My website/blog is a kind "Donald Crowhurst" log of my thinking on the meaning of life. It is a "pilgrim's" journal of philosophically inclined thoughts written down as life slips past; life is short and therefore one needs to capture one's thoughts in text, otherwise they are forgotten and disappear into oblivion. As Donald Crowhurst neared his end on his lonely journey he did his best to solve the riddle of the meaning of it all; it was his personal Riddle of the Sphinx and like H.G. Wells' Time Traveller he found himself in dire straits. His desperation, his loneliness, a very badly bruised ego and the pressure to make some sense of an apparently nonsensical situation unhinged Crowhurst and he became incoherent. Nevertheless, I'm happy to honour this flawed hero; he was only doing what countless humans have tried to do; probe the meaning of life and in Crowhurst's case use it as a means to dignify his predicament at the same time. Like Crowhurst I seek adventure in my own (small) way and I also know the pressing need to make sense of life as it flies by but fortunately not under quite so desperate and solitary circumstances!
If am I given the time perhaps one day I will organise my rather raw and haphazard journal notes into a systematic book form. But just at the moment there are still too many avenues to explore and when I abandon this latest exploration I'll be moving on. I see my endeavours as a kind of wrestling with reality in order to squeeze out its secrets. But perhaps as a Christian I should really characterise it as a wrestling with God himself (cf. Genesis 32:22-32); for through created reality God makes himself known. Unfortunately in comparison with contemporary Christian culture's blends of scriptural fundamentalism, fideism, ecstatic experiences, divine encounters, undamings of the emotions, hi-passion scenes, spiritual existential crises, spiritual pizzazz and holy star-dust my relatively dry endeavours are unlikely to register on the spiritual radar. But then that may be a good thing; I become self-conscious and distracted if I think I'm being noticed!
***
It is very tempting to take it for granted that the essence of reality is embodied in that heavy inertial stuff we perceive around us and call "matter"; sometimes it comes in lumpen homogeneous forms but at other times it appears in exquisitely organised forms such as we see in living organisms. But in both cases the underlying paradigm which dictates an interpretation of what we perceive is often the same: Viz: that is, it is taken to be self-evident that the third person perspective on matter is the absolute and objective grounds for anchoring "truth". In the material paradigm matter has an unambiguous existence; it can't have a partial existence; it's either there or it's not there. This is materialist dualism which in its strong form dichotomises mind and matter but is apt to regard mind and its concomitant of conscious cognition as at best a ghostly epi-phenomenon and at worst a complete illusion.
I have always had difficulty with the thesis that a posited "material reality" is somehow the ultimate unambiguous anchor point for reality and the standard by which reality is defined: For a start, quantum theory suggests that matter can exist in ambiguous states (more about that another time). Moreover, knowledge of so-called material reality can only ever come via our experience and our cognisance of it. As is so often pointed out in philosophical circles we really only see the world through our perceptions and therefore don't have any direct contact with some unambiguous well anchored "material-thing-in-itself"; as far as we are concerned the latter can only ever be evidenced by our experiences and then constructed by our cognition based on those evidences, almost as a kind of explanatory myth. Hence, I've always been inclined toward idealism as a philosophy; that is, the touchstone of reality is not "matter", whatever that is supposed mean, but the shades of grey we call mental life. On this view reality derives from conscious cognition, but because conscious cognition comes in degrees of rationality and completeness this means that deciding what is real is itself not a binary on/off decision, but as with mind it comes in degrees of reality.
To me the notion of a fixed "material" world absent of the existence of sensing conscious thinking, "myth" constructing agents, is simply not an intelligible idea. The concept of a "concrete material reality unambiguously out there" is, I suggest, a kind of illusion worked on us because of the integrity and rationality of our experience and perceptions. In the normal rational mode of consciousness incoming data is so well organised, coordinated and potentially complete, not just for a single cognating agent but also across a whole society of agents, that it facilitates the mental construction of coherent objects. The mutually harmonious responses of these agents is evidence of a shared rational reality of high observational integrity (in most cases). Registration of the senses of sight, sound and touch and also the observational registration between agents means that conscious cognition, especially a society of communicating cognating agents, can construct the consistent "myth" of a single coherent world of great harmony and meaning. Reality is its rationality, coherence and observational integrity. Without this integrating integrity reality is compromised. For me, then, the existence of a benevolent God who underwrites this rational integrity is all important.
The foregoing is what I call mathematical materialism. The physical model of fundamental particles with its fields of signals is a way of describing this world of harmonious registration between observers. For me the replete rationality of physics looks like an organising principle and medium for a world of communicating observers. In one sense we do have direct contact with the "thing-in-itself" because that thing-in-itself is not made of particles, but of organised "cognita"; the stuff of mind; a coherent world of organised experience and a thinking rational mind to apprehend it. "Particles" are a computational device for describing this world of communicating minds.
