Metaphysics
26/10/2015
Without You
“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself” (Cox). Life is an eternally mysterious force, seconded in curiosity only to the phenomena of consciousness. Consciousness is requiring of life, although life is not requiring of consciousness; and it is for this reason that I conclude it apt to look into consciousness, in hopes of revealing further answers to the many questions of life. As Science and Philosophy continue to investigate and draw conclusions regarding the nature of consciousness: one, among many, questions which remain is “[h]ow can a bunch of things that do not individually think or sense or have perception add up to something that does think or sense or have perception? How could their causal interaction produce such properties?” (Inwagen 235). I have launched a bountiful inquiry into this subject, and will now present my findings to support my theory that consciousness can be achieved as a result of the interactions of components which do not themselves possess consciousness.
Consciousness has arisen from life, perhaps it is then life itself which will serve as an estimable foundational-block in explaining consciousness itself. Abiogenesis is the process within which life arises from components not themselves alive, although this theory has yet to be either proven or disproven, I believe its likeness is suitably paralleled by the field of Biomechanics. Biomechanics, also known as Biomedical Engineering, is the science of creating synthetic body parts to substitute for the loss of existing biological parts, or to enhance existent biological parts which themselves operate either poorly or not at all. It is truly a fascinating field because of the disjunction between biology and technology. Biology deals with carbon-based systems, while technology deals with silicon-based systems; we have long debated the possibility of using the two elements interchangeably. In many science fiction stories writers propose the existence of silicon-based life forms as an alternative to our carbon-based biological structure, and as a result of these writings another debate has been spurred regarding the possibility of silicon-based life forms. The reason the two discussions of these debates are not irrational is because of the similarities between carbon and silicon in how they interact with other elements. Carbon and silicon appear beside each other vertically in the periodic table, and what this means is that they both have an extensive capability for interaction with other elements. Many elements can only form one or two bonds when interacting with others. Carbon and silicon are each capable of forming four bonds when interacting with others, as can be denoted by their being in the same column in the periodic table. This allows the molecular structures of the compounds they create to be widely more diverse, and therefore to allow a more complex array of possibilities. Life is complex and therefore requires a complex array of possibilities to form; silicon and carbon are both perfect for this necessary complexity. The reason the elements further down in the same column, as well as the elements further to the right of said column, are not realistic for life is because of the distance from the nucleus which those elements form their own bonds, making them less stable (Environ)(Templeton). In our everyday life we have come to use silicon as a primary material for constructing technological equipment such as computers. Computers have had a magnificent impact on both our quality of life, as well as our ability to sustain life, but computers are not themselves alive; they are just machines which do what we ask of them. However, this view may now be changing. It has been discovered that technology can be used to support biology; silicon systems can be used to replace/enhance biological systems. The current understanding of technology we possess will let us replace almost every organ and structure in the human body with a simple 3D printer. What does this have to do with consciousness though? The case is that “[h]uman skin relies on cutaneous receptors that output digital signals for tactile sensing in which the intensity of stimulation is converted to a series of voltage pulses. We [have developed] a power-efficient skin-inspired mechanoreceptor with a flexible organic transistor circuit that transduces pressure into digital frequency signals directly. The output frequency ranges between 0 and 200 hertz, with a sublinear response to increasing force stimuli that mimics slow-adapting skin mechanoreceptors . . . This work represents a step toward the design and use of large-area organic electronic skins with neural-integrated touch feedback for replacement limbs” (Benjamin C.K. Tee et al.). This is all a lot of technical jargon which boils down to the fact that Biomedical Engineers have developed a technology to replace skin. Not just skin that will cover the organs and provide protection from the wind and the dust, but skin that is able to feel what it is touching. Here is a concrete example of a product which itself possesses an attribute or feature which its component pieces do not themselves have: tactile sensation. Challengers of Emergentism will likely claim that the tactile sensation of the pseudo-skin created by these bioengineers, and the tactile sensation of true biological skin are too different to be accurately compared. It may be stated that since the pseudo-skin requires some sort of programming to understand what it is supposed to do, and that the sensations it produces are manufactured and not natural sensations. But does our human DNA not contain similar programming to help our biological skin understand what to do? And are both sensations not caused by miniature electrical impulses emitted from some location on the body and received by the brain? Another dispute put forth will be that the pseudo-skin does not itself have tactile sensation, it simply allows for the conditions in which the brain experiences tactile sensation. This latter claim again presents the logical fallacy known as the Superman-Argument; meaning that natural skin too: only ‘allows the conditions in which the brain experiences tactile sensation’ and thus our emergent property stands firm.
