Consciousness and the search for scientific humility

I like the humility of one cognitive scientist and philosopher about the state of knowledge as to how consciousness arises. His admission that despite all the attention the subject is getting there is much still to understand is at stark contrast with the declarations made by the likes of Steven Pinker or Sam Harris.

Professor David Chalmers

I’m referring to David Chalmers, University Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science and co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at New York University. He is also Honorary Professor of Philosophy at the Australian National University. He has had a long interest in the philosophy of mind (especially consciousness) and the foundations of cognitive science, as well the philosophy of language, metaphysics and epistemology.

In a 2017 broadcast Chalmers said: “I see consciousness as one of the fundamental data of our existence, it's just a manifest fact where consciousness is possibly the most familiar thing in the world to most of us. At the same time, it's one of the things that is really the hardest to explain…" He went on:

This is for me what makes it such a fascinating problem I think for any scientist, for any philosopher, for anyone who is contemplating the human mind or the world, and I think we're at a very interesting point right now in 2017 where the field is becoming mature and there is a developed science and philosophy of consciousness, but still that moment you just step back and say, wow, this is really puzzling and something we are just beginning to come to grips with.

This willingness to be tentative in response to the complexity of that field of study can be compared to the pontificating seen in much that comes from the likes of Steven Pinker, Sam Harris or John R Searle, who in 1990 published The Mystery of Consciousness, but in 1997 berated Chalmers for his view that there was not enough evidence to decide that consciousness was completely a product of the brain. However, on this point Searle did offer a bifocal view of the issue. First he states, “Consciousness is above all a biological phenomenon, like digestion or photosynthesis. This is just a fact of nature that has to be respected by any philosophical account.” Then he takes a step back and qualifies the degree of certainty by concluding that work still needed to be done “in the project of understanding how the brain causes consciousness.”

Chalmers in 2017 was still looking for ways to bridge the gap between the brain’s processes and consciousness. He put the issue this way:

For me, there's any number of questions you can raise about consciousness but for me the big one has always been how can you explain it? Why does it exist and how can we give some kind of scientific theory of it. Absolutely it's got something to do with the brain. At least in humans you need a brain to be conscious, and activity in the brain is going to lead to consciousness. Change the activity in the brain and you will typically change the state of consciousness.

There's any number of correlations between the brain and consciousness, but nothing about that yet yields an explanation. So for me the hard problem of consciousness is how is it that all this physical processing in the brain should somehow give rise to conscious experience. Why doesn't it all go on in the dark without any consciousness? Why aren't we just giant robots or what philosophers sometimes call zombies, doing all this processing, behaving, walking, talking, but with the lights off inside, with nothing going on.

For me there is actually conscious experience here and I suspect very strongly that for all of you, you are undergoing something like the same thing. But how can we explain that fact, how can we give an account of that in terms of the physical processes of the brain?

Associate Professor Olivia Carter

In that broadcast Chalmers’ view of the uncertainty in the field was corroborated a fellow researcher into consciousness. Olivia Carter is Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and was executive director of the International Association of the Scientific Study of Consciousness. In explaining the state of play of the neuroscience of consciousness she said:

"So within the biology, if we say it's something about a brain, what is it about the human brain that allows consciousness? It's not inherent in the biological structure, it's something about the way this brain is working."

She described how certain types of neurons might be a factor. However, “… It's still unclear, absolutely unclear.” She goes on in a likewise tentative manner: “One big theory of consciousness is that basically… magically consciousness happens when…” Another telling aspect of where the science of consciousness is at comes with this statement:

It seems to be that the sorts of things, like visual perception and emotional processing, that these types of loops do exist and they seem to be important in working memory, whether or not you need working memory as a component of consciousness and such is not clear either.

Having discussed three areas of study, mainly to do with neurons and their behaviour, Carter says: “There's a lot of complex stuff happening in the brain. It seems to be coordinated, [and] one component of those things may or may not be the critical step to consciousness, or maybe it's the three things all together.”

