Saturday, May 18, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Metaphysics & Psychology > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Metaphysics & Psychology

Consciousness and reality: is there a limit to what science can solve ?

March 19, 2024 · Comment icon 33 comments
Consciousness and reality.
How do we solve the mysteries of consciousness ? Image Credit: Bing AI / Dall-E 3
Some of the most fundamental questions of existence and consciousness may be beyond the scope of conventional science.
Philip Goff: The progress of science in the last 400 years is mind-blowing. Who would have thought we'd be able to trace the history of our universe to its origins 14 billion years ago? Science has increased the length and the quality of our lives, and the technology that is commonplace in the modern world would have seemed like magic to our ancestors.

For all of these reasons and more, science is rightly celebrated and revered. However, a healthy pro-science attitude is not the same thing as "scientism", which is the view that the scientific method is the only way to establish truth. As the problem of consciousness is revealing, there may be a limit to what we can learn through science alone.

Perhaps the most worked out form of scientism was the early 20th century movement knows as logical positivism. The logical positivists signed up to the "verification principle", according to which a sentence whose truth can't be tested through observation and experiments was either logically trivial or meaningless gibberish. With this weapon, they hoped to dismiss all metaphysical questions as not merely false but nonsense.

These days, logical positivism is almost universally rejected by philosophers. For one thing, logical positivism is self-defeating, as the verification principle itself cannot be scientifically tested, and so can be true only if it's meaningless. Indeed, something like this problem haunts all unqualified forms of scientism. There is no scientific experiment we could do to prove that scientism is true; and hence if scientism is true, then its truth cannot be established.

In spite of all of these deep problems, much of society assumes scientism to be true. Most people in the UK are totally unaware that "metaphysics" goes on in almost every philosophy department in the country. By metaphysics, philosophers don't mean anything spooky or supernatural; this is just the technical term for philosophical, as opposed to scientific, enquiry into the nature of reality.

Truth without science

How is it possible to find out about reality without doing science? The distinguishing feature of philosophical theories is that they are "empirically equivalent", which means you can't decide between them with an experiment.

Take the example of my area of research: the philosophy of consciousness. Some philosophers think that consciousness emerges from physical processes in the brain - this is the "physicalist" position. Others think it's the other way around: consciousness is primary, and the physical world emerges from consciousness. A version of this is the "panpsychist" view that consciousness goes all the way down to the fundamental building blocks of reality, with the word deriving from the two Greek words pan (all) and psyche (soul or mind).

Still others think that both consciousness and the physical world are fundamental but radically different - this is the view of the "dualist". Crucially, you can't distinguish between these views with an experiment, because, for any scientific data, each of the views will interpret that data in their own terms.

For example, suppose we discover scientifically that a certain form of brain activity is correlated with the conscious experience of an organism. The physicalist will interpret this as the form of organisation which turns non-conscious physical processes - such as electrical signals between brain cells - into conscious experience, whereas the panpsychist will interpret it as the form of organisation which unifies individual conscious particles into one larger conscious system. Thus we find two very different philosophical interpretations of the same scientific data.

If we can't work out which view is right with an experiment, how can we choose between them? In fact, the selection process is not so dissimilar from what we find in science. As well as appealing to experimental data, scientists also appeal to the theoretical virtues of a theory, for example how simple, elegant and unified it is.
Philosophers too can appeal to theoretical virtues in justifying their favoured position. For example, considerations of simplicity seems to count against the dualist theory of consciousness, which is less simple than its rivals in so far as it posits two kinds of fundamental stuff - physical stuff and consciousness - whereas physicalism and panpsychism are equally simple in positing just one kind of fundamental stuff (either physical stuff or consciousness).

It could also be that some theories are incoherent, but in subtle ways that require careful analysis to uncover. For example, I have argued that physicalist views of consciousness are incoherent (although - like much in philosophy - this is controversial).

