The problems of consciousness has been debated in philosophy for millennia. I thought it would be a good introduction here to discuss the concept, the premise, and the problems that are exhibited within that philosophers and neuroscientists often struggle with, so we can all learn from this thread. Therefore, I am going to dive right in.
I posted on another page the concept on the illusion of free will. In that article I basically posited the concept that free will is an illusion, and directly related to the concept of determinism. I explained that in terms of a determined universe, simply playing out an unfolding of chemical events, however complex, involves countless atoms behaving -- and interacting with one another -- based on the inherent physical properties they exhibit, and that there was no magic about them to deviate from this path. Therefore, I said, that the human mind, being made up of the same elemental constituents, that on a macro-scale, complex level, we too, are nothing more than an unfolding of atomic interactions that was bound to unfold based on the aforementioned properties; and this includes the very thought processes in which you are experiencing right now to read this article.
This was all set in motion by the Big Bang (as the current theory goes, anyhow). We did not, and will not, delve into the 'creation' of the universe, as I wanted to devote an entire page to that effect.
But.. however mechanical and deterministic we like to think of inherent characteristics of this universe we never touch on an important concept. The physical theory we just brushed up on does not include consciousness. An important question arises: 'If we are mere chemical machines, whose constituents are uniformly, and precisely, obeying laws of nature, like a ball rolling down a hill, why then, do we have the subjective nature of an I, and are not mindless mechanisms?"
The simple feeling that you are awake, the subjective experience of an I, is not included in the deterministic ideas that pervade our current models of the universe. It shouldn't be; that is for philosophers and neuroscience, not physicists, but it does beg many questions.. There is a sort of 'ghost in the machine' that is unaccounted for.
This is perplexing because, for example, I may be sure that I am 'awake' and talking to you and conversing and seeing from you traits that I also exhibit, but you, perhaps, might be the meat machine described earlier -- a complex mass of elements, interacting on a large scale to complete work and exhibit human characteristics.
Your very thought processes themselves can be explained by chemistry, but not the 'thinker' itself. The electrical potential built up in a neuron, the myelin sheath covering the axon for protection of communication, the neurotransmitters at the synaptic cleft traversing the abyss so chemical reactions may reach yet another brain cell -- all are made up of the same elements that your chair is made of; your floor; your house; the sandwich you had for lunch; and the enzymes breaking it down in your gut -- all behaving based on precise, and unwavering physical laws that permeate our universe.
There is no way, at least that I can find, to marry the two notions: neuroscience and the philosophical ideas of the self.
---
Image: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkjsvtpJqD5jXsGPFn9yWBTe0Kl-lyDeSbiWwsNyxDrEpRhiSvBCUaqbvt0ad8Kah2J0oBUxYKT0LLlNgBfgNqxArboz-TFObd1mZi9WNfUZ7LbdMGwq5eBf7m9nsR4L9lmT4-eNGKMMVw/s320/listeningpanel1.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment