Objective vs. Subjective – Are We Becoming Zombies?

Science and religion have historically had a tension between them. Science’s goal is primarily to explain the world objectively (how do things work?), which often is extrapolated using subjective narratives (Lawrence Krauss). Religion’s primary goal is to understand the world subjectively (more the “why me” question), which often uses objective language as a basis of evangelical and fundamentalist belief systems.

As science has progressed it has increasingly infringed upon the objective belief systems of certain religions, explaining such things as why earth is not the center of the universe and evolution did in fact occur. Followers of more fundamental belief systems have had to adjust their message, which has created somewhat of a siege mentality. Religious belief systems that have remained more subjective, or internally focused, have been impacted less. The more contemplative aspects of belief system like Buddhism, Hinduism and parts of Judaeo-Christianity have been able to integrate the progression of science, often opening up deeper understanding.

The on-going progression of scientific knowledge suggests the tension between the two sides will continue. But will science ever explain subjectivity, or the feeling of self and all the creative initiatives produced by it? Many neurologists would argue yes, our feeling of self is simply a product of a very complex physical system we do not yet understand. (Materialism or Physical-ism)

My reading has largely focused on the science side, trying to understand the theories and predictions of how we will understand consciousness. What I missed was a slide backwards on the subjective side. If our society is becoming more objective in its focus (possessing things and explaining our world objectively in the third person), are we losing hold of our subjectivity?

Franciscan monk Richard Rohr argues we are not truly conscious when we are focused on the objects around us (including objectified other people), as opposed to truly seeing the life present around us.

“To love is to be conscious, and to be fully conscious would mean you are capable of loving. Sin always proceeds from lack of consciousness. I don’t think most people are sinners; most people are just not aware and not fully living in their own present moment.” – Richard Rohr

It is a message fairly consistent within religions: avoid the distractions of the objects around us. In other words, focus on the subjective view. A quote from the approximately 2,400 year old Bhagavad Gita:

“Pleasures conceived in the world of the senses have a beginning and an end and give birth to misery. The wise do not look for happiness in them.” – Bhagavad Gita 5:22

Yet this raises a quandary and a concern. If we are only conscious in a religious way when we do not focus on the objects of this reality, how can science, which bases its theories on objects, understand the high level of consciousness offered in religion? More concerning, does humanity lose its ability to reach higher levels of consciousness as our society relies more on object-oriented scientific theories to explain our world? Is scientific research a self-fulfilling prophesy? Rely on objects to understand our world, thus losing access to our duality, or higher consciousness!

In this way both science and religion are right. Human consciousness will become simply a physical manifestation, leaving behind the spiritual gateway to something greater. Pulling up the analogy from a previous post, we become zombies lacking a higher consciousness! (Has anyone else thought of people on their “smart” phones as zombies? Considered them self a zombie when on it?)

Alternatively, will science either hit a wall or discover new dimensions and develop new theories that make religious consciousness more scientifically feasible?

To put in in terms of my book Evolved, a silicon human could then reach the same level of consciousness as an organic human.

Metaphysical “Choices” – Consciousness, Part 2

Can a silicon-based machine achieve consciousness? It is becoming an increasingly pressing question as scientists move closer to artificial intelligence. Yet we don’t understand our own consciousness, so how would we know? Maybe it already has happened…

We don’t understand what is consciousness, how consciousness came to exist, or why it exists. Because we don’t understand why it exists, we can’t answer whether it has any causal impact on the world. Aspects of human consciousness include:

• Consciousness appears to offer a more flexible and sophisticated control, at the expense of speed, which is important when encountering novel situations.
• It also appears to enhance social coordination through better understanding of other minded creatures.
• Consciousness may improve the unification and integration of reality, or at least the perception of the reality required for primitive survival.
• It may provide more global access to information within the brain.
• Does it enable free will? Or, just create the illusion of free will?
• Intrinsic motivation seems to be created by consciousness, or at least the perception of will.

Are all of these aspects possible within a silicon consciousness?