Whether one is talking about consciousness, or the mind or the spiritual beliefs of most of humanity – Pinker had this to say in 2004: “the universal propensity toward religious belief is a genuine scientific puzzle” – what is needed is a little more accuracy on what the state of the scientific knowledge is and a little less of a readiness to marginalize those who see the facts about brain processes pointing to a compelling conclusion of a countercultural kind - that humans have capabilities that transcend the nature and nurture elements of their existence. 

Scientists' prejudices dismay Harvard astrophysicist

Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb expresses dismay at the unwillingness of many fellow scientists to even look at his evidence for the existence of aliens in space. He told the UK newspaper The Observer that when he published papers presenting the reasons for his theory the science community showed little curiosity and in many cases mocked him at once for a stance that was considered outside the boundary of serious science. 

In Professor Loeb’s just published book Extraterrestrial, as The Observer’s account relates, he found that his theory...

“put me at odds with most of the scientific establishment”, even though, as a tenured Harvard professor on various academic boards, he worked at the core of it. […] Colleagues turned their noses up. Some thought it was ridiculous, others damaging to the community. Whenever he shared his theory, “Ninety-nine per cent of the time, I’d get this silence,” he says. On Twitter, one scientist described the hypothesis as insulting. Another said: “Next time there’s another unusual object, let’s not tell Avi!” – a petty swipe, Loeb’s theory reduced to a punchline. 

“That made me upset,” he says. “It’s like kindergarten. Let’s just talk about the science!” The reactions still bother him. “If someone comes to me and says, ‘For these scientific reasons, I have a scenario that makes much more sense than yours,’ then I’d rip that paper up and accept it,” he says. “But most of the people who attacked, they hadn’t even looked at my paper, or read the issues, or referred to the items we discussed.” 

Professor Loeb’s experience is of importance to everyone, inside and outside the field of direct scientific investigation. The consequences for us all as to any neglect of vigorous investigation into reality and truth could be severe, both materially and in understanding our human situation.

Professor Loeb

In some ways, Loeb sees the argument around ‘Oumuamua [an interstellar asteroid Loeb had been studying] as a proxy for a larger debate about the scientific process. Of his colleagues, he thinks: where are the progressive, exciting ideas? Where are the scientists making bold hypotheses without worrying they might damage their careers? He is convinced conservatism is ruining science, to the point where a hypothesis can now be dismissed outright just because it seems silly or outlandish or unfashionable, even when it is as theoretically plausible as any other theory available. Of ‘Oumuamua, he says: “The only reason I was courageous enough to come out was because people privately told me, ‘Yes, this object is something quite unusual.’ They say it privately because they’re afraid to make a public statement. But I’m not afraid. What should I be afraid of?”

Professor Loeb blames the antagonism on “conservatism”. But this is not a political or religious conservatism as in the American context, but the ingrained filter that affects a person over what is regarded in their society or community of what is “silly”, “outlandish” or “unfashionable”. “There is a taboo on the subject,” Professor Loeb says.

Once, Loeb went to a seminar on ‘Oumuamua at Harvard. As he left, he got chatting to an astronomer who’d spent his entire career studying objects in the solar system. “He tells me: ‘This object looks so weird, I wish it never existed,’” Loeb recalls, disapprovingly. To him the comment was scandalous. “As scientists we should accept, with pleasure, whatever nature gives us. Science is a dialogue with nature, it’s not a monologue. And what people don’t realise is, nature isn’t supposed to make us happy, or satisfied, or proud of ourselves. Nature is whatever it is.”

He goes on, “I find those instances when the data gives us some uneasiness, when the evidence doesn’t line up with what we expect, I feel these are the most exciting moments. Nature is telling you, ‘Your thinking on this is wrong.’ That’s what I’m here for, to learn something new. I’m not in it to feel good about myself, to get likes on Twitter, for the prizes. I’m in it to understand. So a colleague telling me, ‘I wish it never…’” He shakes his head. 

The filters or barriers to being open to what is socially acceptable, also slam into place because of the “cancel culture”, generated especially by society’s elite of academia, the media and corporate leaders, giving rise to real fear even in these same spheres. 

