i - How do we define intelligence?
Intelligence is observed in humans, animals, plants and computers. It is a word that means many things to many people, but the definition that is used here is taken from:
Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography
Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do."
ii - What is intelligence?
Intelligence can be measured, and the effect of brain physiology on intelligence is clear, as explained here
iii - A statement from an Apologist
“I'm not disputing that intelligence can be explained. The question is whether or not it can be explained adequately. By continuing to retreat into attempting to define all of intelligence through the physical and biological processes that allow our brains to access such you are ignoring the spiritual realm revealed by intelligence. It is as if you are defining an antenna through the processes that lead to its manufacture. Such a definition is inadequate, to say the least.”
This statement can be dealt with in three major parts:
1) Can human beings adequately explain intelligence?
2) Can explaining intelligence through physical processes explain the spiritual realm?
3) is using the brain to explain intelligence like defining an antenna through its manufacturing processes?
Part 1 - Can human beings adequately explain intelligence?
This question can be answered in several sections: The explanation of human intelligence, and the explanation of non-human intelligence including artificial intelligence.
The evolution of intelligence was previously covered here
1.1 Human Intelligence
The final frontier for science, is, arguably the mind. So the big question: Can science explain how the mind works?
Answer: Yes, but at the moment several ideas are still hypothetical.
Next big question: Is the mind something that science can ever explain beyond hypothesis?
Answer: "Probably". The models of consciousness & intelligence developed so far are at a very early stage and just the first step on a long journey. But it is no longer accurate to say that science can never explain the mind. Just because consciousness seems like an unsolvable puzzle today, that doesn’t mean it will always be unsolvable. History has many examples of phenomena that were allegedly beyond rational explanation but turned out not to be. For example, in the 17th century it was thought that light couldn’t possibly be physical - that it had to be something beyond the usual laws of nature. Early scientists were convinced that there had to be some magical spirit – the élan vital – that distinguished living beings from mere machines. And so on. So maybe one day neuroscience will show that consciousness is just brain states.
There are an ever increasing number of empirical routes to be explored, and science is exploring them. This is a very different answer to the question compared to the answer 25 years ago which was "don't know" or even “no way”. So what's changed?
There are an ever increasing number of empirical routes to be explored, and science is exploring them. This is a very different answer to the question compared to the answer 25 years ago which was "don't know" or even “no way”. So what's changed?
Cognitive neuroscience is the most recent development in science - just 25 years old. It was only 1990 that anyone (Francis Crick) seriously suggested there might be a scientific approach to explaining consciousness. As Crick noted: “It is remarkable that most of the work in both cognitive science and the neurosciences makes no reference to consciousness. Perhaps this is partly because most workers in these areas cannot see any useful way of approaching the problem”. There have been amazing discoveries already, but there's a long way to go. Perhaps the biggest problem is to define what it is we are trying to discover. What is consciousness or intelligence? How can we figure out how these things work if we don't know what they are?
1.1.1 "A Golden Age"
New technology is allowing scientists to actually measures consciousness and as computers develop structures that mimic the neural activity of the brain it can be applied to them. For example, the neural activity of the brain when awake is very different from when a person is asleep or in an unconscious state.
Researchers have been using techniques like this to determine whether patients in a vegetative state are conscious of their surrounding or not. Scientists could use this to develop a 'coefficient of consciousness' which could be applied to any computer to measure its self-awareness, according to Professor du Sautoy.
“I think there is something in the brain development which might be like a boiling point,” he said. “It may be a threshold moment. If it can be shown that computers have a level of consciousness, they might be given an equivalent of human rights.”
1.1.1 "A Golden Age"
According to Professor Marcus du Sautoy, advances in brain
scanning technology is transforming out ability to tell whether someone or
something is conscious. He said:
“We're in a golden age. It's a bit like Galieo with a telescope. We now have a telescope into the brain and it's given us an opportunity to see things that we've never been able to see before.”
“We're in a golden age. It's a bit like Galieo with a telescope. We now have a telescope into the brain and it's given us an opportunity to see things that we've never been able to see before.”
New technology is allowing scientists to actually measures consciousness and as computers develop structures that mimic the neural activity of the brain it can be applied to them. For example, the neural activity of the brain when awake is very different from when a person is asleep or in an unconscious state.
Researchers have been using techniques like this to determine whether patients in a vegetative state are conscious of their surrounding or not. Scientists could use this to develop a 'coefficient of consciousness' which could be applied to any computer to measure its self-awareness, according to Professor du Sautoy.
“I think there is something in the brain development which might be like a boiling point,” he said. “It may be a threshold moment. If it can be shown that computers have a level of consciousness, they might be given an equivalent of human rights.”
One way to approach this is to divide up consciousness into the "easy problems" and "hard problem". The easy problems are still difficult, but these are the problems that can be solved by the scientific method. For example, science can explain the workings of pain, memory, vision, emotions, morality and all the things that make consciousness possible. The appropriate brain processes can be defined and we can see how they evolved. To quote the philosopher David Chalmers "We can now hope to find adequate functional explanations for these phenomena."
But the real challenge lies with the "hard" problems. Physics and mathematics show us that reality can be modelled in terms of forces, energy, particles, strings, dimensions etc. But how can the physical processes (the "easy problems") tell us anything about what it's like to be yourself and your subjective experiences? For example, we can explain why the colour blue is perceived differently to the colour red, but where do we get the subjective impression of “blueness”? Why does my brain activity make me feel something, rather than nothing?
