Forwarded message:
> From: John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
>
> Assertion 3. Consciousness is nothing more than
> physics/chemistry/biology. IOW, if we understood
> physics/chemistry/biology better, we could explain consciousness.
>
> If asked to agree/disagree with the above, I'd say
>
> 1. Yes
> 2. Maybe, but I think not.
> 3. No.
>
I suspect that I am well behind the curve with regard to what has been
meaningfully said and asked about consciousness, but it strikes me
that the naturalists (and some Christians who fear the scientific
description) focus on the physical process, believing that an
exhaustive physical description of the biochemical processes going on
in our heads now would "explain" consciousness.
I would like to suggest that this microscopic reductionism can conceal
knowledge, and question whether this approach is likely to lead to
real understanding of consciousness. I think the following quote from
a physics paper by Yoshi Oono is germane: (Please forgive typos--I am
copying it as I type)
Suppose a workstation is given to the scientists of some planet
where there is no computer. They would first study the response of the
machine using the keyboard. But very soon they would be eager to open
up the blackbox to find IC's and VLSI's, etc. Their diligent study
soon demand destruction of these circuits. They might study
graph-theoretical properties of the patterns they would find, and they
would discover semiconductors. Soon they would discover atoms and
electrons, eventually protons, mesons, and quarks. Are all these
discoveries helpful to understand the computer? Going down the length
scale to smaller and smaller scales in this case is definitely a road
away from the actual understanding of the computer. We actually know
that computers can be made without any semiconductors. What we see
currently is a solid state physics representation of `computer'. We
need a materials representation of `computer', but `computer' itself
is something beyond each materials representation. Therfore, the
materials-free understanding of `computer' is the true understanding
of the computer.
(Y. Oono, Modeling Macroscopic Nonlinear Space-Time Phenomena, IEICE
Trans. Vol. E 74 (6), June 1991.)
Most would agree that consciousness transcends a computer. Therefore,
just as is the case with a computer, a "materials-free" understanding
of consciousness may give a truer understanding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department | jcannon@washjeff.edu
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 16 2001 - 12:58:19 EST