“You know, I’ve noticed a chilling effect on some people who have worked with me,” he says. “The moment there is backlash from the scientific community, they stop.” I ask why. “Because people at this stage – students and postdocs – they worry about their careers.” Loeb is convinced that, every now and then, a collaborator of his will be told that working with him could damage their hunt for a faculty position, as though it were an ugly blotch on an otherwise stellar CV. “I think that’s the part that is unhealthy here,” he says. “Science is supposed to be without prejudice, open to discussion. Not the bullying.”

All of this dogs Loeb. “My point is, how dare scientists shy away from this question, when they have the technology to address it, and when the public is extremely interested – while at the same time you have theoretical physicists talking about extra dimensions, string theory, about the multiverse? The multiverse is extremely popular in the mainstream. You ask yourself, how can that be part of the conservative mainstream” – but not the search for extraterrestrial life?

In his book, Loeb writes that throughout his career he has worked hard to approach problems with childlike wonder, often in defiance of conventional thinking. “If you speak to friends of mine, people from my childhood, they’ll tell you I haven’t changed much,” he says. “That’s on purpose. You might think of me as naive. But when people say, ‘As you get older, you need to abandon risk taking, become more rigid,’ I don’t accept that!”

Unfortunately, many, many people credit the world of science as being pure, untainted by prejudices, and fully devoted to discovering reality and the truth. From what we can see from Professor Loeb’s experience, scientists are bedevilled by the typical human weaknesses, as well as blindspots typical of their own profession. 

After centuries when the Western world’s top scientists were Christians,  it is sad that these days those who have experienced in their life the spiritual world in any of its many astounding forms are regarded as primitives left behind by the explosion of scientific findings in the last 100 years. But the mind view that is generated by scientism and an atheism that is so much more aggressive than healthy skepticism, is of that same type that gives rise to all that Professor Loeb has encountered. Science is not of benefit to us if it is not open to investigating all that is plausible.

 

Christians see no conflict between reason and faith

Deacon Burke-Sivers

To take one prominent example of how Christians have longed cherished their religion because it embodies truth, "Augustine consistently defends [faith-trust] in Christ, the Bible, and the church as rational. This faith is epistemically on a par with faith in other areas of human life such as family relations, geography, and history—where trust reveals itself as both rational and practically necessary." [1]

Accordingly, Christians posit that the beliefs of this religion can be defended rationally, unlike the case of other religions. However, because it is a human endeavour, there have been lapses in the church in acceptance of evidence about the world over the centuries.

I want to quickly illustrate how Christian scholars have attempted to use the faculty of reason to demonstrate that their act of faith as to core beliefs is not irrational. Here are how some proofs developed by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) can be applied in the modern context. Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers of Portland, Oregon, gave this talk in a video: A friend asked why Harold thought God exists...

So I took out my cellphone and put it on the table, and I asked him if my phone was moving. He said "No". So in order for my phone to move from a state of potential motion to actual motion a force had to be applied. I said, "Are there objects in the universe that are moving?" "Of course there are". I said that just like the phone there has to be a force that causes all objects to move. I said, "What is that force?" He said "The Big Bang". I said "OK, what caused the Big Bang?" He had no answer.

I then said, "Let's take the phone to the Amazon Basin and drop the phone on the jungle floor. A group of indigeneous people find it, pick it up. They have never seen or experienced anything like this technology before. Would they think this phone had created itself? Of course not. They would think that an alien, a god, or another human being had created it because things don't create themselves." I then asked him to tell me something that exists that created itself. He had no answer.

Finally I said, "When I bought my phone the battery was 100%, and as I [...] began to use it, the battery began to lose energy and move toward a state of equilibrium." I said, "[With] the universe there was a Big Bang and you would expect that after 13.7 billion years the universe would be losing energy, just like the battery on the phone. Instead, the universe continues to expand and there are billions and billions pieces of visible matter in the universe. How is it that universe is not losing energy after such a long period?" Again, he had no answer. 

