Category: Science

Posted on

The Ultimate Mystery

By Jim Spiegel

A recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, featuring a conversation with Rizwan Virk, deals with the possibility (or likelihood) that we are living in something like a computer generated reality. Of course, what this really points to is the age-old notion that the world is the product of some ultimate consciousness, that is, God. Rogan, like all of us, understands the significance of this, which explains why he is uncharacteristically silent through much of the conversation. We are talking about the ultimate question here.

There are really just two fundamental worldviews: Either all comes from Mind or all comes from matter. There are many versions of each, but these are ultimately the two options. It’s really that simple. Those who take the latter view are materialists (or naturalists or physicalists, depending on one’s preferred nomenclature). They are also empiricists and typically regard science as the most reliable or perhaps only way to secure knowledge. Materialists believe in minds and consciousness, of course. They just believe that it is reducible to, or an epiphenomon of, physical reality

Those who take the Mind-most-real view reject strong empiricism, affirming that reason or mystical-religious experiences provide evidence for the reality of a supernatural realm. They do not deny the reality of the physical world but simply deny that it is the ultimate reality. They maintain that this material realm is in some way the product of the workings of an ultimate consciousness. Those among them who maintain that this Mind at the bottom of things is personal are generally called theists. For many such theists, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, among others, theirs is a purely philosophical conviction. Most others subscribe to a theological tradition, such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

Whichever view one takes, the conviction tends to be held very firmly, often dogmatically. This is despite the fact that whichever view one holds there are serious metaphysical problems and ultimate mysteries that defy ready explanation. This, I suppose, is symptomatic of human arrogance or insecurity or both. Plaguing both views is the ultimate metaphysical question: How did all of this get here? And even more basic is Heidegger’s famous question, Why is there something rather than nothing? (Ways of addressing this question are boundless. For a recent sampling, check out these, most of which miss the point or involve a confusion of some kind.)

Then there are the problems unique to each perspective. For the materialist, the most fundamental problem pertains to how consciousness could emerge from inert matter. The options here are numerous, including philosophical behaviorism, strict identity theory, functionalism, and property dualism. But they all face serious problems, such as that of 1) explaining the particulars of consciousness, including phenomenal qualia, subjectivity, and enduring selfhood, 2) accounting for human freedom, 3) accounting for moral truth, and 4) accounting for rationality—non-natural things like reasons, logic, and evidence influencing the world. Then there are the perennial problems of cosmology (explaining the origin of the universe and cosmic fine-tuning) as well as all sorts of empirical data pointing to the supernatural (e.g., mystical experiences, NDEs, OBEs, etc.).

Materialists may balk and minimize these problems all they want. It’s simple denial. Any self-respecting materialist will at least admit that these are genuinely significant problems with their perspective. It is no wonder that, after a half century of concerted atheism Antony Flew flipped from a materialist view to a Mind-most-real view (see his There is a God) and that the inveterate materialist Thomas Nagel has admitted that materialism is bankrupt and in serious need of overhaul, if not outright rejection (see his Mind and Cosmos).

But Mind-most-real proponents have no grounds to be cocky. They also face serious metaphysical problems. In addition to the ultimate metaphysical question—why is there something rather than nothing?—there are many other thorny questions: How could the ultimate Mind create something so radically different as physical matter? What is the substance of this Mind? How does this being causally act on the world? How much of the cosmos does the Mind control? Does this Mind have a moral nature? If so, then why evil—and why so much evil? Has the Mind communicated to humans? If so, which, if any, of the purported supernatural revelations is genuine? If one of them is, how do we resolve the countless interpretive problems?

As a Mind-most-real advocate, I am happy to be relieved of the problems plaguing the materialist view. But I naturally am interested in many of these other problems. However, as a Berkeleyan immaterialist, I think many of these admit of ready solutions. For on the Berkeleyan idealist view (which the great American theologian Jonathan Edwards essentially affirmed as well), the physical world just is ideas. And since minds naturally traffic in ideas, God’s production and causal influence on the world is not mysterious at all. (For in-depth scholarly discussions of a wide range of issues pertaining to idealism and Christianity, look here and here. And here is a London Lyceum interview with me on topic.)