A major leap forward occurred in the 1990s when brain imaging technology became available. We can now "see" thoughts happening; we can even "read" them, translate them. The approach to studying the biological basis of consciousness changed dramatically and enabled a collection of scientific hypotheses of consciousness to be developed for the first time ever. New frontiers in science are always defined by hypotheses, some conflicting, but eventually mature theories emerge and false hypotheses are discarded, and this is now happening in neuroscience. But there is a long way to go - the subjective essential question of “what it means” to be conscious remains a difficult question to answer scientifically. We need better methods of interpreting subjective data and that's a subject of intensive research.
So what does the research show so far? Here's a summary:
- A definite causal relationship between brain's structure and the functions of thought, intelligence, etc.
- The causal relationship is two way – thoughts can not only be read – they can be created by artificially stimulating the brain resulting in the person perceiving “experiences” that have not happened.
- Consciousness is the result of interactions among neurones in which the nerve impulse takes a particular path - a path that is not fixed, but changes with use, continuously modifying our perceptions of the world.
- The human brain in particular has a massive advantage over nearly all animals in that humans are born almost helpless, needing to learn a vast amount of skills to become self sufficient whereas animals are born “ready to go”. (This sounds like a disadvantage but it means the human brain has an unimaginably massive capacity to learn and “programme” itself during the first years of life, during which humans overtake the capabilities of all other animals.)
- Specific neuronal circuits & brain structures have been identified as playing a key role in conscious thought.
- Not all parts of the brain contribute equally to the processes of consciousness. There are many unconscious processes playing a role.
- The brain structures and processes cannot be considered in isolation - they operate as a whole in an integrated way - Receptors, neurones, ion channels, synapses, etc. all work collectively and simultaneously.
- Some argue that consciousness is essentially an illusion, created by the interaction of a vast number of neurones (86 billion). Just as a computer can use simple calculations to build up complex systems, our brains build memories and actions by the interaction of neurones.
For Further information: Refer to work published by Francis Crick; Jean-Pierre Changeux; Patricia Churchland; Christof Koch and go here for an overview.
1.1.3 Levels of Consciousness
1.1.3 Levels of Consciousness
The notion of a level of consciousness is a key construct in the science of consciousness. Not only is the term employed to describe the global states of consciousness that are associated with post-comatose disorders, epileptic absence seizures, anaesthesia, and sleep, it plays an increasingly influential role in theoretical and methodological contexts. However, it is far from clear what precisely a level of consciousness is supposed to be.
This paper argues that the levels-based framework for conceptualizing global states of consciousness is untenable and develops in its place a multidimensional account of global states.
This paper argues that the levels-based framework for conceptualizing global states of consciousness is untenable and develops in its place a multidimensional account of global states.
1.2 Non-Human intelligence - For Example Do Plants have Brains?
This is an important question because it opens the door to forms of intelligence that are “non-human” and even “non-animal”.
The simple answer is “no” - but the organ we call a brain is not the only way to “think” or display “intelligence” and even in animals with brains including us, there are other mechanisms which contribute to the mind, such as the nervous system. So a plant might not have a brain that we would recognise as an organ, but it has electrical, chemical and biological processes that provide the capacity for intelligence – albeit very primitive. There are no neurones in plants, but there is a communication network.
Plants can remember information and react to it due to internal systems that are similar to nervous systems in animals. For example, when light shines on a plant, signals can be measured in the plant which cause it to react in a certain way. But the signalling continues after the light is turned off; thereby demonstrating short term memory. The plant uses this stored information for various purposes, such as improving their acclimation and immune defences. Furthermore, different wavelengths of light produce a different response, suggesting the plants use the information to generate protective chemical reactions like pathogen defence or food production. Plants can remember this information for several days, and process it to bolster their defence mechanisms against seasonal diseases.
For further information refer to the research of Stanislaw Karpinski (Warsaw University of Life Sciences)
1.3 – Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence has existed since the 1950s and the first computers. This work revealed put the incredible complexity of the human brain into context. In the last 50 years, artificial brains have been developed which are able to only perform tasks requiring the most basic level of human intelligence. The challenge for technologists is to reproduce within a few decades, a system capable of consciousness and intelligence which has had billions of years of evolution to reach its current level of sophistication.
So it is not possible to build a computer that works just like the human brain today, but recent technology advances mean it now seems like a real possibility. A new project in Europe hopes to create a computer brain just that powerful as a human brain within the next six years.
https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en_GB
The only problem is computers that can process information as fast and efficiently as a human brain haven't been invented yet! The research hinges on creating a computer that's 1,000 times faster than those in use today, which are technically known as "exascale" computers. IBM, Cray, Intel, and and other organisations are committed to building the first exascale machines by approximately 2020.
It's estimated that using current technology, such a computer could require gigawatts of power, new forms of memory, and various other technologies not yet available. Although the project end date is 2020 there will be interim models developed which can be used for medical research, and within five years the brain project is expected to help with the design of new types of computer chips (in other words the artificial brain will help to build itself).
1.4 – Consciousness from Matter
1.4.1 “Space Brains”
1.4.1 “Space Brains”
If we accept the existence of non-human brains, and hence non-human intelligence, then we can consider intelligence arising from random fluctuations of matter and energy, especially given the hypothesis that our universe could have arisen as a similar random, fluctuation,
A few years ago, a thought experiment was proposed which suggested the existence of so-called Boltzmann brains - self-aware conscious entities with no external physical presence. The idea is that given a suitably extensive timescale, it's possible that a consciousness could form into a working mind, of its own accord, in space, using interstellar particles and plasma as its "brain".
This hypothetical possibility looks less likely given new understandings of string theory and the theory of multiple universes, which suggest that Boltzmann Brains are incredibly rare, if they exist at all. But maybe they do.