Mathematics typically provide an indefensible method of argumentation for all manner of claims. The mathematics which I intend to use to support my theory of consciousness will seem entirely irrational at first, but I assure you I am able to support my mathematical claims as strongly as I am able to support my consciousness claims. My math is as follows: 1 + 2 = 4. What this means is that 1 + 1 + 1 combine to equal their ‘sum’, but also to now contain something which was not there before, which in this case is an additional 1, and it is produced by the causal interactions of the other three units. Allow me to provide an example: Carrie, Jim, and Thomas are three friends whom enjoy hiking in the mountains together. Each has a unique relationship with each the other, so Carrie and Jim have a particular way they interact with one another when together, as do Carrie and Thomas, as do Thomas and Jim. That is three individuals and three individual relationships. When the three friends are all with one another, in the mountains hiking for example, there emerges a fourth relationship; a fourth ‘person’ appears and this person is called the We-All. The We-All constitutes both an emergent set of actions, as well as an emergent set of concerns. When Carrie is hanging out with Jim, she acts in a certain way and is concerned about how Jim is perceiving her; when she hangs out with Thomas she acts in a certain way, which is unique from the set of actions used with Jim, and she is concerned with how Jim is perceiving her. When they all get together and the We-All comes out, Carrie now acts in a way that is unique from her actions with Jim, and also unique from her actions with Thomas, she acts in a hybrid manner. To illustrate my point, imagine that Jim likes explicit sexual humour and that Thomas feels that explicit sexual humour is inappropriate, so when Carrie is with Jim she makes sexual jokes, and when she is with Thomas she does not. When the three are together, Carrie begins to cater to the We-All, and now she will make highly ambiguous adult references, in such a manner that Jim is able to laugh at her comments but at the same time Thomas is not offended by them. Furthermore the individuals are no longer concerned plainly with one another, they now must be concerned for the We-All as well. So as they walk up the mountain Carrie will ask herself ‘am I okay?’, she will then ask ‘are Jim and I okay?’ as well as ‘are Thomas and I okay?’ and finally ‘is the We-All okay?’, or in other words ‘are we all okay, and functioning well as a group?’. The We-All is not an empirically observable occurrence, and opponents may claim that it is simply a medley of individual relationships, not an individual thing. But if it were a medley of relationships then one could imagine a group of say six people together having several medleys of relationships occurring. There would be a We-All between Carrie and Jim and Thomas and a We-All between Nancy and Fredrick and Jenny and a We-All between the six of them together, but there is not, there is a single We-All and it is either well or not well, efficient or inefficient, and it is always We-All as in all of us together and at the same time. Going back to the original three person situation: each relationship is worth only one unit, but when you add together several individual units the causal interaction between the lot of them produces an additional unit which cannot be measured or empirically observed, but the matter of its existence is a brute fact. Furthermore this additional unit is not self-sustaining, for if the units separate then the emergent unit dissipates; it is only ever produced when all units are acting together, no more, no less.
A tertiary source of support is the case of transmuter-compounds possessing qualities which their components do not have, thus providing more concrete evidence in favour of causal interactions between components resulting in
1. Something which was not there to begin with, and
2. Something which is not ‘visible’ so to speak.
It is assumed by many religious doctrines that advanced human consciousness is ‘injected’, by some divine power, into an otherwise existentially-unaware organism; that such an unexplainable phenomena could not possibly arise on its own. But we are surrounded by pristine examples of ‘unexplainable phenomena’ such as synthetic skin with tactile sensation, the We-All, and radioactivity. Not only do these examples readily appear in our worldly lives, but they are supported by some of the most elementary knowledge we have of the world in which we live: biology, mathematics, and physics. For a single-cellular-proto-organism to arise out of the oceans of the deep past is incredible, for it to begin reproducing is even more incredible, to eventually evolve to a complex organism with base consciousness is more incredible yet! Why then is it such a stretch to believe that one further incredible thing might happen, base consciousness evolving to advanced consciousness? I believe a large portion of the devotion to the antithesis of my claims comes from the idea that advanced (human) consciousness is somehow special, that it makes us unique, but there is very little evidence, if any at all, to support such an opinion. The fact that humans are the only known organism to possess ‘advanced consciousness’ in the negatable cross-section of the Universe we have explored may suggest that it is a unique phenomenon as far as we can tell, but to go on to say that because it is unique therefore it is positively-special is a bit of a stretch. Without consciousness I become nothing discernible in this world of wonders, yet it is only to be conscious that it is to discern, and so without consciousness I need not be discernible. Without consciousness I am nothing, yet it is only with consciousness that I find myself needing to be anything.
Works Cited
Cox, Brian. Goodreads Inc. N.d. Web. 31/10/2015. URL = http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/458513-we-are-the-cosmos-made-conscious-and-life-is-the
Inwagen, Peter Van. “Dualism and Physicalism”. Metaphysics. 4 Ed. Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 2015. Print.
N.a. “Materials For Life”. Carnegie Mellon University. 2003. Web. 14/11/2015. URL = http://environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s5/05materials.shtml
N.a. “It’s Elemental: The Element Thorium”. Jefferson Lab. N.d. Web. 15/11/2015. URL = http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele090.html
N.a. “It’s Elemental: The Element Actinium”. Jefferson Lab. N.d. Web. 15/11/2015. URL = http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele089.html
N.a. “It’s Elemental: The Element Radon”. Jefferson Lab. N.d. Web. 15/11/2015. URL = http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele086.html
N.a. “It’s Elemental: The Element Polonium”. Jefferson Lab. N.d. Web. 15/11/2015. URL = http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele084.html
N.a. “It’s Elemental: The Element Bismuth”. Jefferson Lab. N.d. Web. 15/11/2015. URL = http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele083.html
N.a. “It’s Elemental: The Element Lead”. Jefferson Lab. N.d. Web. 15/11/2015. URL = http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele082.html
Silva, Robert J. “Transmutation”. Chemistry Explained. N.d. Web. 15/11/15. URL = http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Te-Va/Transmutation.html
Tee, Benjamin et al. Science. American Academy of Scientific Advancement, 16/10/2015. Web. 31/10/2015. URL = http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6258/313.full
Templeton, Graham. “Geek Answers: Why is all life carbon-based?”. Geek. 04/10/2013. Web. 14/11/2015. URL = http://www.geek.com/science/geek-answers-why-is-all-life-carbon- based-1572567/
No comments:
Post a Comment