But there is one particular problem unique to the Mind-Most-Real view that is especially deep and intractable: How does a Mind make another mind? In the theistic traditions, we learn that the primordial Mind (God) created all things. In the Christian tradition, at least since Augustine, we affirm that God created ex nihilo. So how did this ultimate center of consciousness—God—bring into existence minds like yours and mine ex nihilo? How does a subjective consciousness endow another thing/substance with subjectivity? And what exactly is the substance of each of our minds? How are our minds like and unlike the ultimate Mind?

One plausible philosophical answer is theologically problematic, at least from the perspective of Christian orthodoxy: The Mind did not create other minds ex nihilo but rather finite minds are aspects of the primordial Mind. This solution isn’t necessarily pantheistic, but it is panentheistic. (For an interesting discussion of this possibility, see Jordan Wessling’s chapter in this aforementioned book.)

As a convinced theist who believes that Christianity is the most reasonable version of theism, the question of ultimate reality is settled: Mind is most real. The likes of Antony Flew, Thomas Nagel, and Joe Rogan have recently been waking up to this fact, even if they aren’t ready to call themselves theists (or even, in the case of Nagel, a non-materialist). For me, then, the remaining ultimate mystery is just this: How does the Mind make other minds? This will be one of the first questions I ask that Mind when I get to the other side.

Posted on

A Philosophical Anecdote

By Jim Spiegel

Many people complain of the trouble that philosophers cause with all of their theories and disputations. As a “professional” philosopher, I’ve fielded my share of such complaints over the years. For example, a friend once scoffed to me how he had once heard a philosopher question whether he could know that the chair in which he was sitting was real. I simply smiled in response, sensing that he was in no mood for a serious discussion of the matter. The truth is, of course, that it is not philosophy which poses the problem of the reality of the chair, but science. As physicists tell us, that chair is 99.9% empty space—very far from the “reality” of the chair that we seem to perceive with our senses. That is a scientific conclusion, not so much a philosophical one. What the philosopher says in response to this is to ask, given this apparent scientific fact, whether we can know the “chair” that is really there. This is a very natural and ordinary question, it seems to me, given the facts of the situation. So then, we might ask, what is my friend’s actual complaint in this case? If he claims the problem is with philosophy, then he’s really just confused or else in denial. But if his problem is with science and its implications for knowledge, then, well, he’s a philosopher.

Posted on

Hoffman’s Conscious Realism

By Jim Spiegel

Recently I learned of this excellent article in a recent issue of the Atlantic. It is an interview with cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman, who endorses an idealist view of reality—the notion that all that exist are conscious minds and their thoughts. He dubs the view “conscious realism,” but that is just his own terminology for what any philosopher will immediately recognize as something akin to Berkeleyan idealism, the thesis that esse est percipi aut percipere (to be is to be perceived or to be a perceiver).

The author of piece, Amanda Gefter, prefaces the interview with a nice summation of how two different scientific fields are converging on the idealist conclusion:

Getting at questions about the nature of reality, and disentangling the observer from the observed, is an endeavor that straddles the boundaries of neuroscience and fundamental physics. On one side you’ll find researchers scratching their chins raw trying to understand how a three-pound lump of gray matter obeying nothing more than the ordinary laws of physics can give rise to first-person conscious experience . . ..

On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don’t seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them. Experiment after experiment has shown—defying common sense—that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”

So Gefter concludes, “while neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, all roads lead back to the observer.”

Indeed, this is precisely Hoffman’s view, as he explains in the interview. “As a conscious realist,” he says, “I am postulating conscious experiences as ontological primitives, the most basic ingredients of the world.” But, of

from Psychology Today
from Psychology Today

course, he cannot stop there. For consciousness—first-person subjectivity, awareness, perception, etc.—is not so much a thing as an event or phenomenon that must be had by a thing. Awareness and other forms of thought cannot exist on their own (as Descartes rightly observed). There must be someone who is aware, a mental substrate that is the ontological ground of the conscious events. So it won’t do to stop at conscious experience as an “ontological primitive.” A personal who must lie behind the consciousness what.

