Up@dawn 2.0

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Consiousness Final Paper


Had I known what an undertaking a topic like consciousness would entail, I am not entirely sure I would have tried to tackle it in a single summer semester. I have fallen deep into the rabbit hole and while I am enjoying my stay in Wonderland, I find myself overwhelmed with possibilities. There is no possible way for me to conclude what consciousness is, where it comes from, where it resides, what its purpose is or who truly possesses it. But what I can do is try to bring my insight into the pool of knowledge, as novice as I may be in this field, and hope to find some sort of path back to a reality that I can accept. So, here are a few ramblings from a lowly grad student who embarked on a journey she was not nearly prepared for, gained some perspective but truly more questions than answers and who still has a long journey into uncovering what consciousness is.
My interest was first peaked when I began studying Rene Descartes, a 17th century French philosopher (among other things) and was captivated with his notion of “I think therefore I exist.” He proposed the only truth ‘I’ have is that ‘I’ exist because I can think about my own existence.  This is often considered the tipping point in theory development in the field of consciousness, as Descartes’ famous words would launch future scholars and thinkers down a path of self discovery leading to uncovering more possibilities than even he could imagine. We can all somewhat understand this notion and possibly dive deeper into the ramifications of this idea, but we first must decide if consciousness and mind are one and the same as the body or if they are separate entities. (Jorgensen)
Cartesian dualism, first developed by Rene Descartes hence the name, argues that mind and body are two separate entities, the immaterial mind and the material body, which causally interact. Most of us can understand this thought, however this bring up what is known as the mind-body problem. If the mind resides in the non physical and the body in the physical, then how can the physical and non-physical effect each other? If I stub my toe, this is an event to the physical body, yet I feel pain which resides in the non physical mind. In turn, I see a ball and my non physical mind say to kick it, suddenly my leg pulls back to swing towards the object. How is this explained? One possible solution is the Mind-Body Identity Theory. The premise behind  Mind-Body Identity Theory explains mental occurrences can simply be taken as brain processes, ie. the brain secretes thoughts like the liver secretes bile (Smart). Suggestions by Rudolf Carnap, H. Reichenbach and M. Schlick say that mental events can be identified by the corresponding stimuli and responses much as the (possibly unknown) internal state of a photo-electric cell can be identified by the stimulus (light falling on it) and response (electric current flowing) from it. (Smart). While this may seem to solve the mind- body problem, Hilary Putnam counters this with his multiple realizability argument: “ (1) according to the Mind-Brain Type Identity theorist, for every mental state there is a unique physical-chemical state of the brain such that a life-form can be in that mental state if and only if it is in that physical state. (2) It seems quite plausible to hold, as an empirical hypothesis, that physically possible life-forms can be in the same mental state without having brains in the same unique physical-chemical state. (3) Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Mind-Brain Type Identity theorist is correct.” (Bickle). 
So where does this leave us? I agree with Putnam, that the Mind-Body Identity Theory is highly unlikely. I propose that Cartesian Dualism from a foundational stand point makes the most sense and that there is more to inquire about the causal relationship between the conscious mind and body (note I specifically termed conscious mind as I will later argue there is a difference between a mind and a conscious one) however I am in the belief that the mind, body and consciousness are three separate entities. My argument is this, I believe the body is merely the material vessel and the mind the immaterial vessel in which consciousness and in turn the consciousness of the universe is carried. What do I mean by that? Let me walk you through my thought process.
18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, best known for his philosophical empiricism, skepticism and naturalism, challenged the thought of the self. Hume noted, “When I turn my attention inward and try to discover some entity that constitutes the essential me, all I discover are particular experiences; there is no such thing as the self in addition to these experiences.” (Searle, p. 279). So the argument being, there is no experience of the self in addition to particular experiences, only the experiences of those event, ie. we can recall the desire to drink water or the pressure of my shoe on my foot (Searle, p. 291). We remember the experiences but there is no self to remember. So here we already see both mind and body can have a causal relation as separate entities, so why not consciousness?
