Chapter 13: Complexity and Entropy:
Human Creativity vs. the Heat Death of the Universe
Entropy, Complexity and Life
According to one of the most basic laws of physics, known as "the second law of thermodynamics", the amount of disorder - or "entropy" - in the universe is constantly increasing. However, this does not mean that order or organization or complexity cannot increase anywhere in the universe - it can, but only at the expense of a yet greater net increase in disorder in the universe as a whole. Thus the net entropy of the universe as a whole always increases, even for processes which cause a local increase of order and complexity.
This means that the entropy of the universe was at a minimum at the big bang, and has increased since then. However, looking at the universe at its different stages, one is struck by the increase in order and complexity, rather than in the increase in chaos.
Guided by gravitational attraction, planets are formed from chaotic combinations of gases, so that the resulting planet has a much more complex structure than the material it was formed from. Nevertheless, when all the subtle aspects of the process of planetary formation and its effect on the surrounding space are taken into account, it can be shown that it gives rise to a net increase in entropy. (Furthermore, although the action of the gravitational force leads to greater order, so that it would seem that order is increasing in the universe, and was at a minimum at the big bang, when taking into account the expansion of space-time which is an unavoidable consequence of the same law of nature which 'produces' gravity, one can see that entropy always increases.)
Living organisms grow in complexity as they proceed from seed to plant, or by turning plant food into complex cells, or developing from sperm and egg to beings with brains. Our planet, due to the life on it, seems therefore to be tending towards increase in order rather than the reverse. However, the earth and the life on it is no less bound by the laws of entropy than any other entity; all the order they experience through growth is due to energy pumped from the sun, and the sun provides this energy from its tremendous hydrogen fusion explosions, explosions which tremendously increase the entropy, totaling an entropy increase far greater than the seeming decrease of entropy which it gives rise to on earth.
Some have compared the universe to a wound-up clock which is slowly running down, having started with a tremendous supply of order which it is granting to its present constituent parts. It would seem, however, that since there was no complex structure to the big bang, but rather a uniform one, the initial state of the universe was not one of order, of a 'wound-up clock', but rather of chaos, disorder, a 'run-down clock'. It thus seems paradoxical that it should contain all the potential for complex order in the universe as it exists today. However, one can see the process of universal development from the big bang to today, and onward, as that of a continual increase in complexity, accompanied by an increase in the total entropy.
The Complexity of the Human Brain
By far the most complex entity known to humanity is the human brain itself, containing approximately ten billion interconnected nerve cells ("neurons") . To get an idea of this amount, we quote the following figures: There are twice as many neurons in each human brain than there are humans on this planet. Every day, in each human brain, 10,000 neurons die and are not replaced - a total of 300 million in a lifetime of 90 years - but this is only three percent of the total amount of neurons in the brain. For these 10 billion neurons to form in a human brain in the nine months between conception and birth, on the average one and a half million must form every hour of those nine months - 25,000 every minute[l]!
The complex interactions between neurons has no analogue in any other entity known to humanity, and even the total complexity of all the stars of our galaxy together is less than that of one human brain - although there are ten times as many stars in the galaxy as there are neurons in one human brain, these stars are not linked to each other in complex interactions as are neurons, and the neurons themselves possess a more complex structure than that do stars.
The quantitative difference in complexity between the human brain and any other physical system is so vast that it can possibly give rise to a qualitative difference, with new types of interactions generated by the complexity itself. According to some scientists, phenomena generated by the complexity of the human brain cannot be understood by the reductionist approach - they are not explicable as the result of the interactions of the atoms in the brain.
According to Nobel-Prize winning physiologist Roger Sperry [m]:
"The point is that human nature and these higher kinds of controls in nature don't reduce any more to physical and chemical mechanisms, but have to be reckoned with now in their own form, in their own right. Vital, mental, social and other higher forces, once evolved, become just as real as the evolved forces of molecules and atoms and must be given their due, over and above the elementary physical components."
These types of new forces or phenomena which may arise in a non-deterministic way from complex states of the universe are called 'emergent', and consciousness and free will may be an example.
Wholism and Consciousness
Physics generally treats of the interactions between two otherwise isolated systems. If all entities in the universe interact with each other in a significant manner however, it becomes impossible to define an individual entity. Accordingly, the conclusions drawn by the investigation of phenomena in which the effective linkage is insignificant, may be inapplicable in realms in which this interconnection is stronger. In fact, some scientists claim that the universe is an organic whole, and that any treatment of its fundamental properties which ignores this will lead to faulty conclusions. This would especially be the case where higher-level phenomena such as mental events are concerned.
In a wholistic universe, it is axiomatic that higher level phenomena will emerge as the result of the self-interaction of the universe. Some scientists feel that consciousness is not only a significant aspect of the universe, but it is non-derivable from any of the other forces or phenomena known to science. Indeed, one can speculate that the emergence of self-reflective phenomena such as consciousness might be a fundamental aspect of the workings of a wholistic universe.
The Uniqueness of Free-Willed Consciousness
Julian Huxley saw the emergence of moral consciousness as a turning point in the evolutionary process itself:
"It is only through social evolution that the world-stuff can now realize radically new possibilities. Mechanical interaction and natural selection still operate, but have become of secondary importance. For good or evil, the mechanism of evolution has in the main been transferred onto the social or conscious level...The slow methods of variation and heredity are outstripped by the speedier processes of acquiring and transmitting experience...
And in so far as the mechanism of evolution ceases to be blind and automatic and becomes conscious, ethics can be injected into the evolutionary process....it becomes possible to introduce...moral purpose into evolution."
According to Erich Fromm [italics in original]:
"....The religious need is rooted in the basic condition of existence of the human species.......the human species can be defined as the primate who emerged at the point of evolution where instinctive determination had reached a minimum and the development of the brains a maximum . This combination.....had never occurred before in animal evolution and constitutes, biologically speaking, a completely new phenomenon".
Using the terminology of Victor Frankl, one could say that the human being is unique in that it is driven at its most basic level by "the will to meaning". No other member of the evolutionary chain can be so described - and thus man is qualitatively different than his evolutionary forebears. This qualitative difference may have cosmic implications.
Conscious Evolution
As Huxley pointed out, the mechanism of evolution has ceased to be blind and automatic and has instead become conscious. Indeed, with the ability for manipulation of genes, for causing global ecological changes, destroying planets or making desert bloom, and by reaching into space, humans have become an important factor in the future evolution of life in the universe, and of the physical development of the universe itself.
As human or universal civilization grows, and accelerates the process of the increase of complexity by manufacture, agriculture, increased population, construction of complex machines and computers, there will be a corresponding acceleration in the increase of entropy. At some point, after all the stars have extinguished themselves by burning themselves to stellar ash, or conversely when the galaxies are linked in a universal civilization, the point will be reached at which there is no more raw material to develop, and entropy will begin eating away at the complex structures previously developed, until all order is lost, all complex structures reduced to chaos - the so called 'heat death of the universe'.
Creativity, Acausality, Free Will and Entropy
However, it may be that entropy is not necessarily all powerful, that the heat death of the universe can be avoided.
Generally, in mathematical and logical systems, complex data is constructed from simpler data. However, the amount of actual information in the newly derived result/data cannot be greater than the sum of the amount of information in the original data plus the amount involved in the reasoning process required to arrive at the new data.
That is, one cannot "create" "new information": the total amount of information in the universe remains the same - or decreases as entropy increases.
Computer programs can reach results only if they are given sufficient information, and thus computers are not creative because they can only do what they are programmed to do.
A machine can construct an object which has greater value, utility, beauty than does the sum of its parts, however the end product is still simply the sum of its parts and no more, and likewise all other physical processes.
If there is nothing beyond deterministic and random processes, then all art, philosophy, science, religion, music and so on are determined/random products of the big bang and the laws of nature. All philosophical dialogue becomes somewhat irrational since all discussions and difference of opinion - including heated discussions regarding the possible existence of free will - is a working out of the consequences of the big bang, and all reasoning and creativity is mechanical or random.
True creativity would perhaps seem to be impossible for humans as well, since it demands the production of a result from information which, by definition, is not sufficient to produce that result. Nevertheless, human intuition and creativity seem somehow to be exceptions. The very term 'intuition' means the understanding of something from information which is seemingly insufficient to produce that result, while 'creativity' means the production of something which is greater than the sum of its parts, something beyond the theoretical capability of machines, computers, or the actions of nature.
It may be that the unique ability of humans to create is related to their possession of a free-willed consciousness. If the essence of free-willed consciousness is acausality, then results need not be derived via causal chains of logic from more basic information and perhaps thus "new information" can indeed be "created". In addition, perhaps by the exercise of free-willed consciousness in creative activity, one can also decrease entropy by creating information - a true act of creativity in itself . In this way, human free-willed consciousness can be the unique factor in the universe which is acting to decrease the amount of entropy in it.
Only if there is a free willed consciousness can there be a consciously formed creative act which produces something beyond that which previously existed, and which can engage in meaningful philosophical and ethical dialogue as opposed to reading out a script written by the big bang and directed by the laws of nature.
Universal Integration
It is also possible that just as the emergence of consciousness is associated with the evolution of complex structures such as human brains, the aggregate of consciousness in the universe after an intergalactic civilization is established would reach a quantitative threshold level of complexity which would give rise to a qualitatively new phenomena, the emergence of a new level of being. Perhaps just as free-willed consciousness can through its creative and moral activity act to increase information and order, this higher level of being can be one for which entropy would be no barrier.
A Godelian connection to a Platonic realm of Truth would sallow the human mind to transfer information into the physical universe, increasing its complexity and integration while at the same time decreasing the total entropy.
Moral beings by their united activity would in this way catalyze the development of the universe toward total integration, rather than to the total disintegration of pure entropy predicted by the laws of nature as now known.
Free-willed consciousness acting through creativity and moral activity may be the factor which sustains the universe against its heat death, and which allows the universal purpose to unfold, as well as being the factor which allows the universe to exist at all.
Human Uniqueness
Human beings seem to be unique in various ways.
As Godel indicated, mathematics and mathematical speculation, lead to the possibility that somehow the human mind can perceive truths which are beyond the physical, that the human mind is in some way connected to a transcendant realm of Truth.
Furthermore, these truths cannot be produced by mechanical means, and it would seem that they are not realizeable by non-conscious entities. They are instead presumeably the product of creative thought and intuition, mental processes which cannot be duplicated by deterministic or random processes.
Humans are also unique in that although they know that "is" cannot produce "ought", they nevertheless comprehend the transcendant difference between good and evil; they are moral beings. They are also possesed of a free will which allows them to act in accordance with a moral code rather than according to the dictates of the determined/random universe.
Similarly, humans are unique in that they can engage in creative thought, producing from a given amount of information as input, a result which goes beyond it, something that is not possible for the realm of the deterministic/random. In the same way that free-will is beyond determinism and randomness, so is creative thought.
Creativity, Transcendence, and Genesis
Creating, and moral activity; both are transcendant, and beyond determinism/randomness. In the context of the creation and Eden accounts, of the free-willed conscious being created in the image of its creator, there is a natural link between creation and moral beinghood, between the human and the transcendant 'breath of the divine' which is imbued in him.
The enigmatic last few words of the creation account ("all the works which God created to do."), right before the introduction to the Eden account, are interpreted in traditional sources as implying that the creation is incomplete, and that humanity is challenged to perform that which is necessary to bring it to a proper completion.
The creation and Eden accounts tell of a creator creating a being in its own image, and challenging it to complete the creation. An act of creative will producing beings who can exercise an independent will. A transcendent being creating a being from deterministic/random matter-energy, 'earth', but imbuing it with its own breath, endowing it with a connection to the transcendent realm.
In the creation and Eden accounts we encounter a free-willed conscious transcendent being creating a free-willed conscious being with connection to the transcendent, a creative being in its own right, a moral being which is challenged to follow the correct path, which can then demand of its creator a fidelity to moral standards, as in the immortal challenge addressed to God by the patriarch Abraham: "will the judge of the whole universe not himself do justice?".
The Creation and Eden Accounts
In the creation account the universe begins in a state of chaotic disorder and procedes to a state of order, culminating in the creation of human free-willed consciousness, the factor which allows the universe to develop to greater order and complexity. This created being is then charged with the population of the earth and the harnessing of its power and potential, and as the concluding words of the creation account indicate according to the Midrash and Zohar, it is this being which is the factor which was created in order to complete the work of creation itself via its creative activity.
Furthermore, moral beings are to employ their free will to bring a moral order to events, fighting against, reducing, the chaotic and evil forces in the universe.
The final act of creation was the command to humanity to create, to be creative, to complete the creation of the six days. By combating the heat death of the universe via creative acts, humanity maintains the universe itself, so that the creation of humanity is the means whereby the otherwise completed universe is given the ability to maintain itself.
The Eden account describes the same role in the moral realm.
The universe is saved from physical and spiritual chaos and entropy, is sustained as a creative process, by the creative and moral activity of free-willed consciousness. Creation and the emergence of moral beings are thus linked, as the corresponding creation and Eden accounts are linked in Genesis.
The universal development was from chaotic big bang to the emergence of free-willed consciousness, and perhaps from there towards a higher state of being. Parallel to this, in Genesis the development is from chaos to moral beings, which according to traditional mystical sources, is the prelude to the time at which all human consciousness will be united in a higher level of being, to be reintegrated into the original creating consciousness.
