Physicalism and Non-Dualism
This is part 2 of the essay on science and consciousness. In the first part we covered the topics of naturalism and reductionism. In this part we analyze physicalism and non-dualism.Physicalism
So, once again, the modern scientist says that all phenomena ultimately reduce to physical phenomena and the physical is sufficient to explain all aspects of reality. This is a clever view, and a powerful one, precisely because the “physical” has come to be a readily adaptable term. It refers to whatever happens to be the predominant theoretical constituents at the current moment, going well beyond matter. Such adaptability allows physicalism to readily accommodate new observations by modifying what the “physical” is in reference to. In truth, it is difficult to say exactly what these “physical” constituents of reality are, as they are highly abstract, unobservable, mathematical entities. As we noted, physicists used to predominantly believe in a reality composed out of some “matter-stuff” until this belief had to be discarded and replaced with abstract math-stuff, called “physical” out of historical context. Perhaps a science that had pursued idealism, positing that reality is composed out of “mind-stuff”, would have ended up converging upon similar math-stuff as we have today. Some thinkers, like Max Tegmark, have even gone so far as to suggest that reality is fundamentally mathematical. The belief that reality is actually composed of some ultimate substance which is even more fundamental than both mind and matter, thereby recognizing the duality as an emergent effect, is called neutral monism. In general, beliefs that the division between mind and matter (in fact, all divisions) are illusory are classified as non-dual. We will discuss non-dualism in more depth in the final section of this essay.
Now we ask the question of whether we can conceive of a phenomena which is not susceptible to scientific explanation through our current physicalist system. We do not mean phenomena which are very difficult to explain (like quantum gravity), or which we do not have the resources to analyze at this time (like dark matter), or hypothetical phenomena which have not been scientifically observed (like ESP). Rather, can we find any example of a directly observable phenomenon which can be shown, through logical reasoning or otherwise, to be impossible to explain using our current scientific framework. I aim to show that consciousness is such a phenomenon.
Consciousness is a very curious phenomenon, for it is strictly within consciousness that all other phenomena can be observed. Actually, we can be more general and observe that it is strictly within consciousness that anything we have ever known, seen, experienced, felt, etc. has occurred. It may seem possible to trick this definition, such as by referring to an object which is known to exist despite the fact that it is not within conscious sensation at this time. However, what is really within consciousness at that time is the abstract representation of the object as well as the belief that the object continues to exist, and both this representation and the belief are of course within consciousness. What if I observe someone else, who I know to be conscious, and can conceive of the fact that therefore they must have their own internal world which is distinct from mine. Once again this has confused the belief of something with the actual existence of that thing. The belief of the other individual’s consciousness, the representation of some inner world they must have, the sensation of observing that person, all of this is only occurring within your consciousness.
For fun let’s consider one more thought experiment to see if we can get outside of consciousness. Suppose we have advanced technology allowing us to wire multiple human brains together, like your two hemispheres are wired together. Wouldn’t this result in the unification of separate consciousnesses, allowing you to access somebody else’s internal world outside of your own? Not quite. To be sure, such an undertaking would result in some sort of expansion of your consciousness, such that you are now perceiving and experiencing more than what you were before. But your concept of “you” has now changed, so that “you” are now some multi-human entity with a single consciousness or perhaps multiple consciousnesses communicating in abstract non-verbal ways. In either case, each individual consciousness is still a unity, experiencing nothing outside of that consciousness.
Moving forwards, I will drop the reference to “you” and the possessive “your” regarding consciousness. As we discuss the phenomena, observe directly how it is occurring and know that this is what I intend to speak plainly about. Nothing outside of consciousness has ever been experienced. This is the unique property of consciousness, and is its very nature. If anything outside of consciousness were to be experienced, then it would subsequently be within consciousness. It is easy to begin thinking about consciousness, holding it in the mind as some entity and imagining its boundaries, in which case we can imagine things outside that consciousness which exist but are not being observed. Do not do this. Instead, observe experience as it exists right now, as it has always existed, and try to find anything outside of it. Observe the impossibility of such a task.
Now what we want is a scientific explanation for the phenomena of consciousness, and if physicalism is true then our current system should be capable. As we have seen, first comes the observational fact that there is consciousness (I suggest a quick check to confirm this now). Next, we must develop a theory which explains the observation. For example, we may develop a theory that a physical substrate, capable of computation and memory, which is actively receiving sensory information which correlates with the state of other physical entities, organized in a specific manner and once past a certain threshold, will result in the phenomena of a certain amount or type of consciousness. But for such a theory to be valid the phenomena of consciousness must be observable. Of course this is where we have a major dilemma, for we now need a means to observe whether something else is conscious - but this is an invalid question! Asking whether something else can “be conscious” violates the very principle of what consciousness is. Nothing can “be conscious”, there simply is consciousness as a phenomenon.
Speaking carefully, we can state that within consciousness there are entities which demonstrate behaviors that indicate awareness of certain aspects of reality. This is certainly true, but it is a very different question than consciousness and is better described as cognition. Cognition - the ability for an entity to demonstrate thinking-like abilities, self-understanding, reasoning, intelligent behavior, etc. - is certainly capable of being scientifically understood. So we can devise mechanistic and scientific explanations for beliefs, thoughts, representations, physical objects, sounds, and indeed for any given entity or phenomena except for consciousness itself through the physicalist system. The reason that consciousness has such a unique status is because, ultimately, it is clear that to any observer it is the phenomena of existence itself. It appears as an explainable phenomena through the physicalist system, but, again, to the observer it is equivalent with reality in its entirety. And, of course, without any observers then there would be no phenomena of consciousness to observe.
