The Hard Problem
Dualism
Physicalism
Idealism
Identifying Consciousness
We began our exploration of the metaphysics of consciousness by discussing the Hard Problem and the philosophical zombie. We then explored the two routes we could take from there: Dualism, which says consciousness is a substance different from the rest of physical reality; and Physicalism, which says consciousness is part of physical reality, either at the fundamental level or emergent. But these paths both make an assumption: physical reality exists, a stance called Realism. Today, we’re going to question that assumption.
Suppose there is a universe where no life exists. No one and nothing is able to observe it. Does it make sense to say that universe exists? A Realist would say, “Of course, what does observability have to do with existence?” But to some people, the very idea of something existing without being observed seems incoherent, because to imagine it requires imagining oneself observing it. This theory, that nothing exists unless it is being observed, is called Idealism.
Idealism states that without consciousness, nothing exists. Or in other words, reality is a projection of consciousness. Our bodies, the Earth, houses, cars, trees, computers, all these things exist because we collectively expect them to, either consciously or unconsciously. If something is not being observed by a conscious being, then, it doesn’t exist.
The distinction between Realism and Idealism can be seen by considering the old question, if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? According to Realism, it does. The impact of the wood on the dirt causes pressure waves in the air, which are sound. On the other hand, the Idealist would say it does not. In fact, the tree would not even fall in the first place, it would simply manifest into existence as a fallen log the next time someone walked by!
This raises a big problem for Idealism. If nothing exists if it is not being observed, then why do things manifest as if stuff has happened when nobody is looking? Why do trees fall? Why do clocks show the right time? If nothing exists when it is not being observed, shouldn’t there be random inexplicable changes whenever we look away from something and then look back?
An Idealist would say these things happen because we expect them to. When we look at a clock, we know it is supposed to accurately tell us what time it is, so it does.
But what about when things don’t happen as expected? If reality is a projection of our minds and behaves as we expect it to, we should never find ourselves surprised. Not only in our everyday lives, but at the frontier of scientific knowledge as well, such as when Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter, or when astronomers discovered the universe is speeding up as it expands. Furthermore, science and technology work for people who don’t know how they work or what they are supposed to do. How can this be so in an Ideal universe?
Various Idealists come back with two possible answers. The first is to invoke a personal God as the all-seeing observer, who keeps the universe from disintegrating into nonexistence by constantly observing every atom. This interpretation is popular with some theologians, because it gives us a universe that is mostly indistinguishable from a Real universe, but provides a mechanism by which God and other supernatural beings can intervene.
The second answer is to say reality is projected from our collective expectations, not our individual minds. In this case, things happen the way they do because most people believe it. Or rather, because most of the available power of belief is aimed toward it. It could be that minds have different strengths, and so the belief of a powerful mind might influence reality more than the belief of a weaker mind. We talked last week about how narratives spread as memetic complexes. If this brand of Idealism is true, then these narratives are not just competing for propagation, but for influence over the nature of reality itself.
This brand of Idealism would also allow for wizards and magic and all kinds of supernatural things. Minds without bodies, super-powerful minds, influential minds; these could obtain some amount of control over the local fabric of reality. Different kinds of powerful minds would bend it in different ways. A strong mind could bend reality to their will, a powerful but weak-willed mind would bend it uncontrollably, and an instinctual animal mind or an ignorant mind would shape it unconsciously around their view of the world. In fact, much of the magic of fantasy and superhero stories becomes accessible under the metaphysics of Idealism.
On the extreme end of Idealism, we find Solipsism, the belief that, not only is reality a projection of your mind, but so are other people. You are the only person who exists. Everyone and everything else is no more than a dream.
 |
| By Clarissa Blackburn on Flickr |
The answer to which of these theories is correct, Realism, Idealism, or Solipsism, is by no means trivial. We each might feel strongly toward one of them, but arguing in its favor is a difficult task. My strategy is to use the Anthropic Principle: which of the three theories is most likely to produce the world we find ourselves in?
Let’s start with Realism. Assuming things exist, they obey non-contradiction, acting according to the “way they exist,” their natures. Because of this, we expect absolute coherence. Clocks tell the right time because they work even when no one is looking at them. When they tell the wrong time, it is because they don’t run at a perfect rate, or they are set wrong, or they are broken, or they undergo relativistic time dilation.
In order to understand how things work, we play detective to figure out what they have been doing while no one was watching. This works for things on Earth, in the solar system, in the galaxy, and all throughout the entire universe, every atom and subatomic particle doing its thing, adding up in enormous numbers to yield what we see through our telescopes and microscopes and all or our biological and mechanical senses. It makes sense, because it exhibits the same kinds of behavior while we are observing it and while we are not.
Quantum physics is an exception; particles and quantum systems behave differently if they are being observed than if they are left alone. However, this is because in order to observe systems on the scale of atoms and subatomic particles, we have to disturb them with other particles, like photons. Any photon capable of observing an atom is going to knock the atom around, changing the state of the system. According to Realism, the reason quantum systems behave differently when they are being observed is because of the tools necessary to take measurements, not because of anything special about awareness.
I also want to dispel a myth about quantum physics; it’s not inherently mysterious. A famous physicist once said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” This is catchy and comes with a flavor of authority, but it is a lie. Quantum physics is consistent and understandable, it’s just different from what we’re used to. Thus, it is perfectly compatible with Realism as defined three paragraphs above.
In Idealism, there is no hard principle keeping everything consistent. Hypothetically, you could turn around to see an apple floating in midair, or a million dollars manifested in a pile on the floor. We can think of this in terms of entropy: the number of incoherent ways we might find the universe to be vastly outnumbers the number of coherent ways. Therefore, if Idealism were true, we would expect to find lots of messiness and inconsistency all over the place, not this ordered world that behaves so consistently according to physical laws.
Of course, Idealism has a counter-argument: to suggest there are inconsistencies, like miracles and haunted houses and other supernatural stuff. The reason they are rare enough that people can live their whole lives without believing they exist is because the narrative of Realism is so powerful; if more people believed in magic and mysticism, such inexplicable things would be more commonplace.
Solipsism does not have this defense, since if it were true, then the only mind with beliefs would be a Solipsist, giving the narrative of Realism no power. Sorry Solipsism, the only argument in your favor is the teenage favorite, “You can’t prove I’m wrong.”
When we look out into the universe, we see billions of stars in the galaxy, each with its own set of planets. Out in the vast reaches of space, we see billions of galaxies, each with its own billions or trillions of stars. To me, it feels extremely self-aggrandizing to suppose we imagined all that into existence within the past hundred years. It has long been our nature to put ourselves at the center of existence, to seek power over nature and reality. To that end, we may find it convenient to believe that if we just believe hard enough, anything imaginable can happen. We also tend to look for rationalizations to continue believing what we already believe, be it ideological, religious, superstitious, or scientific. Thus, we can keep looking for rationalizations to explain how an Ideal universe might come to look exactly how we would expect a Real universe to be. Or, we can acquiesce to Occam’s Razor, and accept the universe as Real.
Interestingly, there are circumstances where things like Idealism and Solipsism can exist within a larger framework of Reality. We’ll explore those in later posts when we get to the Simulation Hypothesis and Boltzmann Brains.
No comments:
Post a Comment