Gratis verzending vanaf €35,-
Unieke producten
Milieuvriendelijk, hoogste kwaliteit
Professioneel advies: 085 - 743 03 12

Can consciousness understand itself?

Reading | Philosophy

John Hogan, PhD | 2022-02-20

shutterstock 638004649 small

Has human consciousness evolved enough to understand what it is and isn’t? Dr. Hogan warns against a rush to judgment when it comes to answering the big questions of life, self, and reality at large.

The mind/body problem is intrinsically related to the concept of consciousness. The two most common philosophical positions that bound such concept are:

  1. Consciousness is dependent on the immutable laws of chemistry and physics, which have been subject to the forces of evolution. That is, consciousness has evolved in a similar fashion to the evolution of any of our senses. Any proponent of the New Atheism would exemplify this position, say Richard Dawkins discussing his book, The Blind Watchmaker.
  2. Consciousness is dependent on a reality separate from the known laws of chemistry and physics. For the purposes of this discussion, we designate this separate reality as C. Consciousness is dependent on C, but C is independent of the laws of chemistry and physics, which have been deduced by our species through logic and measurement. Any leader of a monotheistic religion would exemplify this position, say Pope Francis reciting the Nicaean Creed.

Anyone who addresses consciousness within this spectrum, while accepting the validity of the theory of evolution, is “hoist on their own petard,” to quote Shakespeare. A “petard” is a clump of gun powder with a fuse. In medieval times, it was stuck on the wooden door of a castle and lit to allow entry by the invaders. If the military engineer who had this job didn’t run away fast enough, he was “hoist” into the air. The expression now relates to a self-inflicted unexpected outcome, say the politician who passes a tough campaign finance law only to be convicted under it later.

What is our “petard” under the theory of evolution? According to it, we share a nearest common ancestor with any other living plant or animal. Let’s consider a person and their family dog, as well as the paternal genealogy of both. Roughly 20 million years ago, a specific mammal had multiple offspring. The progeny upon progeny of one of this mammal’s offspring became the person. The progeny upon progeny of another offspring of this mammal from 20 million years ago became the family dog.

There is a sense in which this is our “petard.” To understand why, let’s return to the family dog. It might stare or howl at a full moon, but it does not have the evolved mental capacity to understand Newton’s theory of gravity, much less understand that the moon is a sphere rather than a disc. There are truths that are unknowable to the dog. Much of the knowledge humans know to be true—from algebra to the political history of the western world—is simply unknowable to the family dog. (Let­­­­’s be humble, the dog also has knowledge unavailable to the human; for example, the relationship of smell to danger or pleasure.) The dog’s cousin, the person, may believe they have the mental capacity to navigate the pathways to account for consciousness in a manner bounded by positions 1 and 2. But humility is in order.

The person’s conclusion as to what is true will be based on the neuro-chemical reactions that drive logic and emotion. These drives have been forged in their brain by evolutionary selection over the past 20 million years. There is no logical thread that posits that the dog’s mental capacity—formed by the same evolutionary forces—is limited, while the person’s is not. Evolutionary theory allows that descendants of some modern-day humans may be, in another 20 million years, as different from us as we are from the dog. They may know things about evolution and our place in the universe that are as unknowable to us as algebra is unknowable to the family dog. This is not the limitation of logic discovered by Kurt Gödel; it is the biological limit imposed by realizing that evolution is not yet done with our finite brain.

The person need not give up hope while lighting this petard. Evolution is consistent—albeit not inherent or exclusive—with either of the extremes captured by position 1—the atheist position—and position 2—the theist position. Let’s explore this with the understanding of time.

In position 1, consciousness follows biology on earth while in position 2 C precedes biology. Given this formulation, the implications of position 2 for theists are obvious. In the Christian tradition, a loving God starts the whole human experience. However, an atheistic interpretation of position 2 is not only rational under this formulation, but also has an analogy with one of the most important evolutionary events in history: the biological exploitation of water.

Water became essential for life on earth 100 million years ago, via an adaptation made by our sponge ancestors, which exploited water’s chemistry and physics to extract nutrients. The circulation systems of the family dog and the person can be traced to this adaptation and have certainly improved upon it.

Now, the consciousness experienced and amplified by our ancestors over the last 500,000 years may depend on a series of neural adaptations that have exploited the existence of C, much like our circulatory system exploited water. It may take another 10 million years of evolution for substantially evolved descendants of Homo sapiens to understand the mechanisms of this adaptation.

