I have endless debates about things that appear to be purely philosophical, but to me are now applicable. Sometimes this is a reach. Recently my great friend (who is welcome to identify himself but it would be impolite for me to do so) was discussing via Facebook the issue of consciousness. I have been prodding this friend to start a blog and he, likely half jokingly said, “when I figure out consciousness I will start it.” Pointing out that I may have to wait awhile to read his blog, he felt that figuring this out was not a matter of science, in that it likely didn’t involve more experimentation. Instead he felt a Eureka moment may occur, and therefore an ancient question resolved, and his blog launched. Until very recently I would have said that he was 100% wrong. Now I think there is that possibility, though my thoughts on why are likely different than his.
It is possible that consciousness is not to be found, but rather conceptualized. An excellent book by Thomas Metzinger called “The Ego Tunnel” deals with this directly, giving evidence that consciousness itself may be an illusion. I am sympathetic to this theory, as it fits very nicely with my well documented (and likelyboring to my friends and family) strong belief that free will is an illusion. If you are interested in this, look here and here for my views, and here for an opposing view by Massimo Pigliucci. The ideas of a no free will self are hard enough to digest. It means that we are complex parts of nature, but no different than anything else in nature itself. We can be predicted in theory if we had enough information. There are only two possibilities, either everything is determined, which is the large stuff, or involves quantum fluctuations, which are random, with the small stuff. Either way there is not free will.
I have taken this debate past the philosophical to help engineers and myself who are interested in artificial intelligence learn how to create it. That is to allow a system to have options, but only one right answer. A machine that has feeling is more complicated of course. How does a machine feel that it is choosing, like we feel that we are choosing? I don’t have an answer but assume that it can be accomplished the way I think it is accomplished for people. The reasons for the perception of free will must be somehow tied to an evolutionary need at some point to feel free. Perhaps this is why we care for our children, or for the purpose of creating technologies. I have no idea, yet any of those things can be programmed.
So what if the same is true for consciousness itself, and why should we not think that it is? This is an open question to myself, and more importantly to people who know something about this. It is also my shot at a simplistic Eureka to beat out my friend.
Ha! Eureka, I get consciousness. It doesn’t exist! Or maybe I am wrong...
2 comments:
I am honored to admit to being the "great friend" and I want to express my gratitude to Matthew.
His discussion of consciousness has touched a raw nerve in me and has generated a series of questions (or maybe it's really just one question) the solution of which will lead us to a more complete method for pondering the "essential" in ways that provoke, inspire and contribute to our
understanding of what it means to be human.
This is both a scientific and a religious problem, and I equate the realms of science and religion because fundamentally I believe that they are both attempting to understand the nature of reality (and by religion I'm not referring to the corporate religious cults that have made religion into a delusional, fear-driven business, but rather to those who seek to understand and explain our place in the universe).
Back to consciousness: Your essay raises up numerous questions and speculations:
1. Can consciousness be quantified; that is, can it be expressed mathematically? I would argue that it can be but the equation eludes me.
2. It seems to me that, by definition, consciousness is the opposite of unconsciousness. If we are unconscious of our motivations, then we lack free will in that we are not actually making choices but rather are living from a "pre-destined" place, a place defined by evolution and culture. To the extent that we can eliminate our pockets of unconsciousness, that is, become aware of the primitive and evolutionary drives in ourselves, to that extent do we possess consciousness and a form of free will. We choose actions rather than have them imposed on us by our evolutionary history. This, to me, is the difference between fate and destiny. Fate = unconsciousness and repetition. Destiny = consciousness and free will.
3. That being said, is consciousness really unique to the individual? Or are we all just cellular representations of one all-encompassing Consciousness that is manifested throughout the universe in a cellular form. As a matter of conjecture, perhaps Consciousness IS the universe.
4.What you call the "illusion of consciousness", I speculate is the illusion of identity; that is, each of us has created the idea that we are separate selves with unique attributes that differentiate us from the whole. I'm wondering if it's this idea of individual consciousness that is the evolutionary illusion that you reference.
5.Do we need to dissolve this illusion of the separate self, our identification with Robert, or Matthew as distinct entities, in order to embrace the possibility of a unified Consciousness that permeates all cellular experience and would "explain" the Oneness of all things. This is where quantum physics and religion seem to meet.
6. So the "Eureka" moment would entail a liberation from the illusion of separate islands of consciousness in order to experience Consciousness as a cellular unity of all things in space and time.
7. We still haven't talked about friendship, love, altruism, heroism, and gratitude. But these attributes of being human seem more easily relegated to the evolutionary smorgasbord and will have to wait for another day.
May the force be with you..........
Wow Robert. I am not sure I am smart enough to comment, but that has never stopped me before.
Your #2 I don't get so much. I guess that you are re-coining old terminological (fate and destiny) which is cool, except that we may be stuck with too many notions of those words. I would simplify and say that unconsciousness is unawareness of perception and consciousness is unawareness of outcomes. Neither may be different from a physiological standpoint, which is the point of the blog. Therefore I would say that they are not opposites. Instead to use a computer analogy, unconsciousness may simply be like a computer with a user interface.
Number 3 is interesting and probably possible. I saw a TED talk that shows how life appears to be created even when it is not really life. Like mixing oil and other chemicals. They bond etc.. So what about actual living cellular things like bacteria such as mitochondria, that are symbiotic with our cells? What is the level of communication? It may be that they have a different user interface as I spoke of in #2.
The rest of your questions/answers are what i would normally think of as overly new agey for me, but I think I am starting to get your point about the individual. I was not referring to a unified consciousness, but when I think about it, you are right that it is not that different than the evolution argument. We are evolved to live as a group, therefore it makes some sense that our consciousness (or perception of consciousness) also co-evolved, and cannot exist in isolation. There is some evidence of this in people who are deprived of interactions with other people. they lose identity rather than gain it.
Thanks Robert for the thoughts. Very provocative.
Post a Comment