Our Science is Primitive
Our science is primitive. This is not an insult, nor is it a fact…yet. But it will be. Though we may feel otherwise. Our science certainly feels current and cutting edge as do our gadgets. Iphones are cool. They seem quite cutting edge today. But you can be sure that even the coming iPhone 8 will seem quaint and just slightly pitiful in 100 years. Ha…no… in 20 years* But we can easily accept this. We’re not so invested in the current iteration of our gagdets that we can’t envision them becoming obsolete or imagine looking back on them with a mixture of humor and nostalgia. The same is not so true of our science or our worldview. This is odd. It should be just as true. It makes sense that in 100 years people will laugh heartily at the conclusions that our current scientists announce today with pride; the conclusions which today have earned both respect and praise.
Take for example this video by Prof. Daniel Dennett, professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, that a friend of mine shared with me this week. In the video, Dennett speaks on the topic of human consciousness in an attempt to answer or provide a bit of insight on a question which science has long grappled with. Primarily it’s the question of how we explain human consciousness. A second naturalistic/mechanistic argument is made in Prof Steven Pinkner’s video which argues that there is no soul (**or spirit depending on one’s definition) at work in human beings.
The metaphor he uses to address this question is that of a magician’s bag of tricks. The metaphor is inappropriate for reasons I’ll explain shortly but I explained this by reasoning that he’s must be a Physicist based on the subject matter and therefore has little training in logic or philosophical thought. So I was really surprised when I watched this video a second time and caught the fact that Prof. Dennett in addition to being a naturalist (one who believes that all phenomenon observed can be explained via