Question of Consciousness Rising

Stanley Bing @thebingblog published Immortal Life, in which an ancient tech mogul battles with a young new body to inhabit. The idea is an early version of the Superconscious – Supraconscious dilemma Amos must confront in Evolved. Will read!

Changing Seasons

All Because of You

My life is changing
The life that I’ve had
It’s changing forever
But no need to be sad

It’s time to move on
Time to start over new
I jumped from the nest
With some trouble, I flew

I might hit a few bumps
Maybe make a wrong turn
But all of those troubles
Are lessons I’ll learn

So as my life changes
I hope that you’ll see
It’s you who I’ll credit
For the life that I lead

Source: http://www.familyfriendpoems.com/poem/all-because-of-you#ixzz3owRi25Ju

You are ever present of the changing seasons when living in New England. The Fall is filled with glorious yellows, reds and oranges as the leaves change color and cover the ground. A frost on the grass reminded us this morning that winter is not far behind.

A transformation has been happening within me as well, complete with explosive colors and chills. The world around me seems to mirror what is happening inside, an odd meeting of the objective and subjective I discussed in my last post.

My life is about to change course, I know. Towards what, I’m not exactly sure.

The first sign was this morning in church. A beloved minister is moving on to another church. The sermon focused on change, and how it has led to good things.

The next mile post is later this week, when we travel to a memorial service for a man who was a father figure to me. I have the honor of master of ceremonies, which scares me more than a little. Holding it together will be hard because imagining this world without him is difficult. A change in my reality.

The following week I begin a new job, my first real job in about eight years. It is only part time and flexible, allowing me to drop-off and pick-up my daughters from school and all their activities. At this point in my life, flexibility to spend time with my girls is what I value most. Shed what is hindering you and protect what is important.

The new job is something I believe in, something important in my eyes, something that complements the rest of my life. The extra money will take some of the financial pressure off my wife and provide a source of income to cover publishing expenses. For if there is one thing I’ve learned so far about the business of books, it is expensive to launch yourself. (Barriers to entry, as my old CFA self would call it)

Driven is not the right word to describe the change. More openness to it. Allowing it to happen. Not trying to direct it so much as listening intently to where the signs point.

So a new road with many new people to meet and understand. I look forward to meeting You in my future, and experiencing the on-going change.

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?

Metaphysical “Choices” – Consciousness

Consciousness is something we intuitively believe we understand. After all, in many ways it is who we are personally. Yet try to define it and the meaning becomes elusive. American Philosopher Thomas Nagel describes another organism as conscious when we mean “there is something it is like to be that organism… something it is like for the organism.” While there is not much agreement on a specific definition of consciousness, a rough triangulation of a definition could be consciousness is subjectivity.

In Evolved I have been wrestling with the idea of consciousness. Specifically, what does it mean to be an organic life form versus a silicon life form? In the Evolved world there are silicon people who are recognized as alive, along with all the legal rights of an organic life. This sets up an interesting tension as both sides try to define what it means to be ‘alive.’ Silicon life have dreams, emotions and a sense of ‘self.’ So what does that mean? Are they conscious? If so, how are they different?

Philosophers, scientists and psychologists have grappled with consciousness from multiple angles. Religions themselves rest on certain assumptions about consciousness, and what it means. Yet despite the extended history of human study of consciousness, we remain deeply confused by it (even if we don’t recognize our own confused state).

“For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.” -David Hume, 1739

By approaching from the perspective of the ‘self,’ there are two basic theories: ego theorists and bundle theorists. Ego theorists believe in a continuously existing self who are subjects of experiences and who think, act and feel. Bundle theorists deny there is a self, instead arguing we are simply a collection of different perceptions that are in constant flux and movement. Buddhism denies there is a self and therefore falls into the bundle theory, while most other religions believe in either immortal souls or reincarnating spirits that fall into the ego theory.

“I am not thought, I am not action, I am not feeling: I am something which thinks and acts and feels.” -Thomas Reid, 1785

In Evolved, silicon life is most definitely in the bundled theory. Yet how does a silicon life form feel about that? Could they not believe they too have a soul, a continuity of their existence beyond their physical existence? All the perceptions they process have similar reactions as organic life. In which theory does organic life fall? Well, I can’t give away all the fun…

Approaching from another angle, there are competing theories over whether consciousness is dualism or monism. Dualism argues a part of consciousness is non-physical, creating a separation between mind and body, object and subject. Monism includes physicalism and materialism, which argues matter is the fundamental substance in nature. From a scientific perspective, dualism is a hard argument to defend. After all, it argues something mystical is going on, or at least beyond current scientific reason.

Plato used the allegory of a cave to describe consciousness while David Hume described it as a type of theater, which later Daniel Dennett rejected and called the Cartesian Theater. This concept imagines a place inside the mind where ‘I’ am, complete with a sort of mental screen or stage where contents of consciousness are presented to the mind’s eye. A similar concept is Cartesian Materialism in which the consciousness is not separate from the brain. Both concepts reflect a dualism in which there are two parts to a person, the physical and the conscious. But, Susan Blackmore explains the problem with inventing a central place in which subjectivity happens:

“So either we have to find an answer to the question, ‘how does subjective awareness arise from the objective actions of all these neurons and muscle cell?’, or we have to work out what mistake has led us into posing such an impossible question in the first place.” -Susan Blackmore, 2011

Another consideration about consciousness is whether it causes directed attention or is the effect of paying attention, or neither. Many positions today describe attention in a causal manner, similar to “the sentry at the gate of consciousness” (Adam Zeman, 2001), which implies a dualism. A similar monism causal view is “there is no conscious perception without attention.” (Mack and Rock, 1998) William James asked, “Is voluntary attention a resultant or a force?” He made a strong case for the effect side but ultimately sided with the causal on ethical grounds.

Some scientists have dived down to the quantum level (Eugene Wigner and Henry Stapp) to explain consciousness, assuming a Copenhagen-sympathetic interpretation that allows for an open future (and therefore free will). Yet the actual mechanism allowing our brains to willfully collapse a wave function, or provide true chance in the process, remains mysterious. Alternatively, one could argue a Bohm interpretation, implying a deterministic reality in which we either have no free will or our brains use a mysterious outside influence on our deterministic brains.

Could silicon produce a conscious being? Could we eventually upload our consciousness into a silicon-based computer without losing anything? So much depends on your definition of consciousness but most scientists don’t see any reason why it could not happen. Most religious leaders are appalled by the notion. What would the Buddha think of it? Would robots also strive for “emptiness” to clear out the distracting objectivity originally programmed into them?

If a robot had dreams, emotions, displayed moral behavior, could create original art pieces, and vehemently argued it had a ‘self,’ would you consider it conscious? Would it be an equal to you legally? If an organic human killed it, would it be murder with the same penalties as what we consider is murder?

All of these questions about consciousness are rich veins to mine in Evolved. Honestly, I am still changing things as I reconsider questions, find inconsistencies between my meta physical choices, and work to bring out the issues to the reader. I will probably never reach a satisfactory end point, but will I consciously accept that?