Chapter 14: Infinitude, Complexity, and Mind
Introduction
Can human beings understand everything there is to know about the universe? Perhaps at least to understand everything but ourselves? Is our mind bound by the physical limitations of our brains? Is there anything special in this respect about a brain capable of making free-willed choices?
A Finite Brain Encountering an Infinite Universe
If the universe is infinite, then as finite beings we will be able to understand the universe only if it is very unsophisticated, having a low level of complexity. This would be the case for example if it is infinitely repetitive, so that all that needs to be known about the universe is contained in finite subsections of it.
If the universe is infinite but not repetitive in this way, any understanding of ours might be approximate, or hopelessly inadequate, and even if it was adequate for a while, it could suddenly overwhelm us when our limited understanding reaches its limit, or if conditions change unexpectedly.
Furthermore, if the universe is infinite and itself contains substructures that are infinite and complex, then we perhaps could not grasp these substructures either. In such a case, we might find that although our observations allow us to construct theories explaining certain phenomenon, we could not form adequate theories of the universe as a whole, or of large sections of it, nor of more fundamental aspects of even small portions of the universe. Instead, there would perhaps always be some necessary information always ahead of us, necessitating constant fundamental revisions in our understanding of the universe as more was studied, with no promise that an adequate theory would ever be achieved.
Our universe is certainly one that allow us to correctly predict many fundamental phenomena, so that the situation does not seem to be one of mismatch between us and the universe, between our mental capacity and the complexity of natural phenomena. However in the realm of mental phenomena themselves we are still rather novices, and we do not yet know what other realms await our research.
Our brains certainly seem finite, so we could grasp infinite structures only if we possess some other mechanism for attaining understanding, a mechanism which is infinite. As candidate, one can propose the mind, which is non-physical and therefore capable of grasping the infinite, and communicating it to the brain. However this type of interaction between the two leads us right back tot he mind-body problem.
If the universe is infinite and so is our brain capacity, then we have the possibility of comprehending an infinite universe if it is not too infinitely complex even for our infinite brains. However the idea that a finite piece of matter such as the brain could be infinite in some sense is difficult to accept.
If the universe is finite, then no matter how complex it is, at least in principle finite beings can understand it - so that there is hope that we can understand everything about the universe unless it is so complex that our brains are too limited for it.
Even in a finite universe, non-computable/non-modelable processes may be possible - processes which cannot be reduced to automatic or random ones. If so, then if our brain is limited to the computable, these non-computable processes or phenomena may be beyond us. Thus even in a finite universe, we may be inadequate to the task of understanding the universe. On the other hand, if the brain employs such non-computable processes (see Penrose), we might.......If the brain is non-computable while the inorganic universe is computable, we may find that our brains are the most interesting and sophisticated entities in existence.
In terms of the dualist viewpoint, even though our brains are finite or computable, our minds may be infinite or non-computable - so that there is no one-to-one mapping, no strict duality, but rather some purely mental realm as well, which again is scientifically problematic.
Free Will: Computability and Modelability
In order to qualify as free willed, our minds have to be not only non-computable but also non-modelable. However, that they be non-computable and non-modelable would mean that nothing could predict our decisions, but nevertheless there would be no guarantee that they are free willed, so that these are necessary but perhaps not sufficient conditions for our minds to be truly free-willed.
However, as by definition free-willed choice involves non-modelable interactions, if free will exists the universe is necessarily non-modelable. This is another example of how knowledge of the existence of free will would inform us of an important property of the universe which non-free-willed beings might not even be able to conceive of.
Free Will: Finitude vs. Infinitude
Does the brain have to be infinite in order for it to be free willed? Since free will is a quintessentially mental process, it does not seem that free will is dependent on the brain or universe being infinite nor is it necessarily relevant whether or not all purely brain processes are predictable. (Note that although predictability implies non-freedom of the will, non-predictability does not imply freedom of the will, since exceedingly complex events can be random/determined/chaotic and therefore unfree, yet be so complex that they are unpredictable.)
Free Will and the Mental Realm
Non-computability and non-modelability are necessary conditions for free will to exist in the physical universe, but they are not necessary in the mental realm for free will to exist there. What seems relevant to the question of the existence of free will is therefore not whether the universe is infinite or not, but rather whether or not there is a physical universe, and if there is, if the mind is 'beyond' the physical brain. Once the mind is beyond the brain, it may not be necessary to postulate that either one is infinite.
On the other hand, if the mind is completely parallel to the brain, then since the actions following from the mental decisions are those following from the physical brain, there is no free will - indeed not only is there no free will but since a finite brain is theoretically predictable, the mind would be also, and this would mean that all mental events are predictable. Even if however the brain and mind were infinite, if the brain is independent of the mind - even though parallel - since physical events cannot be free-willed, there would be no free will in such a universe.
There would possibly be free will in the mental realm of this universe, but if there is no connection between the two realms, it would be meaningless to speak of the physical realm at all. If so, we are returned to the scenario of a purely mental universe, and in that case it may not be relevant to require the mind to be infinite since the problems with regard to free will arise only with respect to physical law, causality and the like, and no such difficulties with regard to free will arise in the consideration of free will existing in a mental universe. Indeed, if at its most basic level the universe were mental rather than physical, this might in itself be sufficient to allow for the operation of free will.
Conclusion
As we have seen from our discussion of quantum metaphysics, the fact that we are conscious - and perhaps free willed - is a matter of cosmic significance. Also, the anthropic principle showed us that much information can be gleaned about the fundamental structure of the universe simply from the fact that we are conscious, and possibly free-willed as well.
Knowledge of the fact of the existence of consciousness and of free will would also tell us more about the nature of the universe itself, as not all types of universe are sufficiently complex to support free-willed consciousness - for example a finite universe or a computable one may be insufficiently complex. Furthermore, not all types of universes imaginable to us are of an appropriate nature to allow the existence within them of free-willed consciousness - for example a purely material universe could not possibly contain free-will or consciousness.
Thus, the existence of consciousness or free will would tell us that the universe is not a purely physical one, and that the physical aspect possesses a certain minimal complexity, given by that of the human brain, two fundamental points about the universe.
Part V: The Mind-Body Problem:
There are two types of phenomena known to science - the physical and the mental. What is their relationship, and which is more fundamental? What is the fundamental nature of the universe?We explore the role of free will in this matter, and the relevance to the interpretation of the creation and Eden accounts.