While the assertion that our consciousness is solely dependent on evolution (position 1 above) may be true, it is not provable given the evolutionary status of our brain, and therefore may in fact be false. Likewise, the assertion that our consciousness is derived from a reality separate from the known laws of physics, C, may be true, but it is not provable given the evolutionary status of our brain, and therefore may in fact be false. The only thing provable is that evolution is consistent with this uncertainty and this uncertainty is a hallmark of the human condition.

We should not give up personal responsibility as we lead our conscious lives, make decisions, and ponder the meaning of life. We should recognize the scientific foundation of evolution and willingly express evolutionary thoughts and emotions that drive what we consider to be good outcomes (say, kinship within the family), and constrain evolutionary thoughts and emotions that drive what we consider to be poor outcomes (say, fear of the outsider). However, we should also be open to the possibility of a reality that is greater than what we can observe with our senses. While pondering this greater reality we should be wary of human concocted spiritual dogma.

Subhash MIND BEFORE MATTER scaled

Essentia Foundation communicates, in an accessible but rigorous manner, the latest results in science and philosophy that point to the mental nature of reality. We are committed to strict, academic-level curation of the material we publish.

Recently published

|

Analytic Idealism and the possibility of a meta-conscious cosmic mind

Does Analytic Idealism limit the scope of its own conclusions and implications because of its adoption of realist, empirically-focused, scientific concepts and argument structures? If so, can the notion of a meta-conscious (that is, self-aware, deliberate) universal consciousness be reconciled with it? Dr. Grego argues precisely so in this critical essay.

|

There is no absolute physical world independent of observation

Hans Busstra and Dr. Lídia del Rio talk to Dr. Matthew Leifer, Assistant Professor of Physics at Chapman University, about the epistemic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Classically, when physicists call themselves ‘realists’ they mean that we should assume that a physical, observer-independent universe is fundamental. But if this counts as realism, anti-realism is perhaps the more respectable position. Leifer points, for instance, to ‘Bell-Wigner mashups’: thought-experiments that entangle different observers to arrive at disturbing consequences; for instance, that there is no ‘absoluteness of facts’ for all observers, in a classical sense.

From the archives

|

Biosemiotics: A new way to understand non-human consciousness

What if phenomenal consciousness, signs, communication, and interpretation are fundamental aspects of all living systems, whether or not we can detect brains? This is the departure point of biosemiotics, an interdisciplinary field that combines biology, semiotics (the study of signs and meaning), and philosophy. Environmental philosopher Dr. Yogi Hendlin is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Biosemiotics and, in this conversation, Hans Busstra talks to him about the widespread meaning-making in nature. All living beings, from bacteria to plants to mammals, have an ‘Umwelt,’ a dashboard representation of the world. In a sense, biosemiotics states that our mind is in the world: we are embodied beings, and with every inhalation 50.000 microbes enter our body, and they communicate to us by influencing our microbiome.

|

Relational Quantum Dynamics and Indra’s Net: A non-dual understanding of quantum reality

Professor Zaghi introduces Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), a further development of Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) with a solid mathematical and metaphysical basis. RQD circumvents the infinite regress inherent to RQM (everything being constituted of relations between meta-relations, and these consisting of relations between meta-meta-relations, etc., ad infinitum) by proposing that, although all physical entities are indeed relational, the relations—and even spacetime itself—arise within an underlying field awareness.

|

DNA & neurons cannot explain life & consciousness

Hans Busstra talks to Dr. Bernardo Kastrup about the groundbreaking work of Professor Michael Levin and Dr. Christof Koch. Levin’s research into bio-electric fields reveals that cellular networks use electrical signals not just for immediate physiological tasks, but to coordinate complex patterning and memory across tissues—suggesting a kind of distributed intelligence in living systems. Christof Koch, meanwhile, champions Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which proposes that consciousness is an intrinsic property of certain physical systems with high levels of causal interconnectivity. Both lines of inquiry challenge the traditional reductionist view that mind is merely an emergent byproduct of neural activity. Instead, they point to a more holistic, perhaps even fundamental, role for information and consciousness in nature. Though Levin and Koch make no explicit metaphysical claims in their work, their empirical findings and views are very much in line with analytic idealism.