There is no guarantee that these methods will yield a clear a winner. It could be that on certain philosophical issues, there are multiple, coherent, and equally simple rival theories, in which case we should be agnostic about which is correct. This would in itself be a significant philosophical finding concerning the limits of human knowledge.

Philosophy can be frustrating because there is so much disagreement. However, this is also true in many areas of science, such as history or economics. And there are some questions on which there is a modest consensus, for example, on the topic of free will.

A tendency to mix up philosophy with a growing anti-science movement undermines the united front against the real and harmful opposition to science we find in climate change denial and anti-vax conspiracies.

Like it or not, we can't avoid philosophy. When we try to do so, all that happens is we end up with bad philosophy. The first line of Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow's book The Grand Design boldly declared: "Philosophy is dead." The book then went on to indulge in some incredibly crude philosophical discussions of free will and objectivity.

If I wrote a book making controversial pronouncements on particle physics, it'd be rightly ridiculed, as I haven't been trained in the relevant skills, haven't read the literature, and haven't had my views in this area subject to peer scrutiny. And yet there are many examples of scientists lacking any philosophical training publishing very poor books on philosophical topics without it impacting their credibility.

This might be sounding bitter. But I genuinely believe society would be deeply enriched by becoming more informed about philosophy. I have hope that we will one day move on from this "scientistic" period of history, and understand the crucial role both science and philosophy have to play in the noble project of finding out what reality is like.

Philip Goff, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Durham University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Read the original article. The Conversation

Source: The Conversation | Comments (33)




Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #24 Posted by Duke Wellington 2 months ago
A primary truth is one which can never be wrong, and which is not derived from secondary truths but is instead the foundations for them. A secondary truth is one which lacks permanence, and is built upon primary truths. As far as we know a sub-atomic particle is a primary truth and a machine intelligence is a secondary one. Morality, that depends if we accept there is a universal morality or not as to whether its primary or secondary. This will take some thinking to see if I can spot an aspect of mind which is a primary truth, unless we have any Buddhists willing to speed it along.
Comment icon #25 Posted by openozy 2 months ago
I was talking about Cho Jinn, always makes me laugh and not an A hole and bully like some I won't mention.
Comment icon #26 Posted by lightly 2 months ago
I’m enjoying the conversation….  My perception is, reality is motion…and consciousness is, experiencing motion.     Too simple?          Matter/Energy… matter is a state of energy?  Energy is Motion?  
Comment icon #27 Posted by Liquid Gardens 2 months ago
The only primary truth I'm personally aware of is that I cannot doubt is that I'm experiencing.  Ultimately that's about it for me, if we allow for gods or aliens or sci-fi future advancement, all bets are potentially off as to what truth even means. There could be truths which can never be wrong but I think they'll always be beyond our ability to verify, I almost never can get around 'it's possible'. I don't know why you think a secondary truth lacks permanence or its relevance.  Under your definition water is a secondary truth or emergent phenomena, but it does not lack permanence as far a... [More]
Comment icon #28 Posted by jmccr8 2 months ago
Hi Duke Cookie Why would it be any different than you having a loose screw
Comment icon #29 Posted by psyche101 2 months ago
The simplest explanation and most elegant IMHO is the attention schema theory.  It makes perfect sense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_schema_theory
Comment icon #30 Posted by lightly 2 months ago
If that’s the simplest explanation…I’d really get lost in a more complex one!       My simplest explanation of reality is… IS.          
Comment icon #31 Posted by joc 2 months ago
Basically it is like: I think...therefore I think that I think that I am.
Comment icon #32 Posted by lightly 2 months ago
Thanks joc,       Ya, I guess, but don’t ya gotta BE am to think you am?     Yup!*   I’m a Beist!          …afterthought..     ‘we can be ..without thinking,  but we can’t think without being’     lightly
Comment icon #33 Posted by Antigonos 2 months ago
Yeah Cho’s cool. And he’s got a good sense of humor.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Top 10 trending mysteries
Recent news and articles