Hoffman recognizes this, granting that “objective reality is just conscious agents.” Gefter worries that this emphasis on first-person subjectivity might be a threat to science. Hoffman rightly dismisses this worry, mainly because the best science points in this direction. Others might worry that as a scientist it is not Hoffman’s place to make inferences to such a metaphysical notion as personal agency. But it would be disingenuous to suggest that scientists can avoid making metaphysical claims and assumptions. The real question is when certain scientific discoveries warrant our making particular metaphysical inferences. In this case, it seems to me that such inferences are clearly warranted.

Posted on

Hodgepodge

By Jim Spiegel

1. The Illusion of Time — A few months ago I stumbled on this Nova series “Fabric of the Cosmos,” narrated by Columbia University physicist Brian Greene.  I was transfixed by the second installment in the series entitled “The Illusion of Time” which explains the relativity of time in lay-friendly terms.  I defy you to watch the entire episode without uttering the word “wow.”

2. Doing Politics Well — This piece by Messiah College professor Dean Curry might be elementary in certain respects, but in the current atmosphere of division and rancor such balance is refreshing.

3. The Roots of Mass Murder — I have read numerous articles in response to the Newtown school shooting, but perhaps none as wise as this Washington Post commentary by Charles Krauthammer.

4. Life Imitating Art — Check out this disturbing story about a Ukranian teenager who wants to look like a cartoon character, specifically characters from Japanese anime films.  Apparently, she is considering undergoing eye surgery to make the change permanent.  Ugh.

Posted on

Technidolatry

By Jim Spiegel

A recent Time cover story, entitled “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal”, discusses, among other things, the prospect of computer technology providing a means by which humans can achieve eternal life.  The idea is not new, of course, as philosophers of mind from Paul Churchland to Daniel Dennett have been entertaining the idea for decades.  What struck me about this article, though, is the air of confidence among researchers such as Ray Kurzweil that this aim will be achieved, indeed that it is really inevitable.  Such smug certainty recalls similar attitudes that dominated academe during the Enlightenment, where scholars seriously envisioned human mastery of nature, permanent world peace, and the total obliteration of hunger and poverty.  Then came the 20th century…

Many researchers in artificial intelligence aren’t so bold as to predict that computer technology will one day give us eternal life.  Yet many of them are no less confident that scientists will eventually create genuinely conscious minds, whose intelligence far exceeds our own.  Some even forecast the day—perhaps only decades away—when human beings become obsolete and, in the words of Vernor Vinge, “the human era will be ended.”

Reflecting on this, the words of prophet Habakkuk come to mind:

Of what value is an idol, since man has carved it?  Or an image that teaches lies?  For he who makes it trusts in his own creation.  He makes idols that cannot speak.  Woe to him who says to wood, ‘Come to life!”  Or to lifeless stone, ‘Wake up!’  Can it give guidance?  It is covered with gold and silver; there is no breath in it. But the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth be silent before him.  (Hab. 2:18-20)

Okay, so 21st century science is far beyond working with mere wood and stone.  Now we work with silicon and aluminum alloys.  But today’s computer idolatry, what I like to call technidolatry, really amounts to the same thing:  putting ultimate trust in the works of our own hands to solve life’s most pressing problems.  Where will all of this lead?  Who knows.  One place I’m confident it won’t lead, though, is eternal life.

Posted on

Darwin’s Ten Worst Nightmares

By Jim Spiegel

Since this year is the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth (and also the sesquicentennial of his landmark book The Origin of Species) I thought I’d post something related to the modern champion of evolutionary theory.  While I do believe in natural selection and affirm the explanatory power of this mechanism when it comes to many biological adaptations and modifications, I am no Darwinist.  That is, I don’t think natural selection can explain the evolution of whole new biological families, much less new classes or phyla, of animals.  And the fallacy of the Darwinian paradigm, insofar as it affirms the common ancestry of all organisms, can be summed up in two words:  hasty generalization.  Just because variation within species (or, to be generous, new species and perhaps even new genera) can be produced through natural selection, it does not follow that all plants and animals evolved from a common ancestor.  In fact, there are many reasons to believe that common ancestry is false, even impossible.

So while many tributes to Darwin this year have celebrated the reputed fulfillment of the man’s dreams of a scientific explanation of all living things, I’d like to list some of his worst nightmares.  Here are, to my mind, some of the bigger problems with Darwinism, proceeding from particular problems to more general issues.

