For
years the web site edge.org has submitted an annual question to about 70
different people, mostly professors. The answers to the questions
have made some pretty interesting reading. This year the site has
simply asked “Can you ask the Last Question?” The responses are
all given as questions, rather than the usual essay-length answers
given in previous years.
I
was expecting to get many thought-provoking questions that might
get me thinking on many an important topic. But the results were
rather disappointing, with some exceptions. I think a good way to
answer a question like this is to think of some question that will
really stimulate someone to do some deep thinking on some topic. A
bad way to answer is to create some question that mainly just
advertises your position on some topic. We can call such questions
“position statement questions.” An example would be if someone
were to say, “Why are we spending too little on border security and
letting so many Mexicans enter the country?” A question like that
simply advertises someone's opinion on some topic, and doesn't
stimulate someone to thinking.
An
example of a useless “position statement question” was given by
Lisa Feldmann Barrett, a psychology professor who asks, “How
does a single human brain architecture create many kinds of human
minds?” An equally useless “position statement question” is
offered by neurobiologist Leo M. Chalupa, who asks, “What new
methodology will be required to explain the neural basis of
consciousness?” And just as useless a “position statement
question” is offered by psychologist Alison Gopnik, who asks, “How
can the few pounds of grey goo between our ears let us make utterly
surprising, completely unprecedented, and remarkably true discoveries
about the world around us, in every domain and at every scale, from
quarks to quasars?” These questions are essentially just
statements of the dubious position that the brain is the sole source
of your mind.
But
there's a glimmer of hope that some of these minds are questioning
this dogma. For example, roboticist Rodney A. Brooks asks, “Can
consciousness exist in an entity without a self-contained physical
body?” And W. Brian Arthur asks, “Does consciousness reside only
in our brains?” And psychologist David Goleman asks,
“Is
there a subtle form of consciousness that operates independent of
brain function?” And Dave Morin asks, “Is the brain a computer or
an antenna?” That's actually a good question, because of the
difficulty of accounting for human minds and memory from brain
activity, and the very substantial possibility that our intellects
actually come from some mysterious unfathomable external source.
A better question would be: “Is the brain a computer, an antenna, or a receptacle?” The receptacle possibility (discussed here) allows for a one-time origin of consciousness from an external source, something different from the “continuous transmission” idea that seems to be involved in thinking that the brain is like an antenna.
A better question would be: “Is the brain a computer, an antenna, or a receptacle?” The receptacle possibility (discussed here) allows for a one-time origin of consciousness from an external source, something different from the “continuous transmission” idea that seems to be involved in thinking that the brain is like an antenna.
Thinking
in such a heterodox vein, a good question to ask would be: is your
body merely the genie bottle that temporarily imprisons your soul?
The question asked
by philosopher Daniel Dennett seems rather revealing. He asks, “How
can an aggregation of trillions of selfish, myopic cells discover the
unwitting teamwork that turns that dynamic clump into a person who
can love, notice, wonder, and keep a promise?” We might ask him
four questions in response:
- How can you believe that the output of a curious, loving, wondering human is something produced merely by cells, given that no cell produces any trace of such a thing?
- How could cells possibly “discover” such an effect, when they aren't questing, inquiring agents?
- How can you maintain that such an effect is a “discovery” of cells when your question suggests you have no idea of how such a thing could happen?
- Does it not stretch credulity to suggest that that the “teamwork” supposedly producing such a stupendous output (teamwork vastly greater than we see in a Super Bowl champion team) is actually “unwitting,” since teamwork is in general something (indirectly or indirectly) the result of intentional purpose, and is not “unwitting”?
Two
of the questions make it seem scientists are still scratching their
heads about the appearance of complexity in nature, despite the pretentious
noises to the contrary from many scientists. Physicist and computer
scientist W. Daniel Hillis asks, “What is the principle that causes
complex adaptive systems (life, organisms, minds, societies) to
spontaneously emerge from the interaction of simpler elements
(chemicals, cells, neurons, individual humans)?” Similarly,
Nobel-prize-winning physicist John C. Mather asks, “What is the
master principle governing the growth and evolution of complex
systems?” These two don't sound like people persuaded that natural
selection does much to explain such things; they're still wondering
what “big principle” might explain complex things.
Physicist
Leonard Susskind offers the surprisingly good question, “Is
there a design to the laws of physics, or are they the result of
chance and the laws of large numbers?” The physicist Andrei Linde
also offers the good question, “Where were the laws of physics
written before the universe was born?”
But the great
majority of questions in the Edge.org are pedestrian queries that
aren't worth quoting here. An example is the question by Sam Harris:
“Is the actual all that is possible?” That is a “lead you
nowhere” kind of question. Thought-provoking philosopher Nick
Bostrom disappoints us with the “lead you nowhere” question,
“Which questions should we not ask and not try to answer?” Many
of the authorities ask questions with a form “Will we be able to
accomplish X?” (where X is some technological feat) or “What will
happen when we accomplish X?” – a type of question that isn't
particularly thought-provoking.
Let
me suggest my own “Last Question,” hopefully fulfilling my
suggestion that such a question should not be some “position
statement” question but instead a question leading to thought or
inquiry. My question would be: “Which 50 observations made by
scientists or other reliable witnesses are most incompatible with the
most popular assumptions and theories held by scientists, in what
ways do such observations cast doubt on such assumptions and
theories, and in what ways could such observations be used to help
construct rival theories serving as alternatives to such assumptions
and theories?” The posts here, here, here, and here
(discussing fifty things science cannot explain) can be read (along
with this post) to get some candidates for these 50 observations.
The job of using such observations to help construct rival theories
is a very complex one, but potentially a very fruitful line of
activity. Fully answering my question would pretty much require a
book-length response, but that would be a very interesting book to
read. Little pieces of such a book can be found in past and future posts of this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment