Evolution of Consciousness

1
Mind in the Cosmos

• Evolution of Consciousness

Christian de Quincey, Ph.D.
University of Philosophical Research Institute of
Noetic Sciences John F. Kennedy University
2
Session Three
Major Worldviews on Mind and Matter
3
Overview of Session 3
We will now look more closely at the three major
worldviews that have attempted to explain the
mysterious relationship between consciousness and
the physical worlddualism, materialism, and
idealism. After exploring the pros and cons of
each paradigm, we will look at a fourth
alternativepanpsychism. In the mind-matter
mystery, we will see that the major problem is
less our understanding of mind or consciousness
but a profoundly limited understanding of matter
and energy.
4
How Do I Fit In?

• Personal/Social
• How can I get along with friends and family?

• Scientific/Ecological
• How do fit with the world around me?

• Philosophical/Cosmological/Spiritual
• How does mind or soul fit physical universe?

5
How Do I Fit In?

• Its a question everyone of us has asked at one
  time or another. Of course, the question means
  something different depending on where we are in
  life.
• For some, it may simply mean, How do I fit in
  with my friends or family?
• For others, it can have more profound
  implications How do I fit into the world around
  me?
• How does my mind or soul fit into the world of
  physical nature? It then becomes a psychological
  or religious issuewith profound practical,
  ecological, social, and personal consequences.
• Few of usunless we are philosophersspend much
  time grappling with this last question. But
  understanding how body and soul fit together has
  surprising consequences for our relationships
  with our environment, with other people, even
  with ourselves.

6
Philosophy

• Knowing how body soul fit together
• Profound consequences for relationships
• with our environment
• with other people
• with ourselves
• Dumbfounded philosophers / scientists for
  centuries
• since Descartes mind-body split in 17th century
• Today, its one of the hottest issues in
  philosophy
• called the hard problem
• (lets recap from Session 1 . . .)

7
The Hard Problem

• How does matter give rise to mind?

• How are mind and matter related?

• How does subjectivity exist in an otherwise
  objective physical universe?

8
Whats the Problem?

• Matter has extension in space
• Physical stuff has volume, it takes up space
• Mind has no extension in space
• Mind is thinking stuff occupies no space
• How can such different stuff interact?
• What would happen at point of contact?
• How could ghostly mind ever move weighty matter?
• How could one produce the other?
• Philosophers scientists still grappling with
  this

9
Three Main Worldviews

• Dualism

• Materialism

• Idealism

10
Dualism Historical Overview

• Ontological dualism refers to a fundamental
  split in the nature of reality itself. Although
  we can trace the history of this idea back to the
  early Greek philosophers, especially Plato, in
  modern times the notion was firmly established in
  Western thought by the 17th-century French
  philosopher René Descartes.
• In essence, the idea is that there are two
  fundamentally different kinds of reality (1)
  matter or physical realitythings extended in
  space (e.g. atoms, tables, mountains, animal
  bodies), and (2) mind or spiritual reality of
  things without any extension in space (e.g.
  thoughts, feelings, desires, beliefs, souls).
• Somehow, these two utterly different kinds of
  reality happen to interactone can cause effects
  in the other. The perennial riddle for philosophy
  is how? How could something as ghostly as a
  thought, a mind or a soul impact anything as
  solid as a human body?

mind / soul / spirit / consciousness
are ontologically equivalent All are
non-physical, w/o extension in space
11
Platos Dualism

• According to Plato there were two kinds of
  world (1) the ideal world of Forms and (2) the
  earthly world of matter. The world of Forms (also
  called Ideas or archetypes) exists beyond the
  world of matter. It is eternal, unchanging, pure,
  and perfect. It is transcendent. By contrast, the
  world of matter is impermanent, subject to
  change, impure, and imperfect. It is immanent.
  The perfect reality of the Forms shows up as
  imperfect copies or reflections in the shapes and
  changing forms of the material world.
• Ultimate reality, according to Plato, resides in
  the transcendent domain of pure Formswhich means
  that the entire world of material forms is
  ultimately illusory or second-rate. Plato, thus,
  includes matter in his ontology (his accounting
  of reality) but gives it at best only a
  derivative and imperfect status.