1. The Monotremes – These are the egg-laying mammals (including the platypus and the spiny anteater).   It’s not just these anomalous beasts that are problematic for Darwinism, but the whole step from egg-laying to live births.  One wonders how such a transition could ever take place.  Also, if it was somehow environmentally necessary, then why are there still so many thousands of species of successful egg layers?  All of these animals are doing just fine, thank you very much.

2. The Elephant – Consider the elephant’s trunk, an appendage so nimble that it basically has the functionality of both a hand and a water hose.  The trunk is, or is often called, a fusion of the “nose” and “upper lip.”  Also, the elephant appears to be the only animal with four knees.  Or, if the front knees are actually more like wrists, as some maintain, it remains the case that these joints function like knees.

3. Marsupials – In marsupials, such as kangaroos, koalas, and possums, embryos (at just 4-5 weeks!) leave the womb, crawl up the mother’s abdomen, and then crawl down into a pouch where there is a milk-producing nipple waiting for them.  Which came first, the life-sustaining pouch or the premature embryonic ex-cervical adventures?  And how to explain the embryo’s excursions in the first place?

4. Flight – Explaining the emergence of flight is not just a problem for Darwinism.  It is four separate problems, since there are (or have been) flying insects, bats, reptiles (Pterosaurs), as well as birds.

5.  The Eye — Darwinists typically point to light-sensitive spots in primitive organisms as precursors of the eye.  But such structures are so far from what we find in fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals as to be useless in providing a genuine account of eye evolution.  The coordination of meticulous musculature, circulatory, neurological, and anatomical structures in even the fish eye is mind-boggling.  And mere sensitivity to light is categorically different from what a true eye produces:  a mental image or a visual experience, which leads us to the next item on our list.

6. The Emergence of Consciousness – Not only is it impossible for Darwinism to explain how brains first produced awareness and cognition, but Darwinism cannot tell us why this extraordinary capacity should evolve.  Philosopher of mind David Chalmers puts it like this:  “The process of natural selection cannot distinguish between me and my zombie twin.  Evolution selects properties according to their functional role, and my zombie twin performs all the functions that I perform just as well as I do…  It follows that evolution alone cannot explain why conscious creatures rather than zombies evolved” (from The Conscious Mind [Oxford, 1996], p. 120)

7. Sexual Reproduction – The evolutionary development of reproductive organs that are morphologically and physiologically complimentary is unthinkable.  Evolutionary biologists tend to focus on the value of sexual reproduction for strengthening species.  But this is not the point at issue.  The question is how the mechanism could emerge in the first place and how such massively complex reproductive systems could change so dramatically in parallel (mutually complimentary) fashion.

8. The Cambrian Explosion – Classical Darwinism predicted that the geological strata (layers of rock in the Earth’s crust) would reveal a gradual increase of complexity in living forms.  With the advance of geology and paleontology, exactly the opposite was discovered.  The earliest strata in which multi-cellular life appears, Cambrian period, features a sudden appearance of very complex organisms.

9. The Lack of Intermediate Fossil Forms – In addition to the problem of sudden appearance of complex life, there is the stunning lack of fossil evidence for intermediate forms between the classes of animals, e.g. from reptile to bird (sorry, Archaeopteryx is a true bird), reptile to mammal, land mammal to sea mammal (cow to whale?), etc.  Darwin himself seemed to sense the seriousness of this problem:  “Why … is not every geological formation and every stratum full of… intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory” (The Origin of Species [Penguin, 1968], p. 292).

10. Self-Defeating Implications – Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has brilliantly demonstrated that a naturalistic Darwinist perspective undermines itself.  If all aspects of living organisms were produced solely because of their survival value, then this means that even human cognition exists just because it is practical in this way.  But nowhere in this account is there a concern for truth as an aim of cognition.  In short, if human cognition (e.g., beliefs, reasoning, concept formation, etc.) were produced through evolution, then we have no reason to trust its capacity to produce true beliefs.  So we have no grounds for trusting any of our beliefs, including our theories about origins.  This means that if Darwinism is true then we have no reason to believe that it is true.  G.K. Chesterton seems to have glimpsed this point when he said, “Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself.  Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself” (Orthodoxy [Doubleday, 1908], 34).  Amen.