Can the Human Brain be Simulated?

In order to simulate a human brain, you would need to start with--what else?--a human brain. Here is an analogy.  Suppose you are a model-builder on board a large ship, and the captain asks you to make a model of the ship.

After a few days, you present him with what you believe to be a very accurate 1/100 scale model.  But the captain is not pleased.  You left out one very important part of the ship:  the model of the ship that the ship now contains..

You soon realize that even if you make a micro-model of the ship to include within the model, you would then have to make an even smaller model to fit within the model, and so on in an infinite regression of ever-smaller models.

Walk the plank.

The eye cannot see itself, and therefore, the brain cannot model itself, not even in a computer simulation.  Otherwise, the simulation could create a simulation of itself, ad infinitum.

However, an intelligent alien exo-creature from the planet Karabonzo in principle could make a model of the human brain, since he (or it, or zer) does not think with one.  Perhaps we could make one of his.  And then it would make one of ours.  Don't get me started on that.

More to the point, the brain is only an instrument of thought, not the source of thought.
Cosmic consciousness surrounds the brain, instead of emerging from it.

In this sense, a working model of the human brain could be made, but it would not be conscious.
Of course I could be wrong.

Panpsychism Debunked

Here is the link to a commentary by Mark Mahan 

http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-dismal-scenario-called-panpsychism.html

Mark Mahan is correct.  Panpsychism is an incorrect theory of consciousness.  I agree with his opening statement, and with his ending conclusion, but with little else in between.

 He says in his opening, “Why is it that some particular arrangement of matter would cause Mind (a totally different type of thing) to emerge from the matter in a brain? To many that seems no more plausible than the idea that some particular arrangement of crystals in a rock might cause the rock to gush out blood.”

 Very well.  He has discredited physicalism, and then posed the problem that panpsychism seeks to solve.

 Among some of the theories in vogue, he mentions, “the idea that the brain doesn't actually produce our minds, but somehow taps into some great external reality that is the source of our minds, perhaps in a way rather similar to how a television set receives TV signals, or how a smartphone connects with the internet.”

 Aha.  Idealism, a theory which is quite consistent with some spiritual doctrines, including the one I favor.

The remainder of his commentary is readable, but very subject to a physicalist critique in several respects.  I say this with the acknowledgment that Mahan is very accomplished, and has done a great deal of good as far as pointing out the fatal flaws in physicalism.  Even so, one might cringe at some of the points he makes in support of his argument.  I find that this is rather a common trait among intelligent people.  An example of a false argument in favor of a true statement is to say that we know the world is round because if it were flat, birds would fly away and never return.  The world is indeed a globe, but there are better arguments in support of that fact.

The panpsychist would point out that Mahan’s arguments against panpsychism are invalid because they can be overcome by the theory of “emergent phenomena.”  That theory would allow consciousness to emerge from matter if two conditions were met:  (1) if atoms and their constituents contain building blocks of consciousness, and (2) as those blocks become organized, they produce something greater than the sum of their parts.

This rebuttal by the panpsychist works against Mahan’s argument, because Mahan seems to conceive of panpsychism as a theory that each atom (or other basic constituent) has a (more or less) fully formed consciousness, complete with willful purpose.  This would be analogous to defining a brick as a small house.

A strong argument can be made for panpsychism based on the premise that each particle contains an “atom” of consciousness, but the atoms must combine into molecules of consciousness, and thence upward along the complexity scale of organelle, organism and so forth, to produce the finished product, that is, consciousness, along with its array of attendant characteristics (thought, feeling, perception etc).

This “strong argument” is, however, physicalist in nature, and physicalism can be separately debunked no matter how strong the panpsychist argument may seem at first.

Panpsychism is a bottom-to-top explanation of consciousness, just as the Standard Model of Particle Physics is also a bottom-to-top explanation of the universe.  Such an avenue of explanation would be like explaining a house beginning with a brick, and then trying to explain how the bricks form themselves into a house.  One could devise a very convincing explanation based on random chance, but the explanation requires endless aggregations of ever-higher orders of random multi-verses.  Such a model of physicalism is unwieldy at best, and expands forever toward the eventual point of absurdity.  Such a model is unnecessary to explain the universe.

A better avenue of approach is to regard the house (the universe) as having been built according to a design and a purpose.  The purpose is human habitation, and the designer has in mind that very purpose, and is also the master of his craft.  Consciousness exists because its creator is conscious.  Life exists because he is alive.  Our free will exists because he exercises divine free will.

Again, my purpose here is not to diminish Mahan’s stature as an accomplished debunker of physicalism.  It is simply to try to improve on his argument against panpsychism, and by extension, the argument against physicalism.

Being right is not enough.

.

How Can We Ever Know, that We Know?

.

There is an inelegant saying that, “We don’t know what we don’t know.”  In other words, we may think we know A, because we know B and C, which together, prove A.  But what if there is a D?  And what if D changes everything we thought we knew?  Not only do we not know D, we don’t even know that we don’t know D.

Okay, I’m confused, but let’s press on with more scientific statements of the matter from people smarter than me (of whom there are a disturbingly large number).

The famous scientist, JBS Haldane (1892 – 1964), once said that the universe might not only be stranger than we imagine it to be, it might be even stranger than we are able to imagine.  Others have said that not only might we be unable to answer the important questions, we might not even be able to ask them.

Haldane also said, “If materialism is true, it seems to me that we cannot know that it is true. If my opinions are the result of the chemical processes going on in my brain, they are determined by the laws of chemistry, not those of logic.”

Nobel Prize winning physicist Dr. Leon Lederman wondered aloud whether the human brain has evolved to the point where it can understand the universe.  We might wonder, what if it is fundamentally impossible for the human brain ever to reach that point?

One could list a very great number of reasons why we can never firmly trust in our knowledge.  No matter how strongly we believe something to be true, no matter how powerful is the evidence for it, in the end, there always remains the possibility that we are wrong.

But what is our alternative?  Are we simply to become so thoroughly skeptical that we never believe anything?  That could be fatal, if at the edge of a fifty-foot-tall cliff, we disbelieve in gravity.  (At least I believe it could be fatal.)

Some have pointed out that there is one thing of which we can be absolutely sure.  We know that we exist.  René Descartes encapsulated this knowledge in the Latin phrase, “Cogito ergo sum,” which means, “I think, therefore I am.”  [Whenever I wish to impress people, I always include a Latin phrase.]   Although there have been a few drug-addled (I suspect) pseudo-philosophers who claim that we are merely illusions having illusions, and that therefore we do not exist, there is no useful way that one can claim that something that does not exist can have an illusion, even if the illusion being had, does not exist.  Notice that I said, no “useful” way.  However, if you can think of a practical use that a nonexistent person could make of knowing that he does not exist—never mind, I’m giving myself a headache.

The one thing of which we can be absolutely sure is that we exist as conscious, living beings.  (Maybe that’s three things, but who’s counting?)

This has led some to conclude that consciousness is the ground of all being.  Everything that we consciously know requires consciousness.  (Duh.)  Even if we think we know something, but are wrong, at least we know that we consciously think we know something.  So consciousness must exist.  Cogito.

Accepting that as an axiom, an unprovable statement that requires no proof, we can then move on to the more peripheral question, how do we know anything else?

We receive perceptions through our senses (sight, sound etc).  But it is well known (uh-oh) that sometimes our senses can mislead us.  Optical illusions and hallucinations can deceive us into believing something that is not true.  More esoterically, reason itself can fail us, if our mental faculties are insufficient to produce a valid conclusion from premises.

If we cannot break out of our solipsist confines of conscious thought, and move into a surrounding reality, then catastrophe awaits us—assuming of course, that there is a larger reality.

How do we do that in a way that we can know, undeniably, that not only do we exist, not only that the surrounding reality exists, but also, know definitive things about that larger reality?

Physical science has taken us far along that road, but at the end of that road, we find no absolute certainty.  Quite the opposite, we find mysteries not only unsolved, but as Haldane points out, quite possibly beyond human ability to ever solve.  Are we doomed to eternal doubt?

It is at this point that we are forced to consider the un-considerable.  If science, reason, philosophy and metaphysics do not get us there, then is there any hope?

There is, but it is the one hope that many refuse to consider:  faith.  The very word conjures up images of Bible-banging preachers threatening fire and brimstone, or Mullahs waging sectarian war, or Shamans rattling copper cymbals to chase away evil spirits real or imagined.

Faith?  Why, is that not a denial of commonsense?  Is it not ignorance of facts?  Does it not require us to put money in the church coffers lest a wrathful bearded man in the sky casts us into everlasting torment?

Maybe so.  What do I know?

As in all progressions from the unknown toward the known, one must begin on solid ground.  There must be a First Cause (to borrow the term from St Augustine) that leads inexorably to the final conclusion.  But what is that First Cause?  Where is that solid ground?

To find it, we must (as they say) think outside the box.  We must take a leap of faith, not blindly, not unreasonably, but verifiably.  Only then can we achieve that certainty for which the human spirit longs.

As Bishop Fulton J Sheen (1895 – 1979) wrote so eloquently:

 

The great arcana of Divine Mysteries cannot be known by reason, but only by Revelation.  Reason can however, once in possession of these truths, offer persuasions to show that they are not only not contrary to reason, or destructive of nature, but eminently suited to a scientific temper of mind and the perfection of all that is best in human nature. [1]

 

Over the years I have listened to many people recount the moment in which they consciously accepted Jesus as their personal Savior.  Each account is unique, and yet they all share that same, indescribable flavor that other people of faith immediately recognize as authentic.

That singular experience seems always to be a turning point in one’s life, and is followed by a lifetime of additional events which reinforce that faith, and defend it against the many challenges which are sure to follow.

This should not be taken as an acid test, but as evidence that each person has the ability to verify for himself whether faith is not contrary to reason, but is also conducive to all that is best in human nature.

Enough.  However much I might try to define faith without proselytizing, the effort must fail, and for the very reason I pointed out.  Faith cannot be imparted except by the essence of all being, the Holy Spirit Himself.

Of that much, I am absolutely certain.

.

---

[1] The Life of all Living; Garden City Books reprint edition 1951; copyright 1929 by The Century Company, printed in the United States at The Country Life Press, Garden City, N.Y.

Matter and Consciousness

http://nautil.us//issue/47/consciousness/is-matter-conscious

I have not finished reading the article, but my assessment so far is that

it is indeed interesting, both for its strengths and for its weaknesses.

Indeed, it is generating so many branches of thought that I think I shall compose a

separate thread.

Before I do so, I should like to point out that the "hard problem" of consciousness

may be an inherently unsolvable problem for a simple reason:

The eye cannot see itself.
 

Yes, the analogy is not perfect, because the eye does not actually see anything,

but the point made by the adage is spot on correct.

My pseudo-definition of consciousness is, consciousness is that which

knows that it is conscious.  Yes, a circular definition, but with axioms, such is always the case.

More than that, I think we can never know.

We can know things ABOUT consciousness, but not what it is.

One more thing:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the%20nine%20billion%20names%20of%20god&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=the%20nine%20billion%20names%20of%20god&sc=10-29&sk=&cvid=8D94B09904944F018E34A847E6865FFC

The Nine Billion Names of God is a science fiction classic,
in which the theme is that, once all the basic elements of truth are known,
there is no further reality.

 

 

 

Monism Versus Dualism: A Futile Dsipute

As I understand it, dualism is a belief that reality is bifurcated between the physical and the mental, or the physical and the spiritual, or at least, the physical and the non-physical.  Monism is the belief that all of reality, both mind and matter, is the manifestation of a single essence.  Thus, dualists and monists (play on words here) duel.

It is a misbegotten contest.  There is one reality, and from it, emanates both the physical world as it is perceived by the mind, and the mental (or spiritual) world which does the perceiving.  The monist is correct in that these two emanations are not independent, but the dualist is correct in that the single reality has more than one expression.

Indeed, the dualist does not go far enough, because there are more than two distinct forms in which reality is manifested.  There is a hierarchy which begins with the unknowable essence, a Creator, and a Creation.  We are living spiritual beings, consciously inhabiting a physical body.  Intertwined with all this are our thoughts and deeds, which are brought about by the agency of our free will.

Granted, this is theology, and as such requires a belief in the unknowable, but that belief is far from unreasonable, and indeed, is empowering.

The attempt to reduce God to some sort of field of consciousness is to attempt to compress the infinity of His reality into the tiny finiteness of our minds.  It seeks to define the undefinable, and to comprehend the incomprehensible.

What is to the man wisdom, is to God foolishness.