This weekend, I read through a New Atlantis article called “Why Minds are Not Like Computers.” The essence of what our minds “are” and “are not” has always been an intriguing subject for me, so I approached this 20-page article with a high level of eagerness. Unfortunately, however, it was quite boring, long-winded, and uninspiring. Still, I agree with the essence of the author’s argument: our minds are NOT like computers. This doesn’t seen like a radical statement, at first, but for decades, the consensus in the scientific community has been that – as research advances – our minds could be conceptually understood as extremely-advanced computers. However, as other journalists have noted, this scientific worldview (like the entire materialist perspective) is starting to breakdown as the evidence accumulates. In fact, last year, the agnostic conservative John Derbyshire attended a conference with the provocative title of “Toward a Science of Consciousness.” As he reports in his interesting (and highly-recommended) blog: scientists are still – even today – at a total loss when it comes to explaining how “consciousness” works. We still have a lot of work ahead of us.
As I mentioned above, the “essence” of “consciousness” has been a subject that has long interested me. In my book, The Mustard Seed, I demonstrate how the latest scientific discoveries provide virtually-convincing evidence for the existence of God and the soul. In fact, you could make the argument that – in the year 2009 – there is more “reason” to have faith than at any other time in history. Essentially, I summarize (in Chapter 9) the latest breakthroughs in physics, evolutionary biology, and modern neuroscience to prove my point (for more details, see the book itself). But I never really touched on the subject of “consciousness,” precisely because (as Derbyshire’s report reveals) the science on that subject is still in the earliest stages. However, I am confident that as this process continues, “consciousness studies” will provide even more evidence (and perhaps even the best evidence) for the soul. This will be a sharp rebuke for the radical materialists who originally hoped that “consciousness studies” would be the finally nail in the coffin of faith.
But I digress.
From my perspective, there are 3 main “consciousness theories.”
The first theory is the most prevalent: that “consciousness” as we understand it is an illusion. This “thing” that creates an “I” is merely an illusion created by a large mass of neurons in the brain. There is no “You.” What “you" think “you are” is just the result of a random and meaningless biological process. Needless to say, this theory is the offspring of radical materialism, and thus, today’s scientific consensus. Of course, like radical Darwinism, it’s a fine theory if you start off with the assumption – a priori – that God and the soul don’t exist. But, like radical Darwinism, the closer you look at the facts (in an objective way) the harder it is to believe in their perspective. For starters, there is no inherent reason why matter should give rise to consciousness. In other words, you could have a human body perform nearly all of the functions of an animal (eating, sleeping, etc.) but those functions don’t require an “I,” something that thinks about its existence, and even thinks about its own thinking! Clearly, this is something “other;” something that is “more” than what scientists are willing to work it. They’re content with their amygdalas and pituitary glands, and don’t want to entertain the idea that – in the words of Shakespeare – “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Sorry, guys, you’re not going to convince me that “I” don’t exist. Try again.
The second theory is “dualism.” The idea that there IS a mind, but it is separate from the body. Although most people never bother to think about “consciousness theories,” this is probably the theory that most human beings (outside the scientific community, of course) believe in. And indeed, most scientists throughout history (before the advent of radical materialism) held this belief too. Basically, to paraphrase Jesus, it renders unto science what is science (the body); and renders unto God what is God (the soul). Hence, it’s a straight-down-the-middle compromise. And that’s a large part of it’s appeal.
The third theory is what you might call “convergence.” Basically, we could summarize it as: “Matter IS consciousness, and consciousness IS matter.” There is a harmony there even if we’re not even close to understanding it on a conceptual level. This philosophy could be called an “Eastern perspective” (in contrast to the “Western” dualism) and has been popularized in many books (I recommend The Holographic Universe for beginners). Clearly, this theory raises a whole host of uncomfortable questions: Do animals have a soul? Can there be a real “I” if we are all “one?” I think the answer to that last question can be “yes, paradoxically” and it might work like a prism (think back to high science class!) in which a single white light gets split into the separate colors of the rainbow. That’s just one idea. Nobody really knows.
Personally, I sympathize with both the 2nd and 3rd theories, and I’m inclined to say that the ultimate truth can be found in the 3rd theory. Either way, I’m confident that continuing developments in the field of “consciousness studies” will continue to undermine radical materialism, and support the conclusions reached in my book, The Mustard Seed. Stay tuned.
-Todd
No comments:
Post a Comment