Chapter 16: The "Otherness" of Consciousness: The mental realm of consciousness seems to be entirely decoupled from the physical universe. Physicists among others have pointed out the resultant 'otherness' of consciousness, and its unique nature. The 'mind-body' problem. 1.5 pages
Chapter 17: The 'mind-body' problem: Idealism and Free Will: Materialism, Idealism and Dualism. The mind body problem has haunted philosophy for ages but free will introduces an interesting twist, possibly tipping the scales towards a funda-mental reality to the universe. 2.5 pages
Chapter 18: The Physical Ramifications of the Existence of Consciousness: (The Effect of the Mental Realm on the Physical) xxxxxxx...... 2 pages
18b Transcendent Truths and the Unprovable Philosophical Speculations Based on Godel's ResultGodel, Human Transcendance and Free Will : Godel's result and its implictions regarding the connection of the human mind to the realm of reality underlying the physical universe studied by cosmology. The Eden account. 1 page
Chapter 19: The Evolution of Free-Willed Consciousness: Consciousness is not physical, and free will is transcendant - so how can they evolve? Where did they come from? What is the relationsip of these ideas with the creation and Eden accounts?: Complexity, Holism, and emergence: The Origin of Free Will; The Macroscopic, the Microscopic, and the Mind 4.5 pages
……………………………………………………………….
Chapter 16: The 'Otherness' of Consciousness
Introduction
There is as yet no unambiguous need for science to invoke consciousness in explaining any natural phenomena, and this has led some to question whether consciousness is a real phenomenon. However, it is clear to virtually everyone that they are conscious, and therefore the existence of consciousness can scarcely be denied.
Furthermore, consciousness is associated particularly with the human brain, and there is no scientific theory of the human brain as yet, and therefore the fact that it has not appeared unequivocally as yet in science cannot be taken as an indication of its non-existence. Since human behavior, brain states, and consciousness are still a mystery to science, there is room for a wide range of opinions among scientists regarding the existence, nature, and significance of consciousness.
Some psychologists have claimed that a complete theory of human behavior and brain-states could be built without reference to mental states, and that therefore there was no need to postulate the existence of a consciousness. In the words of the behaviorist psychologist J.B. Watson:
"Behaviorism claims that 'consciousness' is neither a defineable nor a usable concept."
However, we know of course that consciousness exists, and the question of whether or not it is necessary to invoke it in explaining human behavior is not directly relevant to the question of its existence. If consciousness exists - and we can barely conceive of the possibility that we are not conscious - then as a fundamental phenomenon in the universe it is of great interest to anyone who studies such things, for example physicists.
From the perspective of science, consciousness is 'other' than all other entities, whether they be electrons, gravitational fields, light waves. mountains, or brains. SO far the exact sciences can deal neither with the mind itself which is experiencing the events which the scientist studies, nor with the mental processes which led to the very construction of science.
A non-conscious robot scientist examining our brains with perfect precision would probably never determine that we are conscious. It could never access the sensations, only their physical correlates. Presumably it could arrive at an explanation for our behavior without invoking consciousness. So could a conscious human scientist, except that the scientist, knowing that she is conscious herself, will assume consciousness in us as well, but could not determine that from a physical examination. Exact science deals with the correlates of sensory perception - the events in the 'outside universe' which give rise to what we see, hear, and otherwise mentally sense, and the physical interactions within the brain which occur when we have these sensations. The sensations, however, are not themselves observable - science does not deal with these or with other mental events such as emotions, beliefs, and thoughts, even when they are correlates of physical events inside the brain itself.
The Existence and Significance of Consciousness
Consciousness is 'other' than all other phenomena studied by the scientist, and this endows it with a great significance.
In the following we will bring the statements on this topic made by many of the most eminent physicists of the last hundred years, virtually all of them Nobel Laureate physicists.
[The fact of their award of the Nobel prize does not of course mean that their statements are infallibe, especially since they are speculative rather than statements of scientific fact in that they deal with an area as yet poorly understood. Nevertheless the virtual unanimity of so many eminent physicists lends in itself someweight to their words.]
In Ernest Schroedinger's words:
"The physical world picture lacks all the sensual qualities that go to make up the Subject of Cognizance. The model is colourless and soundless and unpalpable. In the same way and for the same reason the world of science lacks, or is deprived of, everything that has a meaning only in relation to the consciously contemplating, perceiving and feeling subject. I mean in the first place the ethical and aesthetical values, any values of any kind, everything related to the meaning and scope of the whole display. All this is not only absent but it cannot, from the purely scientific point of view, be inserted organically."
According to the great mathematician and physicist Hermann Weyl:
"Between the physical processes which are released in the terminal organ of the nervous conductors in the central brain and the image which thereupon appears to the perceiving subject, there gapes a hiatus, an abyss which no realistic conception of the world can span. It is the transition from the world of being to the world of the appearing image or of consciousness."
According to Werner Heisenberg:
"There can be no doubt that "consciousness" does not occur in physics and chemistry, and I cannot see how it could possibly result from quantum mechanics. Yet any science that deals with living organisms must needs cover the phenomenon of consciousness because consciousness, too, is part of reality."
Another founding father of modern physics, Niels Bohr, said:
"The real problem is: How can that part of reality which begins with consciousness be combined with those parts that are treated in physics and chemistry?. . . Here we obviously have a genuine case of complementarity..."
Wolfgang Pauli, who was a founder of quantum physics, stated:
". . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality--the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical--as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously. . . .It would be most satisfactory of all if physics and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality."
Conclusion
Not only is consciousness 'other', and a mystery to science, but some eminent physicists have speculated that it is fundamental to the universe as a whole, to the very concept of the existence of the universe. Consciousness is a very real phenomenon, even a fundamental phenomenon, although it is mysterious in that it seems to be qualitatively different from all other known phenomena in the universe.
Chapter 17: "The Mind Body Problem" :
Idealism and Free Will
Introduction
Ghosts are claimed to be able to pass through walls, to shout and to generally present a frightful appearance. However, from the point of view of physics, the difficulty with ghosts is this very versatility. Only that which can emit or reflect light can be seen, and the emission or reflection of light is a very physical property, and therefore ghosts necessarily are at least partially physical. However a being which is physical enough to emit or reflect light is too physical to be able to pass through walls. Similarly with regards to howling and making any other noises.
The problem is then similar to that of a mind or consciousness in its interaction with matter - specifically, the piece of biological matter we call the brain. It would seem that the mind - or consciousness - is non-physical, and should therefore 'pass through' whenever endeavoring to establish contact with the brain.
Consciousness exists, and it is 'other' than matter, and the ability of the two to interact is mysterious, and to some so mysterious that it is said not to exist at all.
Three Positions: Materialism, Idealism, Dualism
Many people feel that reality can be divided into the categories of mental and physical. Materialists claim all is physical, idealists that all is mental, and dualist that both exist. We will examine the meanings of these positions, and the ramifications to them of the existence of a free-willed consciousness.
Materialism
Generally there is difficulty in understanding how a mental and physical realm can possibly interact. Some have tried to 'solve' this difficulty by proposing that there indeed exists no mental realm. This is the materialist view according to which all is matter - there is no mental realm, but rather mental phenomena are to the material world as is the software of a computer to the computer itself. However, whatever it is that materialists mean by their claim is not always clear, since we as opposed to software are conscious, and therefore we know that there is a mental realm.