12
Cartesian Dualism

• For Descartes, both matter and mind were
  substances. He inherited this term from the
  medieval scholastics who defined a substance as
  something that could exist, or subsist, wholly
  independently of anything else. Thus, the domain
  of matter could roll along on its own course
  without any necessary relation to mindand vice
  versa.
• Both domains subsisted independently of each
  other. Neither needed anything else in order to
  exist. Of course, as a Christian, Descartes
  pointed out that the only true substance is
  God. Only God needs nothing else in order to
  exist, whereas both matter and mind depend,
  ultimately, on God for their existence. Minds and
  material things, therefore, were created
  substances.

13
Dualism Ghost in the Machine

• Both mind and matter are real
• but each exists in its own separate domain
• Descartes definitions
• Matter Things extended in space
• even tiny things like atoms
• Mind Thinking thingswithout any extension in
  space
• Therefore, mind doesnt exist anywhere in
  spaceit is nonlocated

14
Dualism Ghost in the Machine

• Problem Interaction
• How can non-extended mind influence extended
  matter?
• How can a ghost (mind or soul) operate a
  machine (body)?
• Descartes answer Soul interacts with brain in
  pineal gland
• But how? Naming location of interaction does not
  explain it.
• Problem remains What happens at the point of
  contact?
• If point is just physicalthen mind/soul is
  excluded
• If point is just mentalthen matter is excluded
• If point is dualoriginal problem is repeated

15
Dualism

• Dualism requires a miracle
• To explain how unextended mind could interact
  with extended matter
• But miracles explain nothing
• They are a measure of our ignorancea gap in
  explanation

16
Miracles
Miracles are a measure or indication of our
ignorance. When we don't understand how something
could happen, but want to insist that it did
happen nevertheless, we invoke the
non-explanation of miracle. This is not to say
real miracles can never occur. It just means that
if they do, they are beyond our ken. Miracles lie
beyond the pale of knowledge. As far as
epistemology is concerned, the great problem with
miracles is this By what criteria do we decide
when to invoke their occurrence? What are the
rules of evidence by which we decide when and
where to insert a miracle into our
explanations, revealing a breakdown in our
sequence of reasoning? If miracles are evidence
of our ignorance, what prevents us from invoking
a miracle every time we are at a loss to explain
something? (Science replaced magic as a method of
knowledge because it did not accept gaps in
explanationin contrast, superstition invoked
spirits and miracles whenever something happened
beyond the reach of the knowledge of the time.)
If we allow miracles to pepper our
explanations, then what's to stop any of us
resorting to and then a miracle occurred every
time we fail to understand anything? Why bother
with seeking any explanations at all? Why not
just say its all a miracle and leave it at
that?
17
(No Transcript)
18
Materialism Overview
Materialism is the view that only matter (or
physical energy) is ultimately real. Here, the
core problem is novel ontological emergence.
Materialism faces the insuperable problem of
explaining how mind could emerge from mindless
matter. It asks us to accept not only that mind
is wholly natural, but that it is also wholly
physical and objectivewhich completely leaves
the undeniable subjectivity of consciousness
unaccounted for. Materialism, thus, also
requires a miracle to explain how sentient,
subjective minds could ever evolve or emerge out
of matter that was wholly insentient and
objective to begin with. For mind to emerge from
matter, for consciousness to appear in the
natural world, would require some kind of
miraculous intervention.
19
Materialism No Ghost. Just Machine

• Only matter/energy is ultimately real
• Lops off half of the mind-matter dualism
• There is no mindor its just an epiphenomenon
• Mind evolves or emerges from matter
• Everything in cosmos is reducible to matter
• Subatomic particles and/or fields of energy
• Without exception, everything is ultimately
  physical objective

Matter is everything physical, including
energy.
20
Materialism

• Problem Emergence
• If all that exists is wholly objective, physical
  stuff
• How could subjective, non-physical mind emerge?
• Sciences answer complexity
• primitive matter becomes more and more complex in
  evolution
• nervous systems brains evolve and squirt out
  consciousness
• But if we begin with wholly objective stuff we
  end up with wholly complex objective stuffits
  still all just physical
• To get subjectivity from pure objectivity would
  take a miracle
• and miracles are precisely what materialism
  denies
• materialism has painted itself into an awkward
  corner

21
Promissory Materialism

• Getting the wine of consciousness from the
  water of the brain requires a miracle. Colin
  McGinn, philosopher
• The miracle is an ontological jump
• from a state of reality thats wholly objective
• to a state of reality that now contains something
  utterly novelsubjectivity
• as if at one time the cosmos was completely
  dark (i.e. w/o any consciousness to light it
  up)
• and then somewhere, somehow, a light came on.
  How?
• No scientist or philosopher can even begin to
  explain this miraculous jump
• Best they can offer is promissory materialism
• One day, they say, when all the facts are in from
  neuroscience we will be able to explain emergence.

22
But Dont Hold Your Breath

• But problem isnt scientificits philosophical
• No amount of scientific data can jump ontological
  gap from one state of reality (wholly objective)
  to another state (with subjectivity)
• Its a jump from an utterly unknown cosmos to a
  cosmos that now has centers of knowing
• Subjectivity is radically different from
  objectivity
• A cosmos with subjectivity has beings with
• a point of view (a center of experience /
  perception / knowing)
• feelings / sentience / interiority (it feels like
  something to be a subject)
• self agency / free will (subjects can move
  themselves from within)
• A wholly objective cosmos has none of that
• and could never have any of that
• at least no-one has yet managed to even imagine
  how it could be so

23
Emergence Epiphenomenon
Two key words in the materialist view of
evolution of consciousness are emergence and
epiphenomenon. They are often closely related,
but need not be. In all versions of materialist
evolution, consciousness is considered an
emergent propertyit arises out of the
complexity of dead matter. Emergent
consciousness is epiphenomenal if, having emerged
from the brain, it can produce no effect back on
the brain. It is powerless, ineffectivelike the
rattle of a steam train. The causal path is
exclusively upward, from brain to mind. But
some theorists who accept the view that mind
emerges from matter deny that it is
epiphenomenal. They argue (apparently from the
plain fact of their own everyday experience) that
the mind very clearly does act back on the body
through the brain. They accept downward
causation from mind to brain. In this view,
consciousness, though emergent, is nevertheless
causal (though always dependent on the matter of
the brain from which it emergedthis is called
the supervenience of mind on brain).
24
Materialism Summary
Materialism defends the paradoxical position
that everything real is natural, physical, and
objectiveincluding mind, which is undeniably
subjective. But in a world made up wholly of
objective physical stuff the appearance of
subjective mind could not happen naturally. Such
emergence would require an inexplicable
ontological jumpa miracle. In a purely
physical world, the appearance of mind would be a
supernatural event.
25
Idealism Overview

• Idealism is the ontological view that only mind
  or consciousness is real. Here, the core problem
  is realism. Idealism denies that the physical
  world has any reality of its own, independent of
  a perceiving mind. Idealism, too, requires a
  miracle of one kind or another either the
  unreality of physical reality, or the creation of
  real matter from pure spirit. It asks us to
  believe either that all matter is ultimately
  illusion (maya), or that matter emanates from
  pure mind or spirit.
• The first option leaves unresolved the pragmatic
  problem of living in the world if we do not treat
  matter as real. Matter forces us to acknowledge
  its reality, despite the claims of idealists. The
  second option is merely the flipside of
  materialism It asks us to believe physical
  matter could evolve or emerge or emanate from
  wholly nonphysical mind or spirit.
• Idealism, then, asks us to reject the natural
  world as having any substantial reality in its
  own right. According to this position everything
  is ultimately supernaturalall physical
  manifestation, the entire panorama of nature,
  derives all its reality from a transcendent mind
  or spirit that creates it. What we call the
  natural world is merely appearance or illusion
  generated by pure mind. In idealism, nature or
  cosmos is merely an epiphenomenon of mind.