To conclude this section we revisit the inability for science in its current form to produce any kind of ultimate explanation for why there is existence. Given our newfound understanding that the phenomena of consciousness is equivalent with existence to all observers, we can see that the pursuit of science to produce an ultimate explanation is the same as the pursuit of science to explain how there is consciousness. However, we have already reasoned that no valid theory can be put forward since it cannot be tested as there is no way to observe consciousness outside of consciousness. It is interesting to consider whether consciousness can be observed indirectly. For example, black holes were found to exist long before they were observed directly through the effects they produce - like their immense gravity and X-rays. A similar sort of indirect evidence for consciousness is used by modern science - through measuring brain activity, or asking individuals, or looking for signs of intelligence. Indeed we use this indirect method all the time in our daily lives when we assume others have consciousness due to their behavior! However, unlike black holes, such “indirect evidence” of consciousness is really the phenomena of cognition, and until there is a strong argument for why this cognition is always accompanied by consciousness it will not suffice scientifically.Non-Dualism
In this final section we consider the implications of our treatment of consciousness as equivalent with reality in its whole for every observer as regards the trajectory of science. What we have found is that consciousness represents an observable phenomena which is nonetheless outside of the capabilities for science to explain. A phenomenon which is not capable of being objectively measured, recorded, or observed is not considered to be a valid phenomenon - it must be made up. However, consciousness is the only phenomenon which meets this description and yet is undeniably real for all observers. Given this, what does a complete science look like?
Non-dualists recognize a holistic nature to reality. For example, a non-dualist may suggest that the physical and mental are intertwined in such a way that the physicist would direct you to the department of the “mind-scientist”, who sends you to the neuroscientist, who sends you down the chain back to the physicist! What we have then is an infinite loop, a scientific unity. This is but one example of a non-dualistic view, and for more examples we can look towards the work of Maturana and Valera, or the compelling arguments from David Bohm.
David Bohm was a prominent theoretical physicist known for his significant contributions to quantum mechanics, neuropsychology, and the philosophy of mind. In his book “Wholeness and the Implicate Order” Bohm puts forth an alternative view on reality which sees it as a single enfolded whole, where an explicate order refers to those divided elements which we can conceive and describe but which are really based on imagined differences within a single undivided implicate order. He writes:
What distinguishes the explicate order is that what is thus derived is a set of recurrent and relatively stable elements that are outside of each other. This set of elements (e.g., fields and particles) then provides the explanation of that domain of experience in which the mechanistic order yields an adequate treatment. In the prevailing mechanistic approach, however, these elements, assumed to be separately and independently existent, are taken as constituting the basic reality. The task of science is then to start from such parts and to derive all wholes through abstraction, explaining them as the results of interactions of the parts. On the contrary, when one works in terms of the implicate order, one begins with the undivided wholeness of the universe, and the task of science is to derive the parts through abstraction from the whole, explaining them as approximately separable, stable and recurrent, but externally related elements making up relatively autonomous sub-totalities, which are to be described in terms of an explicate order.
— David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, pp. 226-227.
We can see that there are many parallels between the implicate order described by Bohm and consciousness. What is being suggested, then, is a radical new approach in science which seeks explanations that begin with the implicate order - which is the undivided whole of reality where all is enfolded within each other. Regarding consciousness, this would suggest an inside-out approach, where we take conscious existence as a given and build off of this axiom to construct our explicately model of reality (to use Bohm’s verbiage). Compare this to our current approach, which is to assume the explicate constituents of reality, its physical elements, and then to attempt to explain consciousness and existence in its entirety from these constituents. We highlight the views of Bohm in order to demonstrate what new paradigms of science which move beyond physicalism may look like.
Even with the assistance of non-dualism we have still not given a complete suggestion for how any ultimate explanation could be formed. A solution to consciousness which explains how there is something rather than nothing still seems to evade us. At this point it should be admitted that this essay will not conclude with a resounding answer to the question. Instead, we will conclude with an analysis of how this question is reformed in light of our new understanding. Science, it seems, is capable of reaching a state of completion which involves a sort of unity where its beliefs all justify one other without the involvement of any axioms. The structure of science that we have, then, would represent not a strict hierarchy but a completed loop. The elements of this loop would then be seen as explicate aspects of reality, but no group of elements could be seen as the ultimate explanation for reality that we seek. When we examine the completed structure itself, though, what we find is that this structure in its entirety bears a resemblance to the implicate order proposed by David Bohm. There is no explanation for existence to be found within the structure of science, but rather the structure itself can be seen as representing existence. The structure which justifies its own existence, just as consciousness has no explanation for its existence as it is existence itself. To me, this would be a beautiful arc for science. But do not be fooled, it is likely that this is far from the end. Rather, we should begin considering what might lie ahead after this stage of evolution has finished its course. The only thing I can say with confidence is that it likely lies beyond our current comprehension.