|
Christian de Quincey |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
COMMUNICATIONS |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Scrapbook |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sitemap |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
  Something for Nothing?
Consciousness is not a free metaphysical lunch. Your questions get right to the heart of the mind-body problem and what’s called “the fallacy of emergence.” Here it is: If we begin with nothing then that’s all there is forever—nothing! Quite simply, you can’t get something from nothing. How would it be possible? So let’s say we do have something to begin with—e.g., the Big Bang packed with unimaginably dense amounts of energy. But, according to materialism, this energy is wholly physical, wholly objective, wholly non-conscious. It doesn’t have even the slightest trace of interiority or subjectivity. Let’s call this “State of Reality A”—it’s wholly physical. Now fast forward about 13.7 billion years: Some of that energy has condensed into the matter of galaxies, stars and planets. And on at least one of those planets, matter has evolved to become so complex that it produces life, nervous systems and brains. So far so good. No problem with the grand outlines of that story. It is standard scientific cosmology. But we know for certain that besides the matter of nervous systems and brains something else also now exists—consciousness. Let’s call this “State of Reality B”—it’s physical + non-physical. “State of Reality A” is utterly different from “State of Reality B.” The first is purely physical (has absolutely no consciousness) while the second possesses something non-physical (it does have consciousness). Brains and nervous systems are physical (exist in space, are objective and measurable); but consciousness is non-physical (has no physical characteristics whatsoever—does not exist in space, is subjective, and cannot be measured). Where did that non-physical consciousness come from? Fallacy of Emergence Materialists (or anyone) cannot explain how purely physical components could produce something non-physical. That would be a metaphysical impossibility. It would require an ontological jump—from one state of reality (wholly physical) to a completely different state of reality (physical and non-physical). In other words, if you begin with nothing but physical parts, that’s all you ever end up with. No matter how complex or evolved the physical parts become, they can produce only complex physical systems. It is utterly inexplicable how consciousness or mind could “emerge” from wholly non-conscious ingredients. That’s the fallacy of emergence. Materialists are fond of pointing out that emergence does occur, and they are right. They point to many instances of emergence in nature supported by solid scientific data. For example, a standard analogy is that water emerges from the gases hydrogen and oxygen. The gases H and O do not possess “liquidity” but water does. So, they say, the phenomenon of liquidity emerges from wholly non-liquid components. There was no trace of liquidity in the gases, but with water there is—something new emerges. They think this example supports or even proves their case. But they are wrong. It does nothing of the sort. Here’s why: The gases of H and O (like all gases) are physical. But so is the water! Both gases and water are ontologically identical: they are both physical. So although it is true that a new property (“liquidity”) emerges, it is still a physical property. In this example, we get something physical (water/liquidity) from nothing but physical components (gases). No mystery there. This is an example of “physical emergence,” and it is explicable by science. It does not pose a metaphysical problem. Same with baking a cake. Yes, something new emerges (a solid cake) from mushy ingredients. But both cake and ingredients are physical and objective (all are made of physical atoms and molecules). Big Mystery This is not at all the case with consciousness. As we know, mind or consciousness is nonphysical (it doesn’t exist in space, has no physical characteristics). When materialists claim that consciousness emerges from the complexity of the brain they are proposing that something nonphysical emerges from nothing but physical components. That would be ontological emergence (not merely physical emergence), and it is inexplicable. Ontological emergence (a completely new kind of reality) is not at all the same as mere physical emergence. It is a profound metaphysical problem without a solution. You can’t get something from nothing. Even though materialists don’t begin with absolutely “nothing”—after all, they have the energy and matter of the universe to begin with—they still have a major problem. According to them, there was nothing non-physical present at the Big Bang and for billions of years after. Then, somehow, there was—consciousness. Big mystery. To repeat: You can’t get “something” non-physical from parts that had nothing non-physical—no matter how complex they become. That’s the fallacy of (ontological) emergence. No Proof of Consciousness Then there’s the objection that even if we could "prove" consciousness exists in the whole, that wouldn't “prove” it exists in the parts. Two problems with this: First, science cannot prove anything, most of all it cannot “prove” the presence of consciousness. There’s no such thing as a “consciousness meter,” no “mindalyzer” to detect consciousness. Because consciousness is subjective, it is undetectable, and therefore is not measurable. Scientists (or anyone) cannot “prove” the existence of even their own consciousness! So proof of consciousness is a nonstarter; it’s a red herring. [We don’t need to “prove” consciousness exists. We know it does in our own case from direct, immediate experience. We can be absolutely certain of our own consciousness (even if we doubt the consciousness of others). Anyone who doubts or denies consciousness thereby automatically and inevitably demonstrates its existence. Only creatures with consciousness can “doubt” or “deny” anything.] For the sake of argument, let’s suppose it was possible to prove that a whole organism (say a human) has consciousness. Would that also “prove” that his or her parts (cells, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic forces, quanta, etc.) would also possess consciousness? I’m saying the answer would have to be a resounding “Yes” based on the argument of the “fallacy of ontological emergence.” If the whole is conscious then whatever it consists of must also have some degree of consciousness, too—all the way down. Otherwise, we face the problem discussed above: How would it be possible to get consciousness (in the whole organism) from wholly non-conscious, non-subjective parts (atoms, molecules, cells)? That, too, is a nonstarter. And that’s why materialism is a flawed metaphysic. The ‘Miracle’ of Materialism Materialism faces a real problem: It relies on the claim of ontological emergence (a jump to a radically new and different state of reality), where mind emerges from mindless matter. Such an “ontological jump” is utterly inexplicable. It would require a miracle. (A “miracle” is an event without possibility of explanation. Instead of explanation, miracles presuppose supernatural intervention.) To put it bluntly: In order to be true, materialism requires a miracle, but miracles are precisely what materialism denies are possible. A troubling state of affairs, indeed! Consciousness is free. But it’s not for nothing. |
|
||