1.4.2 Panpsychism
What if everything in the universe might be conscious, or at least potentially conscious, or conscious when put into certain configurations? This is an ancient idea and perhaps not as bizarre as it sounds. If humans have consciousness, and there’s evidence that apes, dogs, pigs, birds and so on probably have it, where does it stop? There’s no logical no logical reason to draw the line at dogs or insects or even trees or rocks. It can be argued that a household thermostat or smoke detector might, in principle, be conscious.
Koch and Tononi argue that anything at all could be conscious, providing that the information it contains is sufficiently interconnected and organised. The human brain certainly fits the bill; so do the brains of cats and dogs, mice and insects and even plants, although it’s unlikely their consciousness resembles ours. In principle the same might apply to the internet, or a smartphone, or a thermostat. The ethical implications are unsettling: might we owe the same care to conscious machines that we bestow on animals? Koch, for his part, tries to avoid stepping on insects as he walks.
Tononi and Koch’s “integrated information theory” has actually been tested. A team of researchers led by Tononi has designed a device that stimulates the brain with electrical voltage, to measure how interconnected and organised – how “integrated” – its neural circuits are. Sure enough, when people fall into a deep sleep, or receive an injection of anaesthetic, as they slip into unconsciousness, the device demonstrates that their brain integration declines, too. Among patients suffering “locked-in syndrome” – who are as conscious as the rest of us – levels of brain integration remain high; among patients in coma – who aren’t – it doesn’t. Gather enough of this kind of evidence, Koch argues and in theory you could take any device, measure the complexity of the information contained in it, then deduce whether or not it was conscious.
1.4.3 Can a Human Being Exist without Consciousness?
Is it possible for a human being to exist without consciousness? In theory yes, and perhaps people do. After all, how would we know? An interesting case study is a patient, known as “DB”, with a blind spot in his left visual field, caused by brain damage. When shown patterns of striped lines, positioned so that they fell on his area of blindness, he was asked to say whether the stripes were vertical or horizontal. Naturally, DB protested that he could see no stripes at all. But when forced to guess DB got them right almost 90% of the time. Apparently, his unconscious brain was perceiving the stripes without his mind being conscious of them. One interpretation is that DB had a brain like any other brain, but partially lacking consciousness.
1.4.4 Consciousness as an Emergent Property
There is a school of thought that consciousness can never be
explained by neuroscience because consciousness is not a property of the matter
that the brain is made of. A typical
question from that angle is: “If matter is unconscious, how does it produce
consciousness?”
A hypothesis based on this argument is that the brain
provides consciousness because the matter that constitutes the brain is imbued
with consciousness. This can be extended to a wider hypothesis that all matter
in the universe is imbued with consciousness (see panpsychism in section 1.4.2)
Such arguments are examples of the fallacy of division, i.e.
the proposition assumes that something true for the whole must also be true of
all or some of its parts.
One counter-argument is that consciousness is an emergent property
of matter. In other words it is a property which a collection or system has, but
which the individual components do not have.
There are many examples of emergent properties
in nature which proponents of panpsychism readily accept. If they the claim the
concept of emergent properties is valid in nature except for consciousness,
then they are committing the fallacy of special pleading.
1.4.4.1 Examples of
emergent properties in nature
- Water has many properties that water molecules do not have (wetness, surface tension, etc.) Millions of water molecules are needed for these properties to emerge. So the molecules do not possess those properties and neither do the components of the molecules (hydrogen and oxygen atoms) and neither do the components of the atoms (electrons, protons, neutrons) and so on.
- The taste we refer to as “saltiness” is a property of salt, but it is not a property of sodium and chlorine, the two elements which make up salt. Saltiness is an emergent property of salt. It would be fallacious to claim that chlorine must be salty because salt is salty..
- The heart is made of heart cells, but heart cells don't have the property of pumping blood. A heart is needed to be able to pump blood. Thus, the pumping property of the heart is an emergent property of the heart. An individual heart cell does not have the property of pumping blood.
- Lipids are complex, naturally occurring molecules that have the property of forming membranes. The components of lipids (carbon, hydrogen and oxygen) do not possess this property of membrane formation - it only emerges when the molecules combine in a certain way.
- Electromagnetism is a process whereby the property of magnetism emerges in a lump of iron if it is wrapped in a coil of wire and an electric current passes through the wire. The property of magnetism in the iron disappears when the current is switched off.
1.4.4.2 Evidence for the emergent nature of Intelligence and Awareness
Given the evidence, it seems reasonable to assume that intelligence and awareness emerge in proportion with the complexity and configurations of matter. What is the evidence?
- The development of awareness in humans from birth to age 2
- The relative levels of intelligence and awareness in rocks; trees; insects; primates; humans and technology
- The effect on intelligence and awareness that arises from physical changes to the brain (surgery, physical damage, drugs, etc.)
1.5 - Dualism
Given the evidence, it seems reasonable to assume that intelligence and awareness emerge in proportion with the complexity and configurations of matter. What is the evidence?
- The development of awareness in humans from birth to age 2
- The relative levels of intelligence and awareness in rocks; trees; insects; primates; humans and technology
- The effect on intelligence and awareness that arises from physical changes to the brain (surgery, physical damage, drugs, etc.)
1.5 - Dualism
It is not unusual for Christian apologists to assert that mind/body dualism is a fact - in other words, the assumption that the mind can exist without matter, that consciousness exists without a brain. Dualism maintains a distinction between mind and matter - the brain dies but the mind can somehow survive, enabling an "afterlife" where we exist without our bodies but with our minds still functioning, and a God who requires no material presence but still has a mind. The counter position - monism - describes mind and matter as aspects of the same thing. These problems have been the foundation of philosophical debate for thousands of years, perhaps most famously from René Descartes. But dualism is not a fact.
