your remark. To use the word "conceit" for soul is strong language. If I used the expression "depth of character" or "wisdom" that is distinct from "book smarts" would that register anything?
Do you accept the concept of spiritual knowledge or wisdom? Again, please dismiss all of the sheep.
Okay, so intelligence does not imply benevolence. What does?
X4mr,
Yes, I certainly would accept the terms "depth of character" or "wisdom". If you are using the term "soul" in a sense of that which characterizes our overall makeup, then I would accept it.
What I would reject is the use of the term as some separate part of ourself, potentially independent of our living selves, which is how I understood your usage of it.
Why would anything need to imply benevolence? Just as, why would anything need to imply malevolence?
It's often said no one sees themselves as evil, yet certainly there are certain things which the general consensus would agree were evil. Hitler's genocide of the Jews, or Sudan's genocide now are examples.
So it certainly seems there does exist some general (although not universal) standard against which good and evil can be judged. Most people try to act most often in a manner they perceive as good -- whether it is actually judged good or not ultimately lies in the judgment of everyone else except the actor.
Most people want to be perceived as benevolent, as "having good character". There might be many reasons for this -- feeling good about themselves, honest concern for the well-being of others, the hope of gaining future benefit some how, and so on.
Possessing a "soul" is not a prerequisite for this, although to the extent people who do believe in "souls" are thereby motivated to engage in a benevolent manner to help "safeguard" their soul, it may serve as a useful construct.
One can be benevolent and wise and soul-less all at the same time. :)
Post a Comment