An Idealist Position
To the non-materialist, the question is only whether or not there is a physical universe, and if there is, what connection there would be between the mental and physical universe. Since it is not scientifically necessary to postulate that there exists a physical universe, and this postulate gives rise to paradox, it can perhaps be stated that the assumption of the existence of a physical universe is unscientific.
The idealist does not eschew materialist language, because in speaking it is indeed convenient to attribute our perceptions to actual phenomena, and then to divide these into categories of: 'occuring in the outside physical universe'; physical events 'occuring in the brain'; and perhaps 'mental events'. However this is not meant to imply that there really are such phenomena, or that this division represents anything other than semantics.
As when we say that the sun 'rises' or 'sets', however, when such a semantic convenience is extended beyond its range of applicability, paradox results, at which point one must revert to the more correct understanding. If there is indeed no physical realm, then although the term 'physical' is useful, in order to avoid paradox there are contexts in which it is inappropriate.
Ideaistic sentiments were expressed by various eminent scientists: According to Nobel physicist Eugene Wigner (1964):
"There are two kinds of reality or existence - the existence of my consciousness and the reality or existence of everything else. The latter reality is not absolute but only relative. Excepting immediate sensations, the content of my consciousness, everything is a construct."
We earlier presented a quote from Sir Arthur Eddington to the effect that all the universe is simply 'part of the web of our consciousness.'
And, according to Sir James Jeans [c]: "I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe."
Dualism
According to dualists, the mental and physical universe exist side by side, with or without interactions between them, and if they interact there may or may not be a complete parallelism between all of the phenomena in one realm and those of the other realm.
Applied to humans, this means that there is a parallelism, at least to some degree, between the physical events in the human brain and the mental sensations - thoughts, emotions, and so on - associated with the brain. This can be stated concisely as a parallelism between brain and 'mind'.
Non-Interactionist Dualism
If mind is parallel to brain so that all mental events are correlates of brain states - every thought is a direct correlate of a brain event - then the causal chain leading up to any brain event is also the "cause" of the correlated mental event. (Not the reverse, since not all events in the physical universe have mental correlates, but all mental states have physical correlates.)
If all events in the physical universe are determined/random, then the mental states are also determined/random. Therefore there is no true rational thought, creativity etc - all thoughts are the result of determined/random chains of events.
For example, it may be that evolutionary selection criteria caused all people to have a delusion that they are acting rationally, under their own volition, rather than as playthings of some other force. They may also be programmed to feel morally responsible for their actions, even if they are told that their actions are determined, even if they learn that their feeling of moral responsibility is determined.....
From an outsider's perspective, the feelings of such beings, the belief that they are independent rational beings would be amusing or pathetic, while to the beings themselves the determined/random nature of their thoughts would not preclude their feeling that they are independent, that they are morally responsible - it could not do this, since they were programmed to feel independent and rational by the very forces of nature which they 'feel' themselves to be independent of.
However, there is a logical difficulty involved in non-interactionist dualism.
If what we think of as the physical universe is indeed one, then the fact that we know of its existence means that there is a connection between the physical and mental realms - that is, between the physical universe and the mental realm of our thoughts and conscious knowledge.
Since awareness of the physical universe by the mental realm is itself an interaction, in dualistic universes with parallel but non-interacting mental and physical processes conscious awareness of a physical universe is impossible.
If ours is such a 'parallel but non-interacting' universe, then we could not know of the existence of the physical universe parallel to our mental universe. Therefore, that which we think of as the physical universe is not really a physical universe but rather is simply a way we have of considering a certain group of our sensations, and there is no way of knowing if there is or is not a physical realm parallel to our mental universe.
Indeed, if there is no interaction between the physical and mental universes, it is meaningless to speak of it as one universe - they are two totally separate universes which cannot know of each other. Furthermore, since the only reason to suppose that there is a physical universe parallel to our mental one is because of our illusion of contact between the two, once we realize that this is an illusion, we can drop the assumption that there is anything other than our mental universe.
INSERT re: Leibnitz''z views..... Actually his idea is therefore irrelevant...
Universe of non-conscious beings - no difference to ours....
Free Will and Dualism
The existence of free will would similarly point to the idealistic - mental - nature of our universe.
As we said previously, a universe in which consciousness exists cannot be purely physical. Therefore as there can be no true will without consciousness, a universe in which will exists cannot be purely physical. In a purely physical universe, there is necessarily no consciousness, and therefore free will is impossible.
In dualistic universes, consciousness is possible. However, even in dualistic universes free will may not necessarily be possible. For example, in a universe with parallel but non-interacting mental and physical processes, free will is impossible, since if there is a true parallelism between the physical and the mental realms, then by definition all that occurs in the mental realm corresponding to a free willed decision has a counterpart in physical occurences in the brain, and if the two realms are truly non-interacting, then these physical events would have occured even in the absence of the mental realm. Therefore physical actions taken by a body at the behest of its brain are attributable to the physical brain, and the mental realm is totally irrelevant - and therefore these actions cannot be attributed to the operation of a free will.
In a universe in which mental events do not necessarily have a correlation in the physical brain, free will is possible if it involves this type of mental events, but then there is no way for free will to act in the physical universe - the will remains will and cannot be acted upon.
However we do not feel that our wills are powerless, and there is no a priori reason to assume that our universe is of this type.
In a purely mental universe, it would seem that processes such as free will are more natural than in all other types, and no paradoxes arise. In such a universe, although there exists no true physical realm, one could conveniently divide reality into categories reminiscent of a dualistic universe: mental events which are experienced as though they are associated with an 'outside physical universe'; mental events which are associated with the perception that they exist in a 'physical brain'; 'pure' mental events.
Conclusion
If we are truly free-willed, then either we inhabit a purely mental universe, or we are part of an interactionist dualistic one.
Great difficulties of science, logic, and metaphysics, confront the assumption of the existence of a physical universe to which we are connected, which is perceived by our consciousness, and on which our free will acts. Any type of connection between the physical and mental is however counter to all logical and scientific understanding. Thus, postulating that there really is a physical universe seems to involve a contradiction, and illogical anti-scientific conclusions.
The opposite assumption - that the universe is purely mental - is on the other hand paradox free.
We shall see that this picture of the universe as a purely mental construct has been broached by various prominent physicists, and appears as well as a major theme in Jewish mystical teachings. We shall also see that the themes of free-willed consciousness and the mental nature of the universe are intertwined in the Kabbalah, and that this connection will help shed light on the meaning of the creation and Eden accounts as well.
............
Chapter 18: The Physical Ramifications of the
Existence of Consciousness
It is an unequivocal fact that consciousness exists, and that it is certainly not a physical entity. Indeed it is the existence of the physical universe which is more in doubt than the existence of the mental realm, for it may well be that what we experience is purely mental sensations from mental sources, which we mistakenly attribute to the existence of a physical universe 'outside us'.