Dualism was conceived long before neuroscience, fMRI scanning technology and of course long before the discoveries made in the last 25 years. The main reason for not accepting dualism is the absence of an empirically identifiable meeting point between the assumed non-physical mind and its physical extension. Most modern philosophers in this field maintain that the mind is not something separate from the body. For further detail refer to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy page 240-247.
We can also invoke Ockham’s Razor to counter dualism, because the mind-body split multiplies entities unnecessarily in much the way that a "demon" explanation of disease complicates the metaphysics of medicine compared to a germ theory. If dualism was true, the advances made in explaining intelligence scientifically would not be possible.
A good explanation of the philosophy of dualism can be found here…
1.5.1 - Dualism as an alternative to neuroscience
The fact that intelligence is created by brains and nervous systems (or similar mechanisms) can be difficult to grasp and is perhaps one reason why intelligence is considered by some people to have a supernatural basis. Two typical quotes from a supernatural basis…
"Our receptors access intelligence"
"Neurological processes describe how intelligence is accessed. The brain is our receptor."
Regarding the first quotation… The use of the word "receptor" in the context of the brain is confusing here, because receptors are proteins. The processes we refer to as "intelligence" are based on the transmission of electrical impulses which begin when a brain cell releases a chemical into the synapse, and that chemical binds with a receptor on the receiving, neuron. The receptors are just as important as the chemicals they receive, and studies show that receptors play a critical role in mood, learning, and the formation of social bonds. It is the receptors that are the "target" of drugs which treat a variety of psychiatric disorders. So it's clear that receptors don't "access" but rather they receive data, and the data flow and data processing is how intelligence is manifested.
1.5.2 - Intelligence is not accessed
The second quotation utilises a different meaning of receptor and appears to be saying that the brain "receives" intelligence and intelligence is "accessed". Perhaps the analogy here is that the brain is receiving intelligence in the way a telescope gathers light. This is the basis of dualism (intelligence is separate from the brain in the same way that light is separate to the telescope). In fact Intelligence is not accessed and the brain is not a receptor. The brain is a processor which manifests intelligence. Intelligence is not "received" - it is created by the brain. The definition of intelligence at the top of the page should make it clear that intelligence is not something that can be accessed - it is a range of mental abilities.
Computers can provide a useful analogy of brains and intelligence, although of course computers (currently) have many differences to the brain. Let us consider the Shrek 3D movie. A moving, talking, 3D image of Shrek is manifested by a computer using electrochemical processes. It is not "accessed". And that 3D rendering of Shrek and his world exists even if the computer is disconnected from viewing devices. Then we can't see Shrek and his world in 3D but he exists within the computer. Turn off the computer, and the manifestation of Shrek in the computer's "brain" no longer exists. The brain and mind are one in the same way that a computer and its 3D rendering of the world are one.
PART 2 – Explaining the spiritual realm
For further information refer to the work done by Dr. Michael Persinger, at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada and also research by Kevin Nelson such as The Spiritual Doorway
2.1 - Spiritual Experiences
Everyone has spiritual experiences – it's part of being human. We all experience convincingly realistic dreams sometimes featuring dead relatives or religious personalities. People have “out of body” and “near death” experiences, and sometimes these experiences can be life changing. Recent advances in neuroscience can now explain these experiences.
The first clues were the discovery that there are common mystical experiences related to specific areas of the brain. When those areas are destroyed, the mystical experiences go away. More evidence that the “spiritual realm” is a product of our brains emerged when a method for inducing religious, spiritual experiences was discovered without the use of drugs, herbs, hypnosis or surgery. It is possible to use electromagnetic impulses to induce the experience of "god." Volunteers who participated in the experiments had some very profound experiences which most said would be life-changing had they not understood the basis of the experiment.
How does this experiment work? Very small electrical signals are induced in the brain cells of the temporal lobes and other selected areas of the brain just above and forward of the ears. These areas produce specific brainwaves (known as the "Forty Hertz Component") which are present whenever you are awake or when you are in REM sleep but are absent during the deepest, dreamless sleep. What the "forty hertz component" does is not clear, but it is always present during the experience of "self." We cannot have a "me" experience without the forty hertz component.
This means the forty hertz component is essential to our experience of self. We cannot experience our sense of individuality without it. Turning off the forty hertz component also turns off the sense of individuality which your brain uses to define "self" - so the brain 'defaults' to a sense of infinity. The sense of self expands to fill whatever the brain can sense, which some describe as becoming "one with the universe."
There are two temporal lobes in the brain and occasionally, communication between the two get out of synchronisation. When this happens, the result is that the right-hand lobe's sense of self becomes experienced as a separate presence by the left-hand lobe, and this is the experience of the “God presence” - an overwhelming sense of presence, an inescapable feeling that “someone” or something transcendent is there.
2.2 - Meditation as a doorway to the Spiritual Realm
Many highly experienced meditation practitioners feel an experience of transcending the here and now when in deep meditation - a sense of being outside of time and space. A brain-scanning technique called SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography) has determined how these experiences arise by studying the brain images of Tibetan Buddhist meditation practitioners with decades of practice, and also with nuns who have devoted several hours every day to intense prayer over several decades.
The results show that the pre-frontal cortex, which controls attention, is highly stimulated because meditation requires a great deal of concentration. Meanwhile the superior parietal lobe, the centre that processes information about space, time and the orientation of the body in space, is suppressed and quiet. Therefore any sense of time, space or even “existing” in the world is suppressed and this feeling of not being "in the world" leads to an "other-worldly" experience. People who have this experience describe it as being in a "spiritual realm."