I said, "Now you have to apply the [principle] of Occam's razor. [This] says that when you have a series of competing hypotheses, each with equally predictive outcomes, the one with the fewest assumptions is the one that is most likely to be correct." I said, "I gave you three assumptions and you could not give me an answer." 

The proofs for God as the first mover, the first cause and grand designer, another observer writes, are not a matter of "believing in the supernatural realm [as] some kind of philosophical ‘deus ex machina’– a God of the gaps – an answer for natural mysteries when we have no other answer. Instead the supernatural realm is a given within a philosophical view of the cosmos." 

The writer goes on: "It is the universal experience of the human race that the unseen realm is ‘there’. It’s part of reality. Deciding how it interacts with the visible realm and what it has to do with me and my destiny is where science ends and religion begins."

Though science may be able to identify "some sort of measurable pop and fizzle in the brain" accompanying an experience in an animal or human, "it is not the same thing as the experience any more than my increased heart rate when my beloved enters the room is that thing we call love".

[1]  Mark J. Boone, "Augustine and William James on the Rationality of Faith," The Heythrop Journal, Volume 61, Issue 4 "Special Issue: Apologetics", July 2020, pages 648-659

Miracles can be filtered out of our sense of reality

No way through - unless we avoid whatever is blocking our perspective

C.S. Lewis opens his book Miracles with the following words: "In all my life I have met only one person who claims to have seen a ghost. And the interesting thing about the story is that that person disbelieved in the immortal soul before she saw the ghost and still disbelieves after seeing it. She says that what she saw must have been an illusion or a trick of the nerves" [1]. 

That reaction might have arisen from an application of Occam's razor (see my previous post) but it also points to the fact that each of us form filters over time affecting our appreciation of truth and reality. This is part of our rational life that complicates decision-making. In this example, if the woman who saw the ghost had been open to all possibilities, she would have first taken the view that the extraordinary sighting seemed to indicate that there is a spiritual dimension to life, rather that assuming her brain had had a malfunction though it had been working correctly by normal measures before and after her experience.

I want to briefly explore this matter, excerpting from a blog I came across while researching my recent field of interest, the topic of truth and reality and Christian belief. The blog states:

This story [that Lewis relates] clearly illustrates how an individual’s Plausibility Structure (PS)* can affect belief formation concerning that which we believe to be reasonable or unreasonable, potentially true or surely false. A PS can simply be understood as a mental apparatus that operates as a filter to filter out beliefs that should not be considered as plausible.

Every belief that we entertain will first pass through our PS informing us of its possibility or likelihood and does not allow us to hold to beliefs that are inconsistent with the experiences or evidence that we are privy to. So, in the case of the woman in Lewis’s story, since she disbelieved in the existence of immortal souls (or, in other words, her PS did not allow for the existence of immortal souls), even after a seeming encounter with a ghost, she must find an alternative explanation (an explanation that fits in her PS) for what she experienced (i.e. an illusion or a trick).

...if [a person's] PS only allows for a naturalistic, materialistic reality, the supernatural will never be entertained as plausible. Regardless of the arguments that may be given for the existence of God, the possibility of miracles, and the reliability of Scripture, since [that person's] PS is closed off to supernatural explanations, these arguments will fall on deaf ears. In other words, [the person's] naturalistic framework limits his range of plausible explanations.

The church has enough self-awareness to be wary of filter that religious fervour creates, and so it has a body of regulations ensuring a thorough investigation into "the historical and scientific truth of the alleged miracles. Just as it is necessary for the legal checks to be complete, convergent and reliable, it is also necessary that their study be performed with serenity, objectivity and sure competence by highly specialised medical experts." 

The hope is that those imbued with solely a sense of the material world can open their hearts and minds - we are a mind-body phenomenon - to the spiritual/supernatural realm.

See also:

*Plausibility Structure [here] is not to be strictly identified with Peter Berger’s Plausibility Structure derived from his sociological theory of religion.

