In the debate re "How to Think About Naturalism", the issue of mind v
matter has been debated by Jim and Tim. I have been waiting for Jim
to quote from December's Scientific American, pp62-65, "The Puzzle of
Conscious Experience".
That bastion of Materialist-Naturalism, Scientific American, has
finally admitted that matter is not all - that there is an irreducible
duality of matter and mind. Here is an excerpt:
"Conscious experience is at once the most familiar thing in the world
and the most mysterious. There is nothing we know more about directly
than consciousness, but it is extraordinarily hard to reconcile it
with everything else we know. Why does it exist? What does it do?
How could it possibly arise from neural processes in the brain?...To
clarify the issues we first have to distinguish between the `easy
problems' and the `hard problem' of consciousness...The hard
problem...is the question of how physical processes in the brain give
rise to subjective experience...I am not denying that consciousness
arises from the brain. We know for example, that the subjective
experience of vision is closely linked to processes in the visual
cortex. It is the link itself that perplexes, however. Remarkably,
subjective experience seems to emerge from physical processes. But we
have no idea how or why this is so...Despite the power of physical
theory, the existence of consciousness does not seem to be derivable
from physical laws...I propose that conscious experience be considered
a fundamental feature, irreducible to anything more basic...thus a
complete theory will have two components: physical laws, telling us
about the behavior of physical systems...and what we might call
psycho-physical laws, telling us how some of those systems are
associated with conscious experience. These two components will
constitute a true theory of everything." (Chalmers D.J., "The Puzzle
of Conscious Experience", Scientific American, Vol. 273, No. 6,
December 1995, pp62-65).
Scientific American seems to have been working up to this. Indeed, a
year before such an eminent Darwinist as Nobel prize-winning physicist
Steven Weinberg came close to admitting the existence of mind when he
admits that there is a "stubborn duality" in the universe:
"But as much as we would like to take a unified view of nature, we
keep encountering a stubborn duality in the role of intelligent life
in the universe, as both subject and student. We see this even at the
deepest level of modern physics." (Weinberg S., "Life in the
Universe", Scientific American, October 1994, p61).
I consider these concessions as very significant, since Darwinism as a
purely materialist account of past biological change and development,
stands or falls on the validity of philosophical materialism, as
Johnson explains:
"There is a great deal at stake in the argument about whether the mind
can really be explained as a strictly material phenomenon...In this
delicate situation the rulers of science cannot afford to leave any
openings for rival stories...they do have to claim that their methods,
and no others, are based on a correct understanding of what the mind
really is. If they were to concede even tacitly that mental activity
has its ultimate roots in something beyond physics and chemistry, the
resulting opening for the supernatural would be far larger and more
dangerous than that involved in a singularity at the beginning of
time. If science cannot explain consciousness, the way is open for
some rival discipline-religion, in particular-to fill the vacuum with
a different metaphysical story of great emotional or imaginative
appeal..." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p66).
Regards.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------