As to the question of the possibility of interaction between a mental and physical realm - if there is a physical universe as is generally supposed in physics, then there is a connection between the mental realm of consciousness and the physical universe simply by virtue of the fact that consciousness is aware of the physical universe. That is, since the mental realm indubitably exists, if the physical universe that we sense also exists, this necessarily implies that whether it is comprehensible or not, the physical and the mental can interact.
Measuring the Effect of Consciousness
Whatever consciousness is, and however it interacts with the physical universe, physical theory implies that there should be some theoretically measureable consequence of its existence and of this interaction with the physical.
One can postulate a minimal type of interaction appropriate to the nature of consciousness - that consciousness does not change the state of the universe, but rather ita effect on the universe is that consciousness allows it to become manifes and brings it into phycical reality, as implied by various approaches to quantum metaphysics. This serves as a resolution of the mind body problem in the sense that consciousness need not "interact" with the physical other than in the very subtle sense of making the physical universe manifest.
Consciousness is not a physical entity and therefore does not seem to be of the nature of entity which is localizeable in spacetime, while on the other hand it is associated with a particular physical body, and seems to be connected to it for a specific time period.
If the phenomenon of consciousness is related to brain states - as is generally supposed - and if, as may or may not be, consciousness is localizable in spacetime, then perhaps there should be some measureable activity in the vicinity of brains experiencing mental states.
There is no physical theory of consciousness, and therefore one cannot even estimate the size of the energy transfer which might be involved in the operation of consciousness in becoming aware of a part of the physical universe, or in experiencing an emotion - as opposed to the purely physical energy of the neuronal interactions and the hormonal surges etc. If the amount is very small relative to other effects associated with the brain, the effect of consciousness will be difficult to detect.
Rather than speaking of space as an entity in itself, or of 'the universe' as though it is an entity, it is often fruitful to consider spatial relations between entities - it is easier to define the metric on a space and provide its other properties and to work with the points in the space than to decide what the 'space' itself actually is. Similarly as regards consciousness - it may be more fruitful to consider conscious experiences and conscious states, rather than the consciousness itself.
Although it is not known what if any physical correlate of conscious thought there might be, a particle of thought so to speak, the mystery is in how the mental thought gives rise to the physical particle, not in the nature of the particle itself.
The Effect of the Mental Realm on the Physical
Is the universe actually a mental entity - perhaps the mind of you the reader is all that exists, and everything else is simply a sensory impression in your mind?
There is no way to prove that this is not the case, nevertheless the usual assumption is that there is actually an entire physical universe 'out there' that we experience through our sensory perceptions.
Indeed, as we said the very fact that our minds can perceive this physical universe - that the physical universe impinges on our bodies and through our body to our brain and then to our minds, making us aware of its existence - indicates that the physical universe can affect our minds. This is a mind/body interaction in the body to mind direction with the very acceptance that we perceive a physical universe implying that there is an interaction between the physical and the mental. Generally physical law demands that there be a reciprocal effect in any interaction - nothing can be affected without affecting in return.
Is there as well an automatic interaction in the opposite direction - a mind/body interaction in the mind to body direction - where consciousness makes itself felt in the physical universe simply due to its very existence?
The very existence of consciousness and its function as link between the mental and physical realms may affect the physical realm with measureable consequences, for example via the energy content of consciousness or of conscious processes, or via measurement of information transfer - or entropy change.
If the very fact of being conscious changes the way a brain will think as compared to a non-conscious brain, or changes the type of thoughts it will think, then the neuronal firings corresponding to these thoughts, and words and actions that result from them, are an effect on the physical universe which would not exist if there was no consciousness, and therefore they are an effect of consciousness on the physical world.
Free Will and the Effect of the Mental Realm
Another category of interaction would be in terms of the effect of mental decisions taken independently of the physical processes in the brain - for example free willed decisions. If mind is parallel to brain and no more than that, and all mental events are correlates of brain states so that every thought is a direct correlate of a brain event, then the causal chain leading up to the brain event is the cause of the correlated mental event.
If there is free will, then since free-willed processes do not originate in the causal chain of events, and yet affect them, these effects are effects of consciousness on the physical realm.
Ch 18b: Transcendent Truths and the Unprovable
Introduction
One of the most surprising and significant mathematical results ever arrived at was formulated by Gödel in 1930, and this result concerning mathematical systems was found to have many philosophical ramifications.
Mathematical Systems: All mathematical and logical systems are built upon a basis of assumptions. These assumptions, which are intuitively true statements which cannot be broken down to simpler components, are termed 'axioms'. From these axioms, one can build more complex statements. The truth of these derived statements is assured if the axioms are true, and if the deduction procedures used to derive them from the axioms are sound.
The axioms together with the true statements derived from them form a mathematical system. Many different mathematical systems can be formed from the many different groupings of axioms.
Pre-Godel Logic: For any given mathematical system, there are a finite or infinite number of statements which are true in that system. Before the work of the great mathematician Kurt Gödel, it was believed that for any (finite or infinite) mathematical system, a finite set of axioms can be constructed from which one can derive all the statements which are true in that system. Thus, given some such set of axioms, any statement not deriveable from the axioms must be false in that mathematical system.
Godel's Result
In 1930 Gödel showed that there exist systems such that given any finite set of axioms in the system there are true statements which cannot be formally proved from those axioms. Nevertheless, it can be shown that these statements are true by invoking "common sense" arguments independent of the axioms and formal deductive methods being employed. Although any such statement could in principle be added to the set of axioms, other statements could then be found which are not provable from the enlarged set of axioms.....and so on, and so on.
This astonishing theorem, which was rigorously proven by Gödel, destroyed the hopes of those who wished to reduce all of mathematics to a set of axioms from which all true statements could be derived. It became evident that the derivation of mathematical theorems would require continuing application of human insight and not merely preprogrammed mechanical processes.
Philosophical Speculations Based on Godel's Result
Prof. R. Rucker in his "Infinity and the Mind"writes that: "The Incompleteness Theorem shows that human beings can never formulate a correct and complete description of the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, 3, …}, but if mathematicians cannot ever fully understand something as simple as number theory, then it is certainly too much to expect that science will ever expose any ultimate secret of the universe…" : "…rational thought can never penetrate to the final, ultimate truth."
Gödel himself even postulated that since man is able to grasp mathematical truths which are not provable within the relevant mathematical system - then perhaps, as Gödel put it, "sets and concepts exist externally to any individual's activities" .
Thus Godel found mathematical reasons to support the idea of the ancient Platonists regarding the independent existence of certain Truths.
Furthermore, according to Gödel man can interact with these truths, which: "…may represent an aspect of objective reality, but, as opposed to the sensations, their presence in us may be due to another kind of relationship between ourselves and reality."