The experienced has been reproduced on volunteers by electrically suppressing activity in the superior parietal lobe and when the volunteers were the Tibetan monks and the Franciscan nuns, they all reported that the experience was identical to their own meditative experiences.
2.3 - Near Death experiences
Near death experiences are explained in the same way. One's sense of orientation is lost when the superior parietal lobe shuts down. The 'self' no longer feels anchored to the body - the sense of self being in the body is lost, and this results in a feeling that one is ascending away from the ground. The associated vision of a tunnel is produced by the visual cortex losing its sensory input, and beginning to shut down. The light at the end of the tunnel is the result of the brain's visual cortex 'looking' for sensory input it cannot find. Visions of beautiful gardens or landscapes are the result of the memory centres acting on the areas of the brain that organise visual inputs into things we recognise, but these are operating with a near-total absence of sensory input.
These experiences can have a deep, profound feeling of reality to them because the centres of the brain that are producing the experience are cut completely off from sensory inputs that would cancel out the 'realness' of the experience - in other words, the centres of the brain that enable us to tell the difference between dreaming and being awake, real versus imagined.
The upshot of all this is that apparent evidence for the existence of a “spiritual realm” can easily be explained by the material processes within the brain.
2.4 - Supernatural Explanations Provided by our Ancestors are Evidence of a "Spiritual Realm"
Our human ancestors had the same curiosity about the natural world that we do. But they had a lot less information, in fact they originally had no information at all. Human knowledge develops over time as we learn more and are better able to test our ideas. Each generation builds on the knowledge of the previous generation. The accuracy of an explanation depends on the accuracy of the information available. And it is perfectly easy to understand how our ancestors had no option but to invent gods, demons, fairies, elves, dragons and spirits to explain the natural world. Douglas Adams provides an excellent description of the process:
Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let's try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he's begun to take a little charge of; he's begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he's made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we'll come and we'll find that the animals have now got thicker coats.
Early man, who's a tool maker, doesn't have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert - he even manages to live in New York for heaven's sake - and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn't have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says “I'll have it off him”. Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better.
Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day's tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in - mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can't get you; in front of him there's the forest - it's got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water - water's delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here's cousin Ug and he's caught a mammoth - mammoth's are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it's fantastic.
But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, 'well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in' and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says 'So who made this then?'
Who made this? - you can see why it's a treacherous question. Early man thinks, 'Well, because there's only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he's probably male'. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , 'If he made it, what did he make it for?' Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, 'This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely' and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.
Part 3 - The Mind Cannot Result from Matter
This section consists of questions posed by a Christian who believes that the mind can never be explained by materialism...
Q3.1
“Intentionality”. Matter has no meaning unless that meaning is imparted to matter by a mind. For example, ink on a page is matter and has no meaning unless a mind observes the ink and provides that meaning. So if matter isn’t the source of meaning, then how can matter (such as brain tissue) be the entire cause of the mind? There must be something else.
This is a false analogy because brain is not static matter like ink on a page. The brain is a dynamic, living organ. It uses energy to perform functions, process information, model its surroundings, communicate, etc. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain (or similar organs in more primitive organisms). Consider another emergent property, the “wetness” of water. A water molecule is not wet – the “wetness” emerges with many water molecule together.
Q3.2
“Qualia”. A key feature of the mind is subjective experiences such as pain. But there is no law of physics that invokes subjectivity. How can we say something exists according to science if we can’t measure it?
The first part of the question is true but it’s also true that there are hardly any single features of reality that reduce to a specific law (perhaps none!) so this is just a straw man. Emergent phenomena, such as consciousness, or even a far simpler example such as “wetness” (see Q1) are more than the sum of their parts. Also, although pain might be a subjective experience, it is a real experience and it can be measured and analysed. And it obviously exists! Evidence shows that pain results when specific nerve endings send signals to the brain. (Without this mechanism it would be extremely difficult to avoid physical harm and we would struggle to live beyond a few years). Given that we can also develop painkilling drugs, it is obvious that pain is a function of the brain. Without the corresponding brain activity, there is no pain.
The final part of the question suggests that anything we cannot directly measure is beyond science and therefore supernatural. This is factually incorrect - we detect and explain phenomena all the time even if they cannot be directly measured. Sub atomic particles are a classic example. Another example are germs – doctors and nurses eventually figured out that washing their hands after dealing with dead bodies reduced the morality rates of the patients they dealt with afterwards – even though germs could not be detected.
Q3.3
The matter in our brains undergoes a continual turnover throughout our lives, in fact most of the matter in your brain now is completely different to the matter to what was there just ten years ago. Yet, we remain the same person with the same sense of identity throughout our lives. What property then is the “same” that accounts for you being the same, if it’s not matter?
It is not true to say that our identities do not change over time, but that change is not caused by the turnover of atoms. Although the matter in our brains (and bodies) changes over time, there is no profound change in the brain’s organisation or structure, unless someone is unfortunately the victim of some kind of traumatic brain damage. Evidence shows that it is the pattern of organisation within the brain – the way in which neurons are connected to each other – that determines your personality and identity – not the individual atoms which come and go on a routine basis. We can compare the MRI scans of a patient over time and see that their brain at 35 looks pretty much the same as the brain at 25. But there are some changes of course, especially at the level of synapses, dendrites, and axons. They change every day as we gain experiences and mature.
People’s identities change over time for this reason (but not profoundly). As we mature from childhood to adulthood our brain’s organisation changes significantly, and so do our personalities and identities. We change as our brain changes. If we survive to old age then our brains will probably atrophy and may develop tangles and other marks of senility – and our mental abilities and personality will change too.