Another problem to consider. If consciousness is by definition subjective, then only a machine would know if it is truly conscious. This assumes objective and subjective are completely separate, with which a monism materialist might disagree (arguing the feeling of consciousness is simply the result of billions of neurons firing in a complex system).

Assuming a machine tells you it is conscious, do you believe it? A functionalist would argue “yes” since thoughts, beliefs, and even subjective states are simply functional states. A skeptic who believes there is something non-material about consciousness would simply argue the machine is a zombie, missing the essence of consciousness. Would the “conscious” silicon zombie then try to eat the skeptic’s brain? Maybe the kernel of an idea for my next book…

In an effort to understand consciousness I have been reading “Consciousness: An Introduction,” by Susan Blackmore. It offers a broad arc through research and experiments about consciousness, methodically building a case that there is little evidence supporting a dualist view of consciousness (implying humans have a soul or something other than matter that passes on). I believe she is an atheist, or someone who does not believe there is a God or gods.

Getting back to silicon-based zombies gobbling up human brains. There are several arguments why machine consciousness may ultimately prove different than human consciousness, although each are inconclusive:

1. Neurons could never be replicated by artificial means to replicate the information processing speed within the space and thermodynamic limitations, or the chemical interactions cannot be replicated to sustain the emotional response required of consciousness.
2. Consciousness requires a long period of learning, interacting with its environment. “Biological capacity to produce experiences, and these experiences only when they are felt by some human or animal agent.” (Searle, 1997)
3. Consciousness involves something greater than the parts (Holism), whether that is interpreted as a soul, a physical aspect in our universe we have yet to discover in our reality.
4. Before artificial consciousness could become a reality, a new type of physics is required to explain consciousness, including quantum entanglement and wave function collapse in a complex system.
5. A spectrum exists of consciousness, defined either by self-awareness, ability to imitate another, awareness of time, or intentionality to originate. Silicon may reach low level consciousness, but not high level.

All of this dances around the central issue, which is the gap in our understanding of consciousness. The large bulk of scientific research suggests consciousness is a product of the material activity of our minds (monism/ physicalist). But… the answers you find are determined by the questions you ask, and scientists ask decidedly objective questions. Therefore there is little surprise they arrive at objective answers.

Put differently, if scientists discovered tomorrow a reality beyond what we perceive (either quantum or cosmological), a reality the mechanisms of the mind can utilize, then all the scientific research into consciousness becomes lacking and religious teachings on consciousness again offer guideposts to follow.

In Evolved I take this path because well, science fiction is a wonderful platform to explore what could become main stream in science.

Metaphysical “Choices” – Philosophical Theology

As I continue to structure the metaphysical thoughts behind the world in Evolved, a useful framework has been offered in John Polkinghorne‘s book, Science and Religion in the Quest of Truth. The book is part of a science and religion discussion group offered at my Congregational Church.

A huge challenge while writing Evolved was understanding how things like quantum physics and general relativity worked. An even larger question loomed in the back of my mind, which I did not recognize until after I had finished writing. It was the question of why things worked in such a way. This led me into philosophical questions, and then into spiritual explanations.

In his book, Mr. Polkinghorne refers to Philosophical Theology, a close relation to the Philosophy of Religion. Philosophy Theology sits on top of base layer of metaphysical topics like causality and consciousness, as well as theology studies focused on deity belief systems. It is a broad term that includes most major religions, although Buddhism may fall outside its scope due its denial of a deity.

To explain Philosophy Theology differently, Dr. Polkinghorne offers a look at one form of structure within its teaching. Ian Barbour created a taxonomy of stances when considering the relationship between science and religion. The four positions are conflict, independence, dialogue and integration.

At one end, conflict encompasses individuals who deny the other side offers viable answers. An atheist writer like Lawrence Krause and the biblical inerrancy belief system of fundamental christian denominations, like Baptism and Presbyterian, would fall into the “conflict” arena. Often our science versus religion debates get high-jacked by this conflict-laden approach. However, Mr. Polkinghorne argues each side’s antagonist views are based on an apples and oranges debate. Science is asking more of a “how?” question about the world while religion is asking more of a “why?” question. Recognizing this discord helped me set aside the typically bombastic arguments coming from each side.

