One
of the central problems of explanation is the problem of explaining the human mind and human consciousness. One facet of this problem is explaining
the human mind from an evolutionary standpoint. There are aspects of
the human mind that seem to serve no purpose from a standpoint
of increasing human survival value or reproduction (as discussed here). So how can can we
explain such aspects merely through natural selection? Another facet
of the problem is what is called the hard problem of consciousness, the riddle of how mere matter
can give rise to Mind, something that seems to be totally different.
To many, the idea of mere matter giving rise to Mind has seemed as
unlikely as the idea that you might get blood to pour out of a stone
if you squeezed or jiggled around the stone in the right way.
Our
materialist thinkers stumble about when posed with this dilemma.
Sometimes what happens is that they retreat to a denialist standpoint
that is completely absurd. A materialist thinker may claim that
consciousness itself is just an illusion. This is a nonsensical
nadir that is a symptom of a failing worldview.
What
is the one thing we can be absolutely certain of – not 99.9999%
certain, but 100% certain? Not any of the findings of science, but
the mere fact of our own consciousness. You see, there's just the
tiniest sliver of a chance that your assumptions about what exists
might be totally overthrown by future experiences. Let's use our
imagination to think of how that could happen.
One
day you could be walking to work, surrounded by many pedestrians, and
suddenly – poof, you might instantly find yourself lying on some
bed, with your brain connected to wires. Some strange alien being in
front of you might then announce something like this:
I'm
sorry, but the illusion you have been used to is now over. We've run
out of funding for the “human experience simulation.” I know
you've become convinced that there are things such as the earth, the
moon, the sun, and the United States of America. But no such things
have ever actually existed. They are merely elements that we added to
the “human experience simulation” that we were sending into your
mind.
Something
like this is very unlikely to happen, but not quite impossible. But
there is one fact that you should be 100% certain about (not merely
99.9999% certain), and that is that you have some kind of consciousness,
some kind of conscious experience. Everything around us might be an
illusion, but our consciousness itself is an utterly certain reality.
But
there are some people who have no limits on what absurdities they can
fly to in defense of their misguided worldviews. Some of these people
have actually claimed that consciousness does not exist, that it is
just an illusion. We can call this consciousness denialism. It is a
form of denialism that is more intellectually bankrupt than any type
of denial that is commonly criticized. Consciousness denial is a
position far more ludicrous than the position of heliocentrism denial
(the denial of the position that the sun is the center of the solar
system). We just might have some weird sci-fi experience one day that
leads us to think that the sun isn't really the center of the solar
system (something like the weird possibility discussed above), but we
could not possibly have any experience that could justify the belief that
consciousness does not exist.
The
latest apostle of the risible absurdity of consciousness denial seems
to be one Michael Graziano, an associate professor of psychology and
neuroscience at Princeton University. In a piece entitled
“Consciousness Is Not Mysterious,” Graziano makes these absurd
claims:
Let
me be as clear as possible: Consciousness doesn’t happen. It’s a
mistaken construct.
Graziano
cites no scientific findings to support this claim, nor does he cite
any facts or scientific papers to support his claim. This is hardly
surprising. We cannot imagine any possible observations or
experiments that would ever justify the claim that consciousness does
not exist, any more than we can imagine some observation that would
prove that 2 plus 2 equals 5.
Denial of the obvious
Graziano
claims most erroneously that consciousness is "no longer a
fundamental mystery.” When he says that the mind is a
“trillion-stranded sculpture made out of information,” he implies
that consciousness is just information. He's wrong. A library of
books has lots of information, but not the slightest consciousness.
Consciousness includes experience, or a mental reality of
life-flow; and experience or life-flow is something vastly more than
just information. If consciousness was just information, then you would
be as conscious when you are sleeping as you are when you are awake
(with the same information stored in your memory); but that's
obviously not the case.
Although
Graziano is a scientist, when writing this piece he was not wearing
his scientist hat. He was wearing his philosopher hat. I've always
felt that philosophy is the birthright of every human, so I will not
begrudge his attempt to play philosopher. I will merely point out
that by claiming “consciousness doesn't happen,” he has reached
the second most absurd philosophical conclusion anyone could make.
There is only one way you could do worse, and that is to write in
defense of the position that absolutely nothing has ever existed: no
matter, no energy, no minds, and no thoughts.
But
perhaps a position like that will be the next step for our reductionists. Just
as they have tried to remove the problem of consciousness by claiming
that consciousness doesn't exist, perhaps they will next try to
remove the problem of the sudden origin of the universe by claiming
that the universe doesn't really exist. That would be only a
little more ridiculous than the absurdity of consciousness denial.
Postscript: Mr. Graziano has a more reasonable-seeming discussion of the topic of consciousness at this link.
Postscript: Mr. Graziano has a more reasonable-seeming discussion of the topic of consciousness at this link.
No comments:
Post a Comment