So, there is no evidence that our brains are undergoing profound changes while our identities or our “self” is not. In fact evidence tends to support the materialist approach that the mind is the result of brain states and functions.
Q3.4
I, and only I, experience my thoughts first-hand. I can choose to describe them to others, and others may be able to explain better than I some of the ramifications of my thoughts, but only I experience them. Matter does not have this property, so how can matter be the entire cause of our thoughts?
This is a repeat of the false analogy in Q3.1. It is a disanalogy to compare brain activity to inert matter because the brain is not inert. It is true that only a brain can experience its own activity but that’s true whether the mind is a result of brain activity or not. In addition, very recent technology advances enable brain signals to communicate directly with devices such as artificial limbs or computers. So we are now reaching a stage where it is not only a brain that can experience its own activity.
Q3.5
Technology such as lie-detectors and fMRI do not enable other people to experience my thoughts. All they detect are material expressions of my brain activity. This is similar to me talking. This is entirely unlike matter, so how can thoughts just be functions of a material brain?
All this does is highlight a current limitation in technology. A direct connection from one brain to another would enable person A to experience the thoughts of person B.
The most accurate methods are invasive, requiring detectors planted deep in the brain. Much can be done with fMRI today but it is a technology in its infancy.
For instance, using fMRI scans, scientists can reconstruct a face that a person is viewing, as reported in a March 2014 study in the journal Neuroimage. The study was led by Alan Cowen, then an undergraduate at Yale University, who now studies with Gallant in graduate school.
Incorrigibility means the unassailable knowledge of one’s own thoughts. If I am thinking of the colour red, no one can credibly refute that fact.
It’s true that no one can refute it but then again, the person having the thought can’t prove they are having that thought. But this is just a limitation of access to someone else’s brain. If we gain direct access to brain activity with fMRI technology, a simple thought such as the colour red will display a tell tale electrical signal every time that thought occurs.
Q3.7
Matter is governed by fixed laws, and if our thoughts are entirely the product of brain chemistry, then our thoughts are determined by brain chemistry. But chemistry doesn’t have “truth” or “falsehood,” or any other values for that matter. It just is. So if the mind is entirely caused by matter, how can free will exist?
The question is a tautology because it begins by saying materialism cannot explain free will, and it asserts that free will exists, therefore materialism is wrong. The assumption that free will exists may be false. Ironically, the assumptions in the question suggests that the best explanation is that free will does not exist! For a detailed discussion on free will, click here. But the bottom line here is that the mind could have a material cause, whether free will exists or not.
Q3.8
Materialism can’t explain the mind, because the salient characteristics of mental states — intentionality, qualia, persistence of self-identity, restricted access, incorrigibility, and free will — do not admit material explanations.
Neuroscience is obviously restricted to studying physical phenomena, and this is true of all science. But that’s not an issue because science continues to explain reality by providing models based on that method and the rate of discovery seems to be increasing over time. There will always be ideas which require a philosophical or even spiritual approach, and they are in a different domain to science because they are unfalsifiable. But the mind, intelligence and consciousness do not fall under that category.
Q3.9
Consciousness is difficult and perhaps impossible to define.
If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. In this central sense of "consciousness", an organism is conscious if there is something it is like to be that organism, and a mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state. Sometimes terms such as "phenomenal consciousness" and "qualia" are also used here, but I find it more natural to speak of "conscious experience" or simply "experience". Another useful way to avoid confusion (used by e.g. Newell 1990, Chalmers 1996) is to reserve the term "consciousness" for the phenomena of experience, using the less loaded term "awareness" for the more straightforward phenomena described earlier. If such a convention were widely adopted, communication would be much easier; as things stand, those who talk about "consciousness" are frequently talking past each other.
This section consists of questions posed by a Christian who believes that the mind can never be explained by materialism...
Q3.1
“Intentionality”. Matter has no meaning unless that meaning is imparted to matter by a mind. For example, ink on a page is matter and has no meaning unless a mind observes the ink and provides that meaning. So if matter isn’t the source of meaning, then how can matter (such as brain tissue) be the entire cause of the mind? There must be something else.
This is a false analogy because brain is not static matter like ink on a page. The brain is a dynamic, living organ. It uses energy to perform functions, process information, model its surroundings, communicate, etc. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain (or similar organs in more primitive organisms). Consider another emergent property, the “wetness” of water. A water molecule is not wet – the “wetness” emerges with many water molecule together.
Q3.2
“Qualia”. A key feature of the mind is subjective experiences such as pain. But there is no law of physics that invokes subjectivity. How can we say something exists according to science if we can’t measure it?
The first part of the question is true but it’s also true that there are hardly any single features of reality that reduce to a specific law (perhaps none!) so this is just a straw man. Emergent phenomena, such as consciousness, or even a far simpler example such as “wetness” (see Q1) are more than the sum of their parts. Also, although pain might be a subjective experience, it is a real experience and it can be measured and analysed. And it obviously exists! Evidence shows that pain results when specific nerve endings send signals to the brain. (Without this mechanism it would be extremely difficult to avoid physical harm and we would struggle to live beyond a few years). Given that we can also develop painkilling drugs, it is obvious that pain is a function of the brain. Without the corresponding brain activity, there is no pain.
The final part of the question suggests that anything we cannot directly measure is beyond science and therefore supernatural. This is factually incorrect - we detect and explain phenomena all the time even if they cannot be directly measured. Sub atomic particles are a classic example. Another example are germs – doctors and nurses eventually figured out that washing their hands after dealing with dead bodies reduced the morality rates of the patients they dealt with afterwards – even though germs could not be detected.