My writing in Evolved is much more about the hope of finding balanced integration between science and religion. Thus I am seeking at least a “dialogue” between the two sides, with the hope of finding some integration. Philosophical Theology provides a framework to find a balance, without one side dominating the other. It also sets up well for the research I have already completed into science, philosophy and the spiritual (see Metaphysical “Choices”).

Personally, by writing Evolved I have discovered I am seeking a truth about the world. What is “Real?” Science explains many things but also is fairly limited in its scope. By definition it is an objective practice, striving to figure out how things work through repeatable experiments observed by many. Yet the world we perceive is by definition subjective. We cannot truly understand how another person experiences the world, or if they are even conscious as we believe ourselves to be. One person may perceive a miracle, something that seems to violate the laws of physics. By definition, this experience is not likely repeatable and therefore objective analysis is impossible. Therefore, science discards it.

My thoughts and feelings perceive more than science can explain. The more I look inward and open myself up, the more I perceive a universe beyond the objects that surround us. The more I search for the “You” in others, the greater my understanding of reality. Buddhism strives for “emptiness,” or a lack of objects to achieve enlightenment. Can science offer answers in an existence without objects?

Purging Clutter

“When you keep thinking about sense objects, attachment comes. Attachment breeds desire, the lust of possession that burns to anger. Anger clouds the judgment; you can no longer learn from past mistakes. Lost is the power to choose between what is wise and what is unwise, and your life is utter waste. But when you move amidst the world of sense, free from attachment and aversion alike, there comes the peace in which all sorrows end, and you live in the wisdom of the Self.”

– Bhagavad-Gita-2:62-65

For the past few weeks I have been reading the Bhagavad Gita, an ancient Hindu text composed sometime between fifth and second century BCE. It is one of two texts Mahatma Ghandhi read regularly, the other the Sermon on the Mount. Both texts could take a lifetime of pondering to understand.

I picked up the Gita in my on-going research into world religions. I’ve recently read influential authors in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Native American spirituality; even Atheism. Within each text I continue to look for hints of truths about our existence, links between the religions and science. It has been an enlightening journey.

Perhaps the reading influenced me, or maybe my wife and I simply decided it was time, but we have been spending our spare time cleaning out our house of extraneous objects. For anyone who has cleaned out a closet and felt “lightened,” you’ll understand the underlying motivation.

The goal is to take everything out of every closet, cabinet and off every shelf; clean it properly, and only put back the objects we need or love. We’ve spent about five full days working at it and are over half way. The amount of stuff we have taken to our dump is, well, shameful. Shameful not because we’re getting rid of it. No, shameful because we even had such excessive stuff in the first place.

The impact on us has been tangible, and quite remarkable. Our house has become calmer. Not calmer because of quieter children, but simply more relaxing. My thoughts seem clearer, less cluttered like our house. I use to seek out coffee shops for writing. Now, I’m much happier at home. There are less distractions, my eyes move to nature out the windows more often. Deep breathing comes naturally.

My priorities are different. At a store the sales clerk gleefully announced we had earned a free gift. My wife and I looked at each other and declined it. It was not something we needed. Now purchases are much more about need than desire, a truly liberating feeling in our world of hyperactive marketing and consumerism. Watching commercials has become somewhat baffling.

I’m not going to argue material possessions are evil, or even bad. Let’s be honest, our reality demands certain objects for humanity to exist; even if those are simply food, water and sex. Instead, my experience suggests these objects distract us from a happiness that comes from within. When we are constantly looking outward at objects we miss the point, in my mind.

That said, I find myself still wrestling with the possessions in my life. There are a number of items I simply love having around, from photos of family, to art work, to specific books that have taught me something important. Or what about need? Do we need the good china? What about the regular plates and cutlery? What do we truly need? Where is the line between a true need and a need to fit into our desired societal place?

The thought of removing these items brings up a source of angst within me. Would I be happier without these objects? I simply don’t know. I am not anywhere close to seeking poverty, but this inner tension is likely the next phase of transformation for myself.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

– Romans 12:2