Mo' Dernity, Mo' Problems

Reader Response
A reader responds to my post on Chamler's Conscious Mind:

Dear C. Eater,

Re your post: "My question, then, for the atheists is this - why does the universe have laws which dictate that physical states produce conscious states, when such laws just as easily might not exist?"

I don't think that is a question that an atheist is required to answer. I think he could reply, instead, simply that he starts by accepting this universe as it is.

How do you decide which things require an explanation, and which things may be taken simply as given? It seems to me that, if the reader is correct, then no characteristic of the universe would ever require an explanation. Even if the words "MADE BY GOD" were imprinted into all the rocks on the planet earth, the atheist could reply "Well, sure that's a little wierd, but I simply take the universe as it is, so I don't need to offer any explanation for the phenomena."

Think about the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intellegence) program. The program works on the belief that if we recieve a transmission which cannot be reasonably explained as randomness, or by some physical phenomenon, then we should assume that the transmission comes from extra-terrestrial life. For example, if we recieve a transmission of the first 5000 prime numbers, there's good reason to believe that the transmission was sent by space aliens. In that case, we don't say, "I simply take the transmission of prime numbers as a given, I don't look for an explanation." Instead, we say, "Wow, that's odd. Maybe space aliens are the cause of the transmission. That seems like a reasonable explanation." If some facts of the universe might be well-explained by the existence of intellegent life outside the earth, it might similarly be the case that some facts about the universe can best be explained by the existence of God.

I should note, though, that I do not believe everything requires an explanation. There must be some first cause, some necessary being, and this first cause or necessary being does not itself have an explanation. The atheists believe that the first cause is some physical system, while the theists believe the first cause is God. The atheists don't have to explain why the universe exists unless the universe gives the appearance of being designed.

The Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Liseux and The Life of Saint Teresa of Avila by Herself
Both women are Carmelite Saints, and yet I cannot find any major similarities between the two, other than the fact that they both lived out Christian heroism. This brings me to a question - is there some sort of Carmelite spirituality present in both of these women, and if so, what does it look like?

Simple Rules for a Complex World by Richard A. Epstein

Epstein asserts that any complication in the law should produce sufficient benefits to justify the costs of complications in enforcement and litigation. I think Epstein is a bit too much of a utilitarian, but often his method of applying economic analysis to the legal system is often very useful.

Example: the law forces auditors to be legally responsible for errors in calculation, at least in some circumstances. This has the effect of forcing the auditor to provide both auditing services and auditing insurance. Why not, Epstein says, allow the auditor and the client to set the auditor's liability via contract? Maybe some companies will get outside insurance against auditing errors, while others will have the auditor only responsible up to a certain level.

Example: In auto accidents, current law tries to calculate the degree to which each party is responsible (80% person A, 20% person B). Epstein argues that it is very complicated to calculate exact percentages, especially since the courts are rarely opperating with perfect information. Instead, he suggests that the courts should simply ask whether person A and person B are both partially responsible, and if they are they should automatically have to pay damages 50/50. This will simplify and shorten court proceedings and save money.

The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene

A wonderful presentation of pride and humility.

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Cardinal Newman

I read this book pretty fast, so I didn't absorb the whole thing. But I'll comment on what I thought were two of the most interesting nuggets.

Protestants: A lot like Arians
Newman discovers suprising similarities between Protestants and pre-Reformation heretics. Similarities 1) Sola Scriptura (interpreting the Bible without the aid of Church tradition and papal authority) 2) A tendancy to de-mystify certain doctrines (Arians eliminated the mystery of the Trinity, while many Protestants eliminate the mystery of the Eucharist) 3) Preference for literal interpretations of Scripture over allegorical interpretations.

Interrelatedness of Doctrine
If you don't believe in the incarnation, you probably won't believe that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. If you don't believe Jesus Christ is God, you probably won't believe that Mary is the mother of God. Newman points out quite a number of connections between doctrine which hadn't previously occured to me.
This point is significant because it explains why some doctrines takes time to develop. First the Church had to come to agreement that Christ was "one in being with the Father," and only then could it understand that Mary is the mother of God.

The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory by David J. Chamlers

I read this book quite a while back, but it was on my mind the other day and so I thought I'd blog a bit on it.

The basic claim that Chamlers makes is that consciousness is real, but non-physical. This claim is made in contrast to the claims of Daniel Dennett and other strict-materialist, who claim that the mind is identical to the brain. Chamlers defends his claim with several arguments. In one, he argues that there is nothing logically contradictory about a human which is physically and functionally identical to a normal human, but which has no consciousness. In another (my favorate) he asks the reader to imagine a neuroscientist who has studied the brain, and knows everything about the way in which it processes the color red. But also imagine that the neuroscientist has never actually observed the color red. The scientist could know all about the brains processing of red, but still lack the actual experience of seeing red.

So consciousness is non-physical, although it does seem to be correlated with physical states. Chamlers believes that the laws of nature dictate that any structure which processes information causes a corresponding mental state. He believes that calculators and even thermometers may possess primitive consciousness. He does not, however, think that a given mental state causes any changes in the physical world. When a person wills to walk down the street, that willing does not cause him to walk. Rather, the physical processes in his brain cause him to 1) will to walk down the street and 2) walk down the street. Chamlers takes this position in part because he realizes that if mental states could be an independent source of causation, it would undermine determinism.

Now, let me see if I can't use Chamlers to serve my own ideological agenda. I think that Chamlers has is right in his claim that strict materialists, who believe that the mind is identical to the physical brain, are just straight-up obviously wrong. Chamlers has a more defensible determinist position, so my first move in the argument is to discredit strict physicalism using Chamler's arguments. Now, let's see what this implies. If Chamlers is correct, then it follows that consciousness has NO survival value at all (since consciousness has no causal power, it certainly can't help a person to survive). So although we might say that man's digestive system, or his opposable thumbs, developed because they allowed him to reproduce his genes, we can't say that consciousness developed because it allowed man to reproduce his genes. Instead, consciousness is a side-effect of man's evolution.

So it's not true to say that the universe began as a mere bunch of chaotic matter and energy which self-organized into planets and stars, and eventually into life. From the beginning, the universe was governed by laws which ordained that when physical systems of information processing developed, conscious states would arise from them. Thus, complexity was present from the beginning. It was present in that from the beginning, the universe had laws that would kick into effect once physical systems which processed information developed.

If this argument holds, then it refutes the atheist's claim that the universe began as chaos and then organized itself. If the universe has laws which dictate that physical systems which process information produce corresponding conscious states, then we may ask why such laws exist. The atheist would like to reply that no explanation is necessary. But it seems to me that while chaotic randomness needs no explanation, complexity always does. Complexity can be explained in some cases by arguing that it emerges from chaos. But in this case, the complexity exists from the beginning of the universe, in the laws of nature which dictate that physical systems of information processing cause conscious states. That complexity can, in my view, be best explained by belief in a designer.

One possible way out of this, however, is to argue that even the most basic physical systems have some sort of proto-consciousness. But one can only directly observe one's own consciousness, so validating or invalidating this hypothesis looks near impossible. Since this theory seems at least possible, it is possible that the laws governing proto-consciousness/consciousness would come into effect before the universe began to self-organize. In that case, the designer argument I was just spinning falls apart.

Still, though, since we can argue that there is nothing illogical about a universe that is physically identical to our own, but where physical states do not produce conscious states. My question, then, for the atheists is this - why does the universe have laws which dictate that physical states produce conscious states, when such laws just as easily might not exist?

For another take on Chamler's book, see Steven M. Barr's review on First Things.