Q3.3
The matter in our brains undergoes a continual turnover throughout our lives, in fact most of the matter in your brain now is completely different to the matter to what was there just ten years ago. Yet, we remain the same person with the same sense of identity throughout our lives. What property then is the “same” that accounts for you being the same, if it’s not matter?
It is not true to say that our identities do not change over time, but that change is not caused by the turnover of atoms. Although the matter in our brains (and bodies) changes over time, there is no profound change in the brain’s organisation or structure, unless someone is unfortunately the victim of some kind of traumatic brain damage. Evidence shows that it is the pattern of organisation within the brain – the way in which neurons are connected to each other – that determines your personality and identity – not the individual atoms which come and go on a routine basis. We can compare the MRI scans of a patient over time and see that their brain at 35 looks pretty much the same as the brain at 25. But there are some changes of course, especially at the level of synapses, dendrites, and axons. They change every day as we gain experiences and mature.
People’s identities change over time for this reason (but not profoundly). As we mature from childhood to adulthood our brain’s organisation changes significantly, and so do our personalities and identities. We change as our brain changes. If we survive to old age then our brains will probably atrophy and may develop tangles and other marks of senility – and our mental abilities and personality will change too.
So, there is no evidence that our brains are undergoing profound changes while our identities or our “self” is not. In fact evidence tends to support the materialist approach that the mind is the result of brain states and functions.
Q3.4
I, and only I, experience my thoughts first-hand. I can choose to describe them to others, and others may be able to explain better than I some of the ramifications of my thoughts, but only I experience them. Matter does not have this property, so how can matter be the entire cause of our thoughts?
This is a repeat of the false analogy in Q3.1. It is a disanalogy to compare brain activity to inert matter because the brain is not inert. It is true that only a brain can experience its own activity but that’s true whether the mind is a result of brain activity or not. In addition, very recent technology advances enable brain signals to communicate directly with devices such as artificial limbs or computers. So we are now reaching a stage where it is not only a brain that can experience its own activity.
Q3.5
Technology such as lie-detectors and fMRI do not enable other people to experience my thoughts. All they detect are material expressions of my brain activity. This is similar to me talking. This is entirely unlike matter, so how can thoughts just be functions of a material brain?
All this does is highlight a current limitation in technology. A direct connection from one brain to another would enable person A to experience the thoughts of person B.
The most accurate methods are invasive, requiring detectors planted deep in the brain. Much can be done with fMRI today but it is a technology in its infancy.
For instance, using fMRI scans, scientists can reconstruct a face that a person is viewing, as reported in a March 2014 study in the journal Neuroimage. The study was led by Alan Cowen, then an undergraduate at Yale University, who now studies with Gallant in graduate school.
Researchers analyzed how subjects responded to 300 faces
while receiving fMRI scans, creating a statistical "library" of the
way the brain reacts to facial images. They then used a computer algorithm to
generate a mathematical description of the faces based on brain activity
patterns.
Then, researchers scanned the six participants again
while they viewed a new set of faces. By comparing the fMRI data from the 300
faces to the new scans, scientists were able to digitally draw the second set
of faces that the participants saw based on brain activity.
The computer-reconstructed faces were not exact, but
people were able to identify them, and researchers could sufficiently compare
the pixel information between the reconstructions and originals by computer,
accurately matching them between 60% and 70% of the time.
Q3.6 Incorrigibility means the unassailable knowledge of one’s own thoughts. If I am thinking of the colour red, no one can credibly refute that fact.
It’s true that no one can refute it but then again, the person having the thought can’t prove they are having that thought. But this is just a limitation of access to someone else’s brain. If we gain direct access to brain activity with fMRI technology, a simple thought such as the colour red will display a tell tale electrical signal every time that thought occurs.
Q3.7
Matter is governed by fixed laws, and if our thoughts are entirely the product of brain chemistry, then our thoughts are determined by brain chemistry. But chemistry doesn’t have “truth” or “falsehood,” or any other values for that matter. It just is. So if the mind is entirely caused by matter, how can free will exist?
The question is a tautology because it begins by saying materialism cannot explain free will, and it asserts that free will exists, therefore materialism is wrong. The assumption that free will exists may be false. Ironically, the assumptions in the question suggests that the best explanation is that free will does not exist! For a detailed discussion on free will, click here. But the bottom line here is that the mind could have a material cause, whether free will exists or not.
Q3.8
Materialism can’t explain the mind, because the salient characteristics of mental states — intentionality, qualia, persistence of self-identity, restricted access, incorrigibility, and free will — do not admit material explanations.
Neuroscience is obviously restricted to studying physical phenomena, and this is true of all science. But that’s not an issue because science continues to explain reality by providing models based on that method and the rate of discovery seems to be increasing over time. There will always be ideas which require a philosophical or even spiritual approach, and they are in a different domain to science because they are unfalsifiable. But the mind, intelligence and consciousness do not fall under that category.
Q3.9
Consciousness is difficult and perhaps impossible to define.
True. Chalmers explains…
If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. In this central sense of "consciousness", an organism is conscious if there is something it is like to be that organism, and a mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state. Sometimes terms such as "phenomenal consciousness" and "qualia" are also used here, but I find it more natural to speak of "conscious experience" or simply "experience". Another useful way to avoid confusion (used by e.g. Newell 1990, Chalmers 1996) is to reserve the term "consciousness" for the phenomena of experience, using the less loaded term "awareness" for the more straightforward phenomena described earlier. If such a convention were widely adopted, communication would be much easier; as things stand, those who talk about "consciousness" are frequently talking past each other.
Part 4 - "Using the brain to explain intelligence is like defining an antenna through its manufacturing processes."