Reading

Essays

|

Why the quantum state only exists in our mind

Dr. David Schmid, Dr. Lídia Del Rio and Hans Busstra explore a metaphysical shift that’s happening in the foundations of physics: the wave function is no longer regarded as something real, but just as a description of what we know about the world. In philosophical terms: the wave function is not ontic, but epistemic. And in more popular terms: the multiverse is science fiction, resting on a too-literal interpretation of a piece of mathematics called the Schrödinger equation.

|

The Demiurge in our brain’s left hemisphere

The jealous and alienating gnostic Demiurge, a certain mode of attending to the world described by Heidegger, and Iain McGilchrist’s characterisation of the brain’s left-hemisphere, all share remarkable similarities, according to Arthur Haswell. He suggests thus that the Demiurge may be a symbol of something that lives in us, modulating how we relate to others and the world at large. As such, the holistic perspective of the right hemisphere may be a corrective that brings us closer to the transcendent and truly divine.

|

Biosemiotics: A new way to understand non-human consciousness

What if phenomenal consciousness, signs, communication, and interpretation are fundamental aspects of all living systems, whether or not we can detect brains? This is the departure point of biosemiotics, an interdisciplinary field that combines biology, semiotics (the study of signs and meaning), and philosophy. Environmental philosopher Dr. Yogi Hendlin is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Biosemiotics and, in this conversation, Hans Busstra talks to him about the widespread meaning-making in nature. All living beings, from bacteria to plants to mammals, have an ‘Umwelt,’ a dashboard representation of the world. In a sense, biosemiotics states that our mind is in the world: we are embodied beings, and with every inhalation 50.000 microbes enter our body, and they communicate to us by influencing our microbiome.

|

Relational Quantum Dynamics and Indra’s Net: A non-dual understanding of quantum reality

Professor Zaghi introduces Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), a further development of Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) with a solid mathematical and metaphysical basis. RQD circumvents the infinite regress inherent to RQM (everything being constituted of relations between meta-relations, and these consisting of relations between meta-meta-relations, etc., ad infinitum) by proposing that, although all physical entities are indeed relational, the relations—and even spacetime itself—arise within an underlying field awareness.

|

DNA & neurons cannot explain life & consciousness

Hans Busstra talks to Dr. Bernardo Kastrup about the groundbreaking work of Professor Michael Levin and Dr. Christof Koch. Levin’s research into bio-electric fields reveals that cellular networks use electrical signals not just for immediate physiological tasks, but to coordinate complex patterning and memory across tissues—suggesting a kind of distributed intelligence in living systems. Christof Koch, meanwhile, champions Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which proposes that consciousness is an intrinsic property of certain physical systems with high levels of causal interconnectivity. Both lines of inquiry challenge the traditional reductionist view that mind is merely an emergent byproduct of neural activity. Instead, they point to a more holistic, perhaps even fundamental, role for information and consciousness in nature. Though Levin and Koch make no explicit metaphysical claims in their work, their empirical findings and views are very much in line with analytic idealism.

Seeing

Videos

|

Reaching across the great solipsist void in the age of AI

“If experience is all I have, I may be alone—but the essential emotional necessity of the other demands that I live as if I am not,” argues Dr. Moreira in this heart-felt essay. He embodies a long-overdue reemergence of existentialist thought in the 21st century and, as an active and successful AI scientist, in 21st century terms. We think both the worlds of philosophy and popular culture will be hearing a lot more from Dr. Moreira in the coming years…

|

Science can no longer ignore unexplained facts of nature

Dr. Edward Kelly, a professor of experimental psychology, talks about his many years of study of a variety of psi and anomalous phenomena. In this interview with Natalia Vorontsova, he candidly shares how phenomenological evidence has led him to re-examine his metaphysical views on the nature of reality. Are our minds confined to our brains? Do we survive our biological death? Is mind primary to matter? Why should we take anomalous phenomena seriously? These are some of the topics covered in this conversation.

|

Not even language is a ‘language’

Fredric Nord argues that knowing reality through language is fundamentally and inescapably a misunderstanding of reality. We misunderstand what language actually does and, thereby, misunderstand what life is. The key to understanding life is, he argues, a reframing of language and representation. This should end the paradigm of materialism and facilitate transcendence as a priori.

Let us build the future of our culture together

Essentia Foundation is a registered non-profit committed to making its content as accessible as possible. Therefore, we depend on contributions from people like you to continue to do our work. There are many ways to contribute.

Essentia Contribute scaled