Can consciousness understand itself?
Reading | Philosophy
John Hogan, PhD | 2022-02-20
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:
- 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.
- 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.
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
|
Could the mythological figure of Dionysus, in ancient Greece, represent the non-dual ground of reality, instead of the god of chaos portraid by Nietzsche? Michael Asher argues that Dionysus represents eternal, infinite conscious life as the reality that underlies all nature, in which case the inception of non-dual idealism in the West arches back to the very origins of Western civilization.
|
Bernardo Kastrup argues why the idea of conscious AI, though we cannot refute it categorically, is silly. This has a lot to do with the fact that most computer scientists are power users of computers but they’ve never built a computer themselves. If they had, they would be familiar with the nuts and bolts, and they would understand that the idea of microscopic transistors becoming conscious is not that different than proposing that a sufficiently complex sewage system—consisting of water pipes and valves—would become conscious.
From the archives
|
Prof. James Tartaglia advocates for a revival of metaphysical idealism, arguing that it is misunderstood and often unfairly dismissed by the scientific establishment. By clarifying common misconceptions, Tartaglia reveals how idealism could offer significant social benefits, encouraging a more philosophical society focused on the primacy of experience.
|
The materialist worldview robs reality of its colour, temperature, smell, leaving us with a picture that is radically at odds with our common sense understanding of the world. Helen Yetter-Chappell proposes an alternative: reality is made of experiences, woven together into an experiential tapestry that persists even when we aren’t looking.
|
Hans Busstra sat down with Bernard Carr and Bernardo Kastrup to discuss all presentations given at our ‘Time and Mind’ conference and elaborate further on their own ideas. For instance, both Carr and Kastrup agree that, if you take an idealist perspective, you need multiple time dimensions to account for the decomposition problem: the mechanism by which consciousness with a big ‘C’ resolves itself into consciousness with a small ‘c’.
Reading
Essays
|
A new groundbreaking theory on consciousness proposes that qualia — for instance, the scent of a rose — reside in quantum fields. Federico Faggin is one of the greatest luminaries of high technology alive today. A physicist by education, he is the inventor of the microprocessor and the MOS silicon gate technology, both of which underlie the modern world’s entire information technology. With the knowledge and experience of a lifetime in cutting-edge fields, Federico now turns his attention to consciousness and the nature of reality, sharing with us his profound insights on the classical and quantum worlds, artificial intelligence, life and the human mind. In this discussion, he elaborates on an idealist model of reality, produced after years of careful thought and direct experience, according to which nature’s most fundamental level is that of consciousness as a quantum phenomenon, while the classical physical world consists merely of evocative symbols of a deeper reality.
|
The biblical story of the Fall of Man is a symbolic representation of our universal experience of primordial loss, the Freudian pure lack, or “das Ding,” argues Dr. Sachs. The fall into the phenomenal world of perceptual experience appears from this psychoanalytical perspective as the “I” development of the human being. The subsequent expulsion from paradise and the loss of the immediate presence of God are the trauma of this fundamental loss.
|
Prof. James Tartaglia advocates for a revival of metaphysical idealism, arguing that it is misunderstood and often unfairly dismissed by the scientific establishment. By clarifying common misconceptions, Tartaglia reveals how idealism could offer significant social benefits, encouraging a more philosophical society focused on the primacy of experience.
|
The materialist worldview robs reality of its colour, temperature, smell, leaving us with a picture that is radically at odds with our common sense understanding of the world. Helen Yetter-Chappell proposes an alternative: reality is made of experiences, woven together into an experiential tapestry that persists even when we aren’t looking.
|
Hans Busstra sat down with Bernard Carr and Bernardo Kastrup to discuss all presentations given at our ‘Time and Mind’ conference and elaborate further on their own ideas. For instance, both Carr and Kastrup agree that, if you take an idealist perspective, you need multiple time dimensions to account for the decomposition problem: the mechanism by which consciousness with a big ‘C’ resolves itself into consciousness with a small ‘c’.
Seeing
Videos
|
While history suggests that the founder of analytical philosophy, Bertrand Russell, won the fight against the idealists led by F.H. Bradley, Yale philosopher Prof. Michael Della Rocca argues that Russell failed to even address Bradley’s central argument. Ignoring Bradley’s timeless message puts in serious jeopardy not only our basic understanding of ethics, but also the ultimate nature of reality itself.
|
To complement the well-known Hard Problem of consciousness, Dr. Kumar introduces the Recognition Problem: one implicitly recognizes and defines consciousness only as completely as one is meta-cognitively aware of it. This is critical in the field of consciousness studies, for that which one is trying to account for—namely, consciousness—is implicitly defined by the limits of one’s introspective self-awareness. Claims of success in reductively accounting for consciousness are thus entirely pre-conditioned on one’s introspective apprehension of the challenge at hand. This may explain why, to some, there isn’t even a Hard Problem at all: they are simply incapable of introspectively recognizing that which the Hard Problem refers to.
|
What if the humanities would open their horizon to more metaphysical possibilities? Prof. Kripal has written a book about a future in which the humanities study the full human. In these superhumanities, the weird, the psi—in short, the impossible—is taken seriously metaphysically: anomalous phenomena are not only regarded as subjective truths, but also as objective claims about reality.
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 and without advertisements. Therefore, we depend on contributions from people like you to continue to do our work. There are many ways to contribute.