4.1 - Disanalogy vs Analogy
There are two fundamental disanalogies in the above statement.
- Firstly, the biological analogy for the “manufacturing process” of an antenna – or any man made object – would be evolution. That would explain how the brain came to exist.
- Secondly, intelligence is manifested by the brain, so to use the antenna as an analogy requires us to determine what an antenna manifests, and this is a voltage across its terminals.
So, the analogy should be that using the structure of the brain and its physical processes to explain intelligence, is like using the structure of the antenna and its physical processes to explain the voltage at its terminals.
But this is still a weak analogy as an antenna does no processing, but a brain does. So a better analogy for the brain would be a computer, and the output from the computer's processes can be considered to be its “intelligence”. These outputs are “private” to the computer – simply observing a computer would give us no clue as to what the computer is “thinking”. But we can “read its thoughts” by decoding its output into visual images on a monitor. This is analogous to an fMRI scan reading the thoughts in a human brain.
The antenna is however truly analogous to an ear or eye – receiving data which is converted into tiny electrical signals, which could then be processed by a computer (or brain). The analogy is expanded below – using the brain and intelligence, and technology.
4.2 - Modelling Reality from Information Received
Every living thing has to create a model of its environment in order to survive. The sophistication of the living thing's brain determines the sophistication of the model. Let's start with the basic steps of how information arrives from our surroundings and provides input to the models we create...
Technology Example
|
Biological Example
|
Low frequency electromagnetic radiation (radio) travelling through space or the atmosphere, causes an electro-chemical reaction in the antenna
|
Medium frequency electromagnetic radiation (light) travelling through space or the atmosphere, causes an electro-chemical reaction in the retina
|
This results in small voltages across the terminals of the antenna
|
This results in small voltages in photosensitive proteins.
|
The changing voltages create an electrical signal which travels through wires to a radio receiver (essentially a computer)
|
The changing voltages create an electrical signal which travels down the optic nerve to the part of the brain known as the visual cortex.
|
The computer has a number of processing circuits which process the data from the antenna. The first processes clean the data, removing interference and parsing gaps in the signal.
|
The visual cortex has a number of circuits which process the data from the eye. The first processes detect edges, colours and motion.
|
The second set of processors render the signal into sound (or visual) models of the information captured by the antenna
|
The second set of processors specialise in detecting faces and complete objects. The processors combine to render a visual model of the information captured by the eye.
|
Some devices will analyse the incoming data and use this to control mechanisms which move the antenna to improve or enhance the incoming signal.
|
Data streams in separate directions to provide information for eye & limb movements
|
The interesting bits here are to do with what we loosely refer to as “intelligence” in steps 4 and beyond. The “visual models” exist within the computer. The radio “perceives” its model of the information it receives – but that’s no good to us. We need to perceive it ourselves. So we connect the device to a monitor and/or speakers, so that we can observe the model that is rendered inside the computer’s “mind”.
The brain is similar. It renders a model based on the signals it has received which we perceive. If we could connect our brains to monitors, we could perceive the models that other peoples’ brains are perceiving. Technology now exists to do this, but the images are very low resolution and there’s a long way to go before we can accurately “read” peoples minds. This will have major benefits for people in comas or who have "locked in " syndrome. But that's another subject.
Blind people have no eyes – but they have a visual cortex which means they can use it to render models of the world around them – but instead of data from the eye, the visual cortex uses some of the data from other senses. Blind people can’t “see” but they can “visualise”.
The vision processors in the brain can render images without any data from the eyes. They can use data from memories which can be reprocessed to create dreams. We can consciously create visual images by deliberately willing the visual processors to create images. This also happens subconsciously. If I tell you not to think about a pink elephant, your visual cortex will instantly render a model of a pink elephant.
It is also possible to trigger visual models in the brain by directly stimulating the visual cortex with electrical signals from an electrode, or by using chemicals (drugs). In this way you can visualise things you've never seen! The dangerous side to this is that you would have memories of having seen things that you never saw. Your brain has been hacked! If we use our computer analogy, this is as if we disconnected the antenna and instead created a stream of data from another computer program, instead of radio waves. We've hacked into the computer
And what of the source of these radio waves? They could be man made from a radio show, or natural from a distant quasar. The computer’s processors can render them in a way that suits our preferences. This rendering does not necessarily match reality (but what is reality?). A radio presenter’s voice can be modified by the processors to sound richer, or higher pitched, or more sibilant, etc. The way he "sounds" to you might not be the way he "sounds" to me - but we can both name him! The signals from a distant quasar can be rendered into a full colour, 3D visual model which helps us understand the nature of the quasar even though we can’t see any light from it and the colours we’ve used to render it are false. Again, our brains do the same thing. I have no idea if what you see as “blue” is actually the same as I see blue. But it doesn’t matter. We each have a model that works. We each call it “reality” even though the models are different!
So... antenna is analogous to an eye or ear. Brain is analogous to a computer, and intelligence is analogous to the rendering of a model created by the computer's programs.
Or maybe consider an internet discussion board. It doesn't exist as a physical artefact or object. It is abstract - but real - just like intelligence. At its lowest level it is bits and bytes. Somewhere in California there is a server which renders the entire site. That server "perceives" the site in some way. It contains a model of the site that we cannot perceive. What we can do is connect monitors to that server and program the server to render the website on a monitor so we can see it. But if all the PC monitors in the world were broken so that the website could not be seen - it would still exist, as a model, inside the computer.
Now a computer is a very loose analogy to a brain because the brain is trillions of times more complex and massively parallel. But hopefully, that analogy helps to explain how intelligence can abstract, intangible, but also very real, and a product of electro-chemical processes.
No comments:
Post a Comment