[1] C. S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 1.

Evidence of God from miracles - Scientists please note!

Melissa Villalobos

When Christians meet the ideas of those who take an atheistic view of our nature and existence, they are often struck by the ignorance shown about religion. Those who decide to stand against the experience and depth of knowledge most humans in history and even now in believing in "another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences" (see #284 especially) seem to do so based on  a view of human life blinkered by scientific findings that they extrapolate from with a kind of glee - All the better for "hedonistic utilitarianism"? (Peter Singer's term).

I accept that outside mainstream Christian churches  there is little understanding: a) that the search for truth does not necessarily pit science against religion or vice-versa because "Truth cannot contradict Truth"; and b) that a wholly literal interpretation of Genesis is not accepted generally within the universal church. 

However, healing from a disease or disorder is an example of the types of miracles Christians encounter, of course bolstering our belief in God's providence and in His loving response to our prayers. Steven Pinker, however, would have none of it, in no instance, based on the thought that any miraculous outcome must arise from the "laws of probability [or] the workings of cognition". 

To the point: Last year, John Henry Newman was a declared a saint, someone who the church could accept had been received into heaven as a "true and faithful servant" of God. Christians have had, from the earliest days, the practice of praying to saints to ask they intercede on our behalf before God. (Some Protestants reject this belief). The reason why the church could accept the status of Newman, apart from the witness of a godly life, was that it had judged that two miracles had occurred at his intercession. In this case, a man with a disabling spinal problem (Jack Sullivan), and a woman who was at risk of losing a baby (Melissa Villalobos) had their plea to Newman for help answered by the power of God. 

I link here to a video and a recording involving Villalobos and Sullivan, both Americans, where they relate their dire predicament and the outcome, which their doctors could not explain on the basis of the medical situation of each.

The link is here: Enjoy, and pass on to others who are still intriqued by the wonderful things that occur in the world around us. These are kind of the events that those who try to use science as a rationale for their atheism should give attention to.

President Biden and the Common Good

President Biden used his inauguration address to stress that he understood the "fear and trepidation" that many Americans felt in looking to the future. The centrepiece of his message to the nation comprised these words:

But the answer is not to turn inward, to retreat into competing factions, distrusting those who don’t look like you do, or worship the way you do, or don’t get their news from the same sources you do.

We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.

We can do this if we open our souls instead of hardening our hearts.

If we show a little tolerance and humility.

If we’re willing to stand in the other person’s shoes just for a moment.

Because here is the thing about life: There is no accounting for what fate will deal you.

There are some days when we need a hand.

There are other days when we’re called on to lend one.

          That is how we must be with one another.

President Biden on Inauguration Day.

That ethos of sharing with those in need, of being a brother or sister to those in need, of regarding the community as one entity and not a collection of individuals, is the spirit of what has been termed "the common good".

The United States, and much of the Western world, which suffers severely from personal alienation in society, and dispossession arising from a reluctance to help social classes that are struggling to cope with the upheaval in jobs and trade, and the burdens of the virus pandemic, need to avoid sinking into the pit of "competing factions" by getting wise about the boon that application of  the common good offers policy and political behaviour.

The wisdom of the universal church, infused by the Holy Spirit and painfully gained from its own experience as a governing state from time to time, but especially as a father-mother-advocate living in community with those without influence and power, balances the importance of the individual person with the well-being of the community, so that there is mutually supportive relationship. 

I want to draw on the clear exposition of the main features of the common good presented in a key article in an American journal appearing to coincide with the Biden inauguration. The article states: 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes well the church's teaching on the purpose of the government: "It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society." Period. The government is not intended to prioritize "individual liberties" over communal flourishing, as so many right-leaning Americans wish, nor is the state intended by the church's teaching to be a hegemonic force for sectarian norms and partisan preferences.

According to the documents of the Second Vatican Council, which contains the most authoritative modern teaching on the subject: "It follows also that political authority, both in the community as such and in the representative bodies of the state, must always be exercised within the limits of the moral order and directed toward the common good — with a dynamic concept of that good — according to the juridical order legitimately established or due to be established" (Gaudium et Spes 1965).