In Turing's test for the existence of true human-level "machine intelligence" a qualifying machine must hold its illusion of human intelligence under close natural language interrogation. However, this test effectively implicitly posits the existence of an interrogating intelligence of sufficient level of capability to pass a qualifying judgement. It is clear that given we are dealing here with the complex multidimensional phenomenon of intelligence the Turing test, like psychological tests in general, is not going to return simple "yes or no" answers but rather it is likely to confer a pass mark or score. It is notable, however, that the Turing test concept of mind has unleashed controversy over whether the third person perspective of a very convincing simulated facade is sufficient condition for identifying the presence of mind or whether intelligence has a deeper thing-in-itself in the form of the first person perspective of conscious cognition. Dualism assumes a dichotomy between "material-things-in-themselves" and "sentient-things-in-themselves" where to today there is a tendency to believe ultimate reality resides in "material-things-in-themselves" rather than "sentient-things-in-themselves". In contrast my choice is sentience as the ultimate thing-in-itself and moreover the thing-in-itself which underwrites the reality of matter.
Using the Turing test as a kind of template I propose that the qualification for material reality is that it must hold up under the close scrutiny of an investigating rational sentient agent and provide a sufficient suite of evidence faultless enough in registration, harmony, and coherence between observers for it to qualify as real. As in the Turing test, the test for material reality has an implicit assumption of the preexistence of a sentient cognating interrogator without which the test becomes meaningless. This concept of reality posits an up and running complex sentience as an a priori feature; for an agent capable of carrying out a reality test, that agent must itself be sufficiently rational, complex and organised. In fact as it turns out human sentience is governed by the very same rational world of particulate order that is found in the world around us. Minds know what it feels like to be a mind and therefore because minds explain themselves in terms of a material paradigm minds are, in a sense, matter knowing what it feels like to be matter.
Therefore in probing that world of matter we are, in effect, probing the nature of our very selves: As I have said before, like a computer language compiler that is written in the self-same language it compiles, human beings can describe themselves in terms of their own physical concepts. But unlike the Turing test which unleashes controversies over whether mind is merely a facade or has a sentient-thing-in-itself behind the facade, there is for me no controversy of whether the material facade hides a particulate-thing-itself behind it; it simply doesn't: Rational reality is merely a highly organised facade: unless it be the mind of God himself who creates. organises and sustains this facade and underwrites its reality and rationality.
There are some things that do fail the "Turing" test for full reality. For example, our dreams, although sometimes feeling very real, do not return such a reality; the scenes and actors in dreams are not amenable to any closer scrutiny than the dream offers. In fact dreams have more the character of the scenes and actors in works of fiction such as films or computer simulations: those scenes and actors are bit parts with little or no background that can be investigated by oneself let alone share with other persons. Unlike much of the "material reality" we are familiar with, dreams do not allow their subject matter to get into the cross hairs of different perspectives and angles. In contrast in mathematical materialism the entities are not bit-parts; they have a background story and/or personalities worked out in full.
Using the Turing test as a kind of template I propose that the qualification for material reality is that it must hold up under the close scrutiny of an investigating rational sentient agent and provide a sufficient suite of evidence faultless enough in registration, harmony, and coherence between observers for it to qualify as real. As in the Turing test, the test for material reality has an implicit assumption of the preexistence of a sentient cognating interrogator without which the test becomes meaningless. This concept of reality posits an up and running complex sentience as an a priori feature; for an agent capable of carrying out a reality test, that agent must itself be sufficiently rational, complex and organised. In fact as it turns out human sentience is governed by the very same rational world of particulate order that is found in the world around us. Minds know what it feels like to be a mind and therefore because minds explain themselves in terms of a material paradigm minds are, in a sense, matter knowing what it feels like to be matter.
Therefore in probing that world of matter we are, in effect, probing the nature of our very selves: As I have said before, like a computer language compiler that is written in the self-same language it compiles, human beings can describe themselves in terms of their own physical concepts. But unlike the Turing test which unleashes controversies over whether mind is merely a facade or has a sentient-thing-in-itself behind the facade, there is for me no controversy of whether the material facade hides a particulate-thing-itself behind it; it simply doesn't: Rational reality is merely a highly organised facade: unless it be the mind of God himself who creates. organises and sustains this facade and underwrites its reality and rationality.
There are some things that do fail the "Turing" test for full reality. For example, our dreams, although sometimes feeling very real, do not return such a reality; the scenes and actors in dreams are not amenable to any closer scrutiny than the dream offers. In fact dreams have more the character of the scenes and actors in works of fiction such as films or computer simulations: those scenes and actors are bit parts with little or no background that can be investigated by oneself let alone share with other persons. Unlike much of the "material reality" we are familiar with, dreams do not allow their subject matter to get into the cross hairs of different perspectives and angles. In contrast in mathematical materialism the entities are not bit-parts; they have a background story and/or personalities worked out in full.
In the next part(s) I will be thinking about the paranormal phenomena when rationality partly breaks down and conscious cognition enters the "Oz" state. I will also be thinking about the reality of those distant galaxies and distant times and more on the role of God as underwriter of reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment