Philip Goff is a philosophy Professor at Durham University, specialising particularly in mind and consciousness. Becoming more widely known in recent years as a proponent of Panpsychism, which, put simply, is the belief that everything in the universe is conscious. This book explores ideas that underpin Panpsychism, concerning the origins and nature of consciousness. And argues by the end of it that probably physical science may never have the language or concepts sufficient to fully capture the nature of its qualities, and how consciousness works.
What is admirable is how he structures this book, Writing an accessible presentation of his ideas, followed by more complex academic addendums that Dig Deeper into the arguments pro and against his viewpoints. He guides you through these, telling you when he is about to enter difficult terrain, advising you when skipping specific chapters may be helpful. Giving you permission to hop around the book, whilst remaining engaged with the general thrust of his arguement. I know I can easily lose the plot in closely argued jargon infested territory. So feeling free to miss out some of the complex theoretical sections, was liberating, and strangely reassuring. As a philosophical exploration, it is designed to be relatively user friendly.
We all may think we know what consciousness is, from personal experience. Though we posses it, we don't fully understand the what or how of it, at all. This has particular contemporary relevance, when tech developers of AI are in rapid pursuit of producing a synthetic version of it. What sort of consciousness is it, they are trying so earnestly to mimic? Consciousness is a whole lot more than a data enriched calculator. From the start Goff makes it clear just how limited our understanding of our own consciousness is, how it may have come into being, and how it operates:-
" Science is used to dealing with unobservables; fundamental particles, quantum wave functions, perhaps even other universes; none of these things can be directly observed. But there's a crucial difference when it comes to consciousness. In all other cases, we postulate unobservables 'in order to explain what we can observe.' In the unique case of consciousness 'the thing we are trying to explain' is not publicly observable"
Goff begins with a distinctly small observable positioning in the fundamental particles of the universe. As scientists developed an understanding of particle physics they produced a standard model, this contained 'constants' fixed numbers.masses and forces that were required in order to make it function. Having done that they postulated how much variance in these was permissable before the whole thing might evaporate or blow up. The nuclear force that binds all the elements in an atom together is represented by the number 0.007. If that figure became 0.006 then there'd be nothing but hydrogen, if it were 0.008 or more then there would be the equivalent of an almighty bang. So, when you hear people referring to the 'fine tuning' of our universe, this is what that means. These particles found value in positioning themselves in this particular way, and it is extremely delicately balanced. He does not imply that this is 'intelligently designed' only that at a particle level things appear to have a purposeful direction.
" The essence of the Value Selection Hypothesis is simply that, however the numbers associated with these constants were determined, it was done in order to allow for a universe containing things of value.....at a fundamental level certain things happen 'for the sake of some future good.' "
Goff refers to these particles as having 'proto-agency', and from that state the sense of having purpose further evolves into an experiential understanding, that gradually becomes 'having agency,' what humanity calls conscious 'free will'. Although this process could be interpreted as purely instinctual, this changes with the arising of free will. Where we are able to chose to do things which are for some higher good, that is beyond any immediate need for survival. A particle, according to Goff's hypothesis contains the potential for this.
"There is not some magical capacity that appears out of thin air. Rather,the basic capacity to respond rationally - that very capacity possessed by the humble particle - has latent within it all of these possibilities. But these possibilities can be realised only when conjoined with the right kind of conscious understanding.'
So attention is a vital element. This is the foundation for his understanding of Panpsychism. This doesn't necessarily mean we are back to an omnipresent God as the answer to why the universe appears to have cosmic purpose. Omnipresence cannot adequately explain the purpose of consciousness, and why there is evil and suffering in the world if God created it. In some respects the quarrelsome contentions of the Greek pantheon of gods, or the Manichean battle between evil and good gods, do a better job than monotheistic theology in providing an understandable context for why suffering happens. As a professor friend of Goff expressed it-' You've seen Luton airport, right? Why would an all powerful being motivated by beauty allow humans to create such monstrosities as Luton airport.'
Recognising that humanity tends to get trapped in dichotomies of - its either God or atheism - an all powerful loving creation or a meaningless universe, Goff opens up some wilder alternative suggestions, for why this universe is manifested in this particular way. A much neglected area for philosophical speculation in Western thought. Some theoretical physicists are now proposing that those fundamental particles could exist within universe wide fields, the particles being localised vibrations within it. This may start to summon up ideas of a universal mind and guiding entity, but let's just park that there for now.
Most ideas for why a universe of consciousness exists do entail some being other than us, creating it. The universe and humanity within it, being part of some eternal experiment, run by a higher being, in order to explore how consciousness develops. Though this doesn't necessarily have to have an all knowing God at the helm of it, though it is a notion we tend to forever cling to. The opposite of a good beneficent God, an evil God with malevolent intent, well, this runs into contradictions too that are the opposite of the former model, in a world of evil, why would there be good ? why would there be altruism? So is the universe then a creation of a completely amoral designer, who is deaf to the suffering they've created? There is the interesting idea we may all be part of an experimental simulation, run from a parallel universe. Or are we the creation of a God whose creative abilities are limited, hence the rough and ready, chaotic aspects of existence. Though quite why anyone would put much faith in such a God is another question. Then, as HL Menken once pithily remarked, 'Why assume that the God who presumably created the universe, is still running it?
Then there are suggestions that don't require a godlike being of any kind. Goff explores the ideas of Thomas Nagel, that cosmic purpose without a creator God is feasible, if we broaden our understanding of the laws that the universe is governed by. Most of the laws of nature we know posit a linear movement from past to future, what if that could also work from future to the past, to ensures the present remained on track for the emergence of life, for instance. This began to remind me of Dogen's writings about 'firewood and ash' in the Genjo Koan, that transcend linear ideas of time, where both time past and future remain factors in how the present moment manifests. The idea of a godless universe is also an old one. Goff cites Aristotle.
" Aristotle thought that organisms had essentially goal-directed natures, without feeling the need to postulate a designer who put the goals into things. That view was coherent although arguably disproven by the discovery that biological organisms had been shaped by blind process of natural selection. However, perhaps the evidence for cosmic purpose....gives us grounds for thinking that the universe as a whole is a kind of Aristotelian organism: it exists, in part, to fulfil a good purpose, despite the fact that nobody created it for that purpose. Perhaps the universe is like a plant that, in the fullness of time and with a bit of luck, will grow and blossom into something beautiful."
This is a thought-provoking book, which I certainly gained from reading, in amongst the many explications that were lost on me. The final chapter on Living With Purpose I found particularly useful, and resonated with some of my own conclusions, whilst giving me further pause for thought on how these ideas might relate to Buddhist views of consciousness and reality.
CARROT REVIEW -5/8
No comments:
Post a Comment