It is possible that humans, via their free willed consciousness, are capable of linking to a transcendent realm of truth, and employing their ability to engage in creative thought to produce truths which lie in the transcendent realm, a realm beyond the reaches of machines and beings bound by the determinism/randomness of the rest of the universe .
Ch 19: The Evolution of
Free-Willed Consciousness
The Evolution or Emergence of Consciousness
The most fundamental premise of science is that all phenomena - even those not understood at present - can be explained 'naturally'. Consciousness is no exception. Those scientists who accept the reality of consciousness will necessarily postulate that it arose naturally. That is, if today the universe contains consciousness, it must have either developed in a natural way from a prior state which lacked consciousness, or else consciousness was always present in the universe.
According to the origin theory, the universe in the distant past contained only inorganic matter, and close to its origin contained only a chaotic highly energetic grouping of fundamental particles. It is generally accepted that consciousness is invariably associated with organic matter, and particularly highly oganized organic matter, which developped only billions of years after the big bang, and thus it would seem unlikely that consciousness could have existed in the first billion years of the universe's existence. his would imply that somehow consciousness emerged in the universe where previously there was no consciousness. How this could happen, given that consciousness is 'other' than the rerst of the universe is perplexing.
On the other hand, it is possible that consciousness is associated with some or all elements of the physical universe, and was present to some degree in the initial state of the universe. Since consciousness is not as yet understood, we cannot a priori assume that there is any particular physical property which is necessary in order for it to exist. For example, we cannot relate consciousness to size or any other physical property, and so one can conceive of tiny elementary particles as being conscious without this presenting a physical impossibility. [The consciousness of an entity could be postulated to depend on some interaction between its components entities, or some intrinsic non-structural property].
Although it is not evident to us that these elementary particles are conscious, it may be that this is so due to the inability of their consciousness to interact with the rest of the physical universe. Perhaps they are indeed conscious, however they cannot communicate without the whole system available to us - they lack vocal cords, brains which know language and control the mouth, ears etc, a visual system to locate and learn about other beings and so on. Since we cannot communicate directly consciousness to consciousness, there is no way for us to know of their consciousness. Alternatively, it may be that the consciousness associated with individual fundamental particles not interacting with others is of a low degree and is therefore not manifest to us.
Human consciousness seems to be unique, and must be the result of something unique about our physical structure .Since it is generally felt that consciousness is associated with the brain, we would feel that this uniqueness must be related to the brain. However since consciousness is not a physical property like all others we are familiar with, we might on the other hand expect that the uniquenesss should be that of a qualitative type, although associated with our physical brain.
A candidate for the qualitative uniqueness is that of complexity of interaction.
Consciousness, Holism, and Emergence:
Consciousness as a Holistic Phenomenon
Holistic phenomenon are those whose properties cannot be predicted from the properties of its components. It has been suggested that perhaps consciousness is in some way a holistic phenomenon, so that its properties cannot be predicted from the properties of the components of the brain. The accepted view of physics denies the validity of holism, and the assumed 'law of cause and effect' builds the properties of the whole from the properties of the constituents.
However, if consciousness involves the acausality or self-causation of free will, then it need not be derivable via cause-effect from underlying components so that it may not have a more basic structure than it itself as a whole, and its properties as a whole could be very different than the properties of the entities of which it is composed.
Emergent Properties
Emergent properties are by definition properties which are not derivable via natural law from "lower level" phenomena. If such properties exist, they would arise at some stage in the evolution of a system, a stage at which it attains a complexity which precipitates it into a qualitatively different state - a state not derivable from its prior state, and thus not causally related to it. Nevertheless, even if such qualitative leaps do occur, there must be some rule (even if PDR) which defines the conditions under which they occur, dictating when such emergent properties will arise. Thus there is also some element of causation, without there being a true causal chain - the qualitative change is independent of the preceding chain of cause and effect, yet its occurrence is far from random, so that emergent phenomena represent a form of ordered self-causation.
It is expected that if they exist, emergent properties would inhere in complex systems. The initial state of the universe was the most uniform possible state - and thus a state totally devoid of complexity, or at least devoid of the complexity necessary to give rise to emergent phenomena such as consciousness and so on.
If consciousness was present in the universe from its inception, it could also have been independent of any particular physical structure other than the universe as a whole, which is complex
Then when structures such as the human brain emerged, the consciousness inherent in the universe became associates with these brains as well.
The complexity of the present state of the universe is a result of the interactions orchestrated by the laws of nature - in a sense then the complexity is resident in the laws and initial conditions, and was therefore present - albeit in a more rarified form - at the inception of the universe. Therefore it may be that consciousness inheres in the universe as a whole, and then in any sufficiently complex entity which later emerges within the universe. (In a sense the complexity of the laws and initial conditions give rise to the emergence of complex entities such as humans, so that humans are created in the image of the laws of nature, reflecting their inherent complexity. In the language of the Bible, there is a created universe bearing the spirit of God and in which this breath of God was breathed into Humanity upon its creation, giving humanity the status of being 'created in the image of God'.)
If a phenomenon which is totally 'other' than the rest of the physical universe, such as consciousness, was not inherent in the initial state of the universe, its emergence at some later time is not causally related to the initial state. Nevertheless, there must be some rule which defines the conditions under which an emergent property would develop along the caual chain leading from the initial conditions, and thus there is a causal structure without there being a true causal chain. This again is a form of self-causation.
This break in the causal structure inherent in the concept of emergent properties is similar to that which occurs in each free-willed choice, and both are of the type of acausality which mediates between non-existence and existence.
In an eternal unchanging universe one perhaps expects only causality. However, in a created universe, a universe emerging from a singularity, or even an eternal universe with constant creation (as in the theory of Hoyle and Bondi), since the very existence of the universe points to the existence of acausal processes, one can more easily accept the possibility of other manifestations of acausality, such as emergent processes and free will.
Indeed, in a universe whose very existence is based on acausality, on the breakdown of the causal chain, one can almost expect acausality to manifest itself - especially in the realm of consciousness which is the most complex phenomenon known to man, and especially if it is consciousness which gives reality to the universe itself, and does so in a retroactive causally-transcendent manner.
Complexity and Consciousness
One of the complex activities of conscious beings is the playing of chess. Computers now can play chess essentially at the level of the very best humans, and thus exhibit very complex behaviour -are they then conscious?
The fact that they do not clim to be conscious may be due to the fact that there is no way for them to communicate with us - especially if they do not posses free will and can only experience the correlates of that ewhich they were programmed to de rather than actually initiaiting activity on their own - such as a communication to us informing us of their consciousness.