It is my thought that the universe was bound to become conscious by mere evolutionary law, and that is what we (humans) are, or better said by the late Carl Sagan, “We are a way for the universe to know itself.” Let me pose it to you this way with this question, is it possible that consciousness is a necessary illusion created by the universe in order to motivate us to seek and understand itself? Meaning, without consciousness, we would not be able to ask and pursue the knowledge of what the universe is. Science tells us we are the product of atoms, which everything we know of so far is made of, configuring themselves over time into what we are today into a state that can understand itself. We are the consciousness or conscious mind of the universe. Without it, I would say we could still exists (just as plants, animals, stars, gases, etc. exist) but we would not be able to understand or contemplate what we (the universe) is. A conscious mind is necessary for that.
To try better explain parts of my claims, I give you a case study done by Charles Darwin. “In 1872, Charles Darwin gave a mirror to two young organ-guans in London zoo, describing how they played in front of it and tried to kiss their reflections, but he could not be sure that they recognized themselves. Over a century later, psychologist Gordon Gallup devised a test to find out. He let a group of young chimpanzees play with mirrors, then he anesthetized them and painted two obvious red spots above one eye and the opposite ear. When they awoke, he let them look in the mirror. You or I, in such a situation, would immediately see the marks and probably try to touch them or rub them off. So did the chimpanzees.” (Blackmore, p. 121-122). My question becomes, does this prove consciousness or merely self awareness? Self awareness and consciousness are very different in my opinion. Animal species have shown levels of self awareness and I would even argue some plants have shown some sort of awareness as well, ie. sunflowers following the sun, however I think was can all agree, as my dog sits next to me on the couch he is not contemplating universal concepts of why he is here and what his purpose is.
This leads me to my next point in presenting my claims. I mentioned we are built from atoms, as is everything else in the known universe. Now for those of you familiar with consciousness topics, you may have already pegged me as a reductionist. Yet I also stated that I believe the universe was bound to become conscious, which may sound emergent. But let me assure you my stance cannot be so simplified. Reductionist theory is a general term used for theories that analyze properties of complex wholes into the properties of their most basic elements. For contrast, emergent theory explains the mental character of complex organisms by principles specifically linking mental states and processes to the complex physical functioning of those organisms, ie. the mental state of an organism is present the entire time without any grounding in the elements that constitute the organism, except for the physical character of those elements that permits them to be arranged in the complex for that connects the physical with the mental. (Nagel. p.54-55). So what am I suggesting?
Before I get too deep into this train of thought, I want to lay a few foundational bricks for my case. Let us start with bare bones of Quantum Mechanics. “Quantum Mechanics is the best theory we have for describing the world at the nuts-and-bolts level of atoms and subatomic particles. Perhaps the most renowned of its mysteries is the fact that the outcome of Quantum experiment can change depending on whether or not we choose to measure some property of the particles involved. When this ‘observer effect’ was first noticed by the early pioneers of Quantum theory, they were deeply troubled. It seemed to undermine the basic assumption behind all science: that there is an objective world out there, irrespective of us.” (Ball). What does this mean exactly? Erwin Schrodinger produced the commonly known thought experiment to demonstrate this theory “Schrodinger’s Cat”. Imagine a sealed box with a cat inside. Also inside is a vile of poison, an atom of radioactive Uranium and a geiger counter. If the Uranium decays, it sets off the geiger counter which then releases the poison and silently kills the cat. Before we open the box, we cannot actually know whether the Uranium has decayed or not since radioactive decay is a probabilistic Quantum event. So, is the cat dead or alive. Quantum Mechanics would tell us the cat is neither dead nor alive, but the sum of the two states. The result suggests that nothing in the universe is certain until it is observed. Eugene Wigner then took this one step farther and suggested that it is consciousness that determines whether the cat is dead or alive since it must be observed in order to determine its state, thus leading to the theory that consciousness determines existence. Enter our next foundational brick, Quantum Entanglement.
Dr. John Hagelin, CERN researcher and Harvard Physicist, did a lecture on consciousness and Quantum entanglement back in 2017. He explains, 
     “If you have a radioactive particle, an unstable particle (which is spinless) and allow it to decay, it will decay for example into two final                     state particles. Those final particles might have spin. And because the initial particle was spinless, the final spins have to be                                       anti-correlated in order that their spins sum to zero so that spin is conserved to be zero (spin up and spin down). (fig.1). 