26
Idealism Machine is Just a Ghost

• Only mind is ultimately real
• Often called the Perennial Philosophy, this
  view
• Found in every culture, throughout history
• Typically associated with spiritual metaphysics,
  it claims that spirit or consciousness is the
  ultimate reality
• Whichever tradition, idealism presents . . .
• Two options
• 1) Maya hypothesis
• 2) Emanationism

27
Maya Idealism

• Maya hypothesis
• Claims matter/physical cosmos is ultimately
  illusion
• because ultimate reality is pure spirit or
  consciousness
• Unlike dualism and materialism, idealism
  logically sound
• we cannot step outside mind to find something
  beyond mind
• everything we know always shows up in
  consciousness
• Therefore everything we know has the quality of
  consciousness
• theres no other option
• However there is another kind of problem
• a pragmatic problem

28
Maya Idealism

• Problem Performative Contradiction
• If I claim that matter is illusion but dont act
  that way
• Colloquially, we say I dont walk my talk
• Philosophically, we say its a performative
  contradiction
• My performance or action in the world is
  inconsistent with claim
• Every mystic moves through the world as though
  matter is real
• For very good reasons
• We just wouldnt survive long if we treated
  matter as illusion
• We have to treat matter as though it were real
• Weve no other optionotherwise wed get very
  bruised or worse
• Performative contradiction is a pragmatic problem
  
• A red flag to philosophers to look for alternative

29
Emanationist Idealism

• Emanationism
• States that cosmos begins with pure
  spirit/consciousness
• Pure spirit radiates itself out into the cosmos
• Matter or physical reality is a kind of
  stepped-down emanation
• Process of Involution
• Spirit coming down, becoming more and more
  dense
• Giving up degrees of freedom, involving itself in
  matter
• Preparation for evolution Spirit going up on
  its return journey
• Involution and Evolution
• Spirit chooses to limit itself and creates cosmos
  of time/space
• Then embarks on the long journey home through
  evolution
• A spiritual learning cycle

30
Emanationism

• Plotinus
• Level 1 The One
• Utterly transcendent. Beyond all limitation.
  Beyond knowing.
• Because unconstrained naturally pours itself
  out (emanates).
• Level 2 Nous
• Divine intelligence. Reflection of original unity
  in multiplicity.
• Level of Platonic Forms. Still prior to time and
  space.
• Level 3 World Soul
• aka anima mundi. Generates forms in world of
  time/space.
• Immanent self-organizing activity in nature.
• Time is record of world souls attempt to embody
  in matter the fullness of eternal and infinite
  being. W.L. Reese
• Level 4 Matter
• Level of maximum manifestation and multiplicity.
  Farthest from The One. Farthest from the infinite
  goodness of divinity. Nature is evil.

31
Emanationism

• Arthur Young
• Level 1 Spirit
• Total freedom, without constraint.
• Source of all choice and purpose in the cosmos
• Equivalent to Consciousness, Light, Photon,
  Quantum
• Level 2 Time
• Gives up one degree of freedom. Creates one
  dimension of time.
• Level of soul, forces, emotions
• Level 3 Space
• Gives up two degrees of freedom. Creates two
  dimensions of space.
• Level of forms, ideas, ratios, reason
• Level 4 Matter
• Gives up final degree of freedom. Combines time
  and space. Creates solid world of nature.

32
Emanationist Idealism

• Problem Emanationism
• Ontological Jump
• All forms of idealism say cosmos begins with pure
  spirit
• If cosmos begins with pure spirit
• How can it produce real matterwithout a miracle?
• Mirror-image of materialism
• Materialism says cosmos begins with pure
  objective physicality
• But cannot explain how subjectivity could emerge
• Emanationism says cosmos begins with pure spirit
  (without slightest trace of physicality)
• How, then, could real matter emanate?

33
Options for Idealism

• Either
• matter is real (emanationism)
• . . . or it is illusion (maya)
• Emanationism cannot explain real matter
• If matter is real, spirit must have had trace of
  physicality from the start
• Otherwise wed need a miracle to explain
  ontological jump
• If ultimate had slightest trace of matter, it
  would not be pure spirit
• But this is not at all how spiritual traditions
  characterize the ultimate
• If Spirit is pure, then matter cannot be real
• Pure spirit cannot yield real, objective matter
  (w/o a miracle)
• Alternative Matter isnt really real. But then
  were back to maya idealism (and the problem of
  performative contradiction)

34
Summary of Problems
Each of the three major worldviews requires us to
accept some form of supernatural intervention
into the world of nature.

• Dualism
• Interaction
• How could ghostly mind affect matter w/o a
  miracle?
• Materialism
• Emergence
• How could mind evolve from matter w/o a miracle?
• Idealism
• Pragmatism
• Performative contradiction (everything is
  supernatural).
• Emanationism
• How could pure spirit create real matter w/o a
  miracle?

35
Panpsychism Overview
Panpsychism is the ontological view that
consciousness and matter are inseparable, and
that both go all the way downso that even single
cells, molecules, atoms, electrons, protons,
quarks or quanta are bundles of sentient energy.
In panpsychism, matter (or energy) itself
intrinsically feels. Here, the problem is usually
one of credibility How absurd to believe that
rocks can think. Are we really to believe that
entities below the evolutionary threshold of
biological life possess consciousness? In brief,
the answer is yes Panpsychism invites an
openness (both theoretical and experiential) to
the idea that consciousness goes all the way
down as an intrinsic quality of even the most
primitive and primordial elements of the physical
world. However, it does not require us to believe
that rocks can think or that they engage in any
cognitive functions familiar to humans. A crucial
distinction between individuals and
aggregates (frequently overlooked by its
critics) relieves panpsychism of the
rocks-can-think absurdity, yet supports its
claim to coherent commonsense. Philosophically,
panpsychism is attractive because it requires no
miracles or supernaturalism.
36
Panpsychism

• Inconceivability thesis
• Inconceivable that subjectivity/sentience could
  ever evolve or emerge from wholly objective
  insentient matter
• Inconceivable that objectivity or real matter
  could emerge or emanate from wholly nonobjective
  nonphysical mind

37
Panpsychism

• Wholly Natural View
• Both matter and mind are realand natural.
• Neither one has ontological priority over the
  other
• Nothing supernatural. No miracles required.
• Matter and mind are inseparable.
• Wherever there is matter, there is also mind (in
  some form).
• Matter always ensouled. Mind always embodied.

38
Panpsychism

• Consciousness all the way down
• All matter tingles with the spark of spirit.
• Matter has purpose. Matter is creative and
  self-organizing.
• Brains do not produce consciousness.
• All cells in the body already have their own
  consciousness.
• All molecules, all atoms, all subatomic
  particles,
• all quarks or quanta or superstrings or whatever
  lies at the heart of physical existence has some
  degree of mind or sentience.
• Matter feels and is adventurous
• Mind (experience or feeling) is intrinsic to
  matter.
• Just as mass or charge is.
• Matter literally feels its relationship to other
  bodies.
• Evolution is the feeling-out and exploration of
  matters own potentials.
• Matter is intelligent.

39
Panpsychism

• Intelligent Matter
• Giordano Bruno, 400 years ago, challenged the
  world of philosophy and religion when he claimed
  that all matter possesses intelligence.
• All of nature, he said, is alive with soul and
  spirit.
• Intelligence pervades the cosmos, and the cosmos
  is infinite. God is nature. Nature is God.
• We dont need a hierarchy of priests, bishops,
  cardinals, and popes to mediate with God.
• For these radical beliefs, Bruno was burned alive
  by the Holy Inquisition in 1600.
• But this unsung hero left a lasting legacy that
  we are catching up with only today.
• Like Bruno, modern panpsychists are often
  ridiculed . . .