Furthermore, the complexity of a the game of chess played by the computer is actually resident not in the computer itself but rather in the program. A very simple computer can be constructed of elements which noone would suspect to be conscious - the speed of its operation and the great amount of components would enable it to make very complex moves such as are required in chess. It would be as though one took billions of trained mosquitos and organized them in very complex ways - the complexity is resident not in the insects, and not in their aggregate, so much as in the mind which designed the manner in which they were made to operate. In contrast to the mosquitos individually and in concert, it is the complexity of interaction of the brains' components which seems to give it its ability to perform complex operations.
Indeed, one could say that the complexity is resident not in the computer chess program but in the design of the program, in the mind of the programmer, or perhaps in the laws of nature which gave rise to the emergence of the programmer.
If consciousness necessarily follows from complexity, and if human-type behaviour necessarily implies the existence of a complexity equal to that of humans, then any entity exhibiting human-type behavious - such as a chess playing computer/program - would have to be assumed to be conscious. However if these are not true, the fact of complex operation, even simulation of human activity, need not be taken as evidence of human-level complexity, let alone evidence of the existence of consciousness.
Without understanding of the nature of consciousness it is difficult though to set criteria for concluding that consciousness is or is not present in any given entity. Without knowing how consciousness emerges, without an understanding of the minimum necessary conditions for consciousness to exist, we cannot rule out the emergence of consciousness in less complex entities than ourselves.
The Origin of Free Will; The Macroscopic, the Microscopic, and the Mind
As we have seen, there are various levels of causal relationships: absolutely determined, random, probabilistically determined, and free-willed.
Absolute determinism is an apparent property of the observed macrocosmos, while at the microscopic or 'microcosmic' scale randomness is manifest, and probabilistic determinacy is observable in the patterns of such events. Free will - if it exists at all - seems to exist in significant strength only in human consciousness, in mind.
The question then arises as to the origin of free will - whether it is a quality of the universe, or of man. If it is a quality of man only, how could a universe which is probabilistically determined give rise to a non-determined phenomenon - or 'quality' - such as free will? Is one then forced to say that free will type acausality is built into the universe, and was therefore part of the big bang, just as was quantum probabilistic determinism? If this is so, did free will manifest itself in any way before man emerged? If so, what effect did it have? If not, how did it remain existent yet dormant, and what physical uniqueness does man possess which activated the billions-of-years-latent free-will?
The Emergence of Consciousness
While complexity is qualitative, as we have seen quantitatively the compexity of the human brain is maximal in that it is the most complex entity known to science - moreso even than entire planets or stars. This would provide an explanation for why humans are conscious on such a high level, while elementary particles or other structures such as rocks or planets are not - we are conscious in the way we are because each part of us is conscious, and the whole of us is connected in such a uniquely complex manner
Alternatively, one can assume that fundamental particles are not conscious, but that consciousness is a property of complex (organic) systems such as the human brain. If this is the case, then there are two possibilities: consciousness is a physical property which evolved like any other, so that there was no consciousness in the universe until an intelligent being with a complex brain evolved somewhere; or it is a property of the universe as a whole, but not of its constituent particles, a property inherent in the universe and infused into humans when their brains achieved a certain level of development.
……..
[AR: possible partial dup of section " Free Will as the Active Ingredient of Consciousness"]
Free Will: An interaction by a consciousness with the physical universe via a brain-decision which is other than that which would be arrived at by a non-conscious brain, an interaction which as we have seen violates causality, is essentially what we usually mean by a 'free willed' decision. It is 'free' since the decision does not depend on the input and physical situation as would a process governed by causality, but instead it is 'free' of the constraints of causality.
The only known type of phenomena which are partially independent of causality are random quantum events. However since a random effect on the brain's decisions and their implementation would not grant survival benefits, an evolved effect such as the conscious influence on the brain/body cannot be random; free will - if it can exist - is more appropriate.
Physics and Consciousness
It is not only from the Biblical perspective that human free-willed moral consciousness is of special interest. Scientifically it is an enigma, to the extent that there are some who would even deny that humans possess a free-will, and some who go so far as to cast doubt on the reality of consciousness itself. On the other hand, on the basis of certain implications of quantum physics, some physicists and cosmologists ascribe to consciousness a key role in the origin and evolution of the universe.
According to the determinists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, prior to the development of quantum physics, humans are but complicated machines, without a free will. The behaviourists set the tone in psychology for many years, and in the words of one of its leading proponents, J. B. Watson,
"Behaviourism claims that 'consciousness' is neither a defineable nor a usable concept".
Fifty years later, B. F. Skinner in his popular book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" writes:
"In the traditional view, a person is free. He is autonomous in the sense that his behavior is uncaused. He can therfore be held responsible for what he does, and justly punished if he offends.....A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment."
It is precisely these types of view which the creation and Garden of Eden accounts in Genesis address by stressing the unique position of humanity in the universe by virtue of its having been created "in the image of God", possessing a free-willed moral consciousness. And interestingly enough, developments in quantum physics, mathematical logic, neurophysiology and cosmology, have led many physicists mathematicians biologists and cosmologists to the conclusion that consciousness, and in some cases free will, are not only true phenomenon, but also significant from the scientific perspective.
According to Eccles…
insert quotes from old ch 5, from Eccles and then Sperry.
It is free will which allows consciousness its significance to the physical universe, and therefore the emergence of consciousness in itself is less significant than the emergence of free will. Until the emergence of free will all is governed by the initial conditions and laws of nature - a break occurs when free will develops, allowing the course of history to take paths which are at least partially independent of all that went before it, guided by mental rather than physical forces.
The existence of the universe is mysterious, and so is its emergence into existence; in parallel, the existence of free will is mysterious, as is its emergence into existence.
From the point of view of the physical universe, the significant milestones marking the emergence of factors determining its course of development are the initial emergence into existence itself, and later, the emergence of free will. And of course it is precisely these two milestones which are the opening themes of Genesis - the creation and Eden accounts.
The Creation and Eden accounts
As free will is by definition beyond the causal structure of the universe, and is rather part of the mental realm, it is seemingly incapable of evolving, and therefore its existence points either to the mental nature of our universe, or to the existence of a 'supernatural' realm. It is therefore most appropriate that the creation and Eden account relate relate the emergence of humanity into free-willed consciousness via an infusion of the divine - creating man 'in the image of God', and breathing 'the breath of God' into him. It is also appropriate that the aquisition of a non-naturalistic free-willed moral consciousness be described in a figurative rather than naturalistic manner.
Indeed, if the purpose of creation is moral activity, and the process leading to the aquisition by humanity of free-willed moral consciousness is by definition beyond the physical, it is entirely appropriate for the whole of the creation and Eden accounts to be presented in allegorical and symbolic terms as they are, rather than in the naturalistic manner appropriate to the scientific origin theory. The scientific origin theory on the other hand, as it is naturalistic, necessarily leaves out of its description that which is of most fundamental significance from the Biblical perspective, the moral aspect.