     What you get though when a particle decays is not just this (left) OR this (right), you get this AND that (fig. 2) and a quantum                                    coexistence, a quantum superposition.


     And those two particles we’re talking about could be half way across the universe by now and this all gets rather more curious when you                  introduce the effect of an observer on the system. So, the observer poses the question (say here on Earth in a laboratory), is the particle                      here spin up or spin down? (fig. 3) The act of preforming that measurement no matter how you do it is to yield a classical definite result.





     So, by conservation of spin, if this particle spins down, the other one must be up, and vice-versa and that is called entanglement and                          you’re having some kind of a long distance effect on the other particle where ever it happens to be simply by performing that observation                  here.” (Hagelin).

How does this all come together? If our brains are Quantum Mechanical, as is everything else in this universe according to this model, then particles that make up the brain could be entangled with other distant particles. And here I finally arrives to my lingering grand question for further research: Is consciousness the byproduct of communication between entangled particles?




Works Cited
Ball, Philip. “Earth - The Strange Link between the Human Mind and Quantum Physics.” BBC, BBC, 16 Feb. 2017, www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics.

Blackmore, Susan J. Consciousness. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Bickle, John, "Multiple Realizability", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiple-realizability/

Jorgensen, Larry M., "Seventeenth-Century Theories of Consciousness", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-17th/

“Mandela Effect: CERN Researcher/Harvard Physicist Discusses Consciousness & Quantum Entanglement.” Performance by Dr. John Hagelin, YouTube, YouTube, 5 Nov. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvvIwC-eLKg.

Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Searle, John R. A Brief Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2005.

Smart, J. J. C., "The Mind/Brain Identity Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

7 comments:

  1. It is indeed a rabbit-hole! In my view, Descartes was the Mad Hatter who sent this field to wonderland by insisting that thought is the key to existence, rather than vice versa. In other words: if we begin not with "I think" but rather with our experience as embodied beings who think, sure, but who also encounter a world of perceptual objects, events, and possibilities... who feel, imagine, anticipate, interact etc.etc., and who find as much philosophic importance in "I breathe," and "I walk" (for example) as in "I think," and we'll be less tempted to court the metaphysical dead-end of dualism which has caused so much confusion about consciousness. We'll also be less tempted to suspend judgment about the "we"... we'll not doubt the reality of other minds and persons, because they're as present in our perceptual fields of consciousness as our own thoughts. The mind-body problem then ceases to be an either-or conundrum, and becomes a question of emphasis and intent: given the coeval reality of minds and bodies (with their brains and nervous systems and evolved organs of sense and rafts of historical and biographical experience to draw on) situated in communities of persons, we can ask ourselves not just what consciousness IS, but what it's FOR. And that's the train of thought that leads to the forward-leaning pragmatic view of life which some of us find so compelling (and others, admittedly, not).

    But as for quantum consciousness? I'm afraid that's beyond my grasp. Somebody's going to have to build a quantum computer smart enough to explain it to me!

    More shortly...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hilary Putnam was a guy, btw. He passed away just a couple of years back: "Hilary Putnam, a Harvard philosopher whose influence ranged widely across many fields of thought, including mathematical logic, philosophy of mind and language, epistemology and metaphysics, died on March 13 at his home in Arlington, Mass. He was 89..."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/arts/hilary-putnam-giant-of-modern-philosophy-dies-at-89.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How embarrassing... I missed that one

      Delete
  3. "...we would not be able to understand or contemplate what we (the universe) is. A conscious mind is necessary for that." A conscious mind? Or a percipient person, whose awareness and contemplation of the universe is the condition of the universe's coming to know itself? With this approach, we can still honor Hume's insight: there's no entity called a "self" beyond its awareness of the universe of which it AND its collaborators are aware.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Self awareness and consciousness are very different in my opinion"-but is it a difference of degree, or of kind? Is there anything in principle about the human form of self-awareness that, given different environmental conditions and urgencies, might not have given rise to higher levels of reflective self-awareness in non-human species? No way to know the answer to that conclusively, short of discovering other evolved, self-aware beings in the universe. But as Carl always said, something wonderful is waiting to be found. Maybe that!

    Or maybe that "the universe was bound to become conscious"... but my concern with that is the same concern I have with every theory claiming that something is inevitable-it just doesn't jibe with what seems the clearly-contingent character of most everything, the "could have been otherwise" quality that comes with the imaginative tweaking of this or that particular. I admit that this is in part a reflection of my personal and possibly mainly-aesthetic preference for what has been called the "glorious accident" of life. Some of us prefer contingency, others necessity. Preference alone, though, is not proof. But in any event, if you get a chance sometime check out the documentary called "A Glorious Accident"... https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzLGaX_JvmJoIGJFR_1M088pMz68qUtnc

    ReplyDelete
  5. I will admit I was hesitant to go down the path of 'conscious mind' v. self awareness and agree there is some question as to whether they differ in degree or kind or perhaps both. And perhaps that would be a good place to dive deeper into in order to try and make sense of this mess hahaha

    As far as my "the universe was bound to become conscious" stance, I guess I was merely trying to present the option of well, with all the possibilities of what could be, why not examine a universe who's consciousness developed just as we see evolution taking place here on Earth. A far grasp I'll admit but made for a fun venture down an abstract train of thought. I am no where near to claiming where or what I think is the truth, and honestly I never hope to! Where would the fun be in that and why would we ever want the possibilities to end? :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Agreed! And if we want lots of possibilities, we'd best not lock ourselves into a rigid necessitarian view. The way Stephen Jay Gould used to put it: if we hit rewind and ran the tape of natural/cosmic history again, the results would very likely differ significantly in terms of forms of life or none at all. This is another way of unsettling those who want to insist that humans are the crown of creation and the point of evolution, another of Sagan's great "demotions"... But it's a demotion that opens us to wonder, and that can't be bad!

    I hope you will continue to explore these issues, they're truly fascinating and at the very heart of who we are.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.