What does the common good look like?

Drawing on the papal teaching from the preceding half century, the council explained that the common good is "the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment. Today [this] takes on an increasingly universal complexion and consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family" [Pacem in Terris 1963].

The catechism presents a digest of three key elements that combine to shape our understanding of the common good: respect for the human person, prioritization of collective social wellbeing and development, and the pursuit of peace.

The respect for the inherent dignity and value of the human person is not up for personal selection, choosing as one might which population, political party, class or race of people, gender or sexually oriented group one wishes to recognize. The church makes clear in Gaudium et Spes : "In our time a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception." 

The second element of the common good has to do with social well-being and development. The church teaches, in Gaudiem et Spes, that it is the government's responsibility in a healthy nation to make available to all people "everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one's own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom even in matters religious."

Despite conservative cries for "smaller government," which is a self-interested red herring disingenuously presented as "fiscal responsibility," the church makes clear that it is precisely the responsibility of governments to attend to these basic needs of its people. And if there is a population whose interests should supersede others, the church has made abundantly clear that it promotes the preferential option for the poor and marginalized, not the wealthy, comfortable or socially ascendant.

Pope Francis's 2020 encyclical letter, Fratelli Tutti (All Brothers), “further builds on the church's rich, if challenging, teaching on the role of government. Critiquing the rise of extremism, false populism and divisive rhetoric, Francis writes: "Political life no longer has to do with healthy debates about long-term plans to improve people's lives and to advance the common good, but only with slick marketing techniques primarily aimed at discrediting others. In this craven exchange of charges and counter-charges, debate degenerates into a permanent state of disagreement and confrontation."

Individualism, the ethos that has taken hold of society or is in the process of capturing the minds of the younger generation worldwide – also presents an obvious challenge to the wider community. The article quotes Pope Francis again from his encyclical on fraternity:

Individualism does not make us more free, more equal, more fraternal. The mere sum of individual interests is not capable of generating a better world for the whole human family. Nor can it save us from the many ills that are now increasingly globalized. Radical individualism is a virus that is extremely difficult to eliminate, for it is clever. It makes us believe that everything consists in giving free rein to our own ambitions, as if by pursuing ever-greater ambitions and creating safety nets we would somehow be serving the common good.

The common good, then, is achieved by addressing the needs of our neighbour. The outcome of peace in society is our reward, to use President Biden's words, if we "open our souls instead of hardening our hearts. If we show a little tolerance and humility. If we’re willing to stand in the other person’s shoes just for a moment." 

Further insights into the significance of the concept of the common good can be found on this blog here and here.

Let Christmas linger into the new year

 Christmas is an uplifting time of each year! Our focus is turned to a historical fact that has the meaning of love, faithfulness and self-sacrifice. There is a message in a person who has descended from a state of omniscience and omnipotence to become like all humans in an existence that is limited in most spheres of life.

Therefore, there is value in keeping before our eyes the important elements of the meaning of Christmas. This is what the early followers of Christ did, creating hymns and prayers, some of which have made their way down to us. I'm thinking of the hymns that Paul used in his letters, and there are the O Antiphons, advent prayers widely used in the church before the 8th Century. These prayers have given rise to chants and carols that have inspired the Christmas celebrations of people in subsequent centuries.

Below are slides that display how the heart of the early prayers have been incorporated into a Christmas carol that conveys delight at the gift that God has given us. At the end, are some links to videos I have been using to build my awareness of what Christmas means, and how that meaning has importance as I start this new year.

Christmas videos that have provided me with food for New Year prayer include these:

Traditional rendition of O Come O Come Emmanuel 

More forceful form of this prayer 

Then a beautiful insight into Mary's role as "God is born into the world of men" 

Finally, the lovely Wexford Carol -

"Good people all, this Christmas time,

  Consider well and bear in mind
  What our good God for us has done
  In sending His beloved Son"

Lyrics Source