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
40
Objection to Panpsychism

• Arthur Schopenhauer
• Every truth passes through three stages before it
  is recognized
• First, it is ridiculed
• Second, it is opposed
• Third, it is regarded as self-evident
• Panpsychism is somewhere between ridicule and
  opposition
• Objection Violates Commonsense
• You mean rocks can think?
• Response
• Yes and Nomolecules (yes) rock (no)

41
Panpsychism

• Long lineage of mind-in-matter
• Panpsychism is as old, if not older, than
  idealism
• Goes all the way back to earliest philosophy and
  beyond
• Many great minds in history have held this view
• Alfred North Whitehead ? Giordano Bruno
• Teilhard de Chardin ? Paracelsus
• Henri Bergson ? Plotinus
• William James ? Plato
• Arthur Schopenhauer ? Aristotle
• J. W. Goethe ? Most Presocratic philosophers
• G. W. Leibniz ? Orphic mystery schools
• Baruch Spinoza ? Shamans

42
Panpsychism

• Growing in popularity
• Given the impasse facing dualism and materialism
• And looking for a natural way to account for both
  mind and matter
• More philosophers are taking panpsychism
  seriously
• Recent Tucson conferences on Toward a Science of
  Consciousness feature speakers at least
  sympathetic to the idea of intrinsically sentient
  matter
• But panpsychism is still far from being accepted
  as self-evident
• It is, however, back on the map . . .

43
Personal Perspective

• The more I investigate the various mind-body
  ontologies, the more I am convinced that the only
  rational (commonsense) explanation for the
  existence of both mind and matter is some form of
  panpsychism or what I have come to call radical
  naturalism.
• Nature is radical, I say, because it is made
  of real objective matter-energy that is
  subjective and sentient through and through.
  Nature itself is sentient all the way downand
  that explains the commonsense experience of a
  world where both consciousness and matter-energy
  are obviously real.
• By radical naturalism I imply a view of nature
  and matter radically different from the standard
  view in physics and Western philosophy. I mean a
  natural world composed of intrinsically sentient
  matter. Its an approach to understanding the
  mind-body relation that has no need for any form
  of supernatural intervention or miracle.

44
Personal Perspective

• Radical is an appropriate term because it
  comes from the Latin radix, meaning root, the
  foundation or source of something.
  Etymologically, radical is related to radial,
  which means branching out in all directions from
  a common center or root, and to radiant, which
  means, variously, filled with light, shining,
  sending out rays of light, emanating from a
  source, manifesting well-being, wholeness,
  pleasure or love. Radical nature, therefore,
  implies a world that is sentient to its roots,
  composed of matter that feels something of the
  essence of wholeness and love all the way down to
  its ontological roots, and that radiates, or
  moves itself, from the depths of its own being.
• It is not so much mind or consciousness that is
  the core problem in the mind-body relation
  (though, of course, this is still a problem)it
  is our inadequate understanding of matter. We
  need a radically different understanding of the
  nature of matter along the lines anticipated more
  than four-hundred years ago by Giordano Bruno.
  When matter itself is understood to be
  intrinsically experiential and sentient, the core
  problems of dualism, materialism, and idealism
  are overcome.
• In fact, panpsychism makes room for the core
  insights of these other worldviews.

45
Integrating Worldviews

• Like dualism, panpsychism sees both mind and
  matter as real
• Like materialism, panpsychism sees matter-energy
  filling the cosmos
• Like idealism, panpsychism sees consciousness as
  primordial
• There is probably some deep kernel of uncommon
  truth in every worldviewwhether scientific
  materialism, spiritual idealism, mind-body
  dualism, or panpsychismand the task of honest
  philosophers is to uncover such truths. The task
  of great philosophers is to find how these
  uncommon truths cohere in a common reality. Such
  discoveries, almost certainly, will involve
  creative shifts in our ways of knowing.
• I think Bruno and Whitehead were two such great
  philosophers. And I think that fully grasping the
  implications of panpsychism will involve a
  willingness to shift our epistemologyto
  supplement both sensory empiricism and
  rationalism with nonsensory, extrarational ways
  of knowing.

46
Next Session 4Language, Energy Consciousness

• In the next session, we will look closely at our
  use of language to see how it may distort our
  understanding of the interior cosmos of
  consciousness.
• Do words such as energy, vibrations, or
  fields help or hinder our explorations of
  consciousness? Are they a form of physics
  envya kind of hangover from our cultures love
  affair with Newtonian mechanics?
• Some of the questions and answers may surprise
  youeven challenge some dearly-held beliefs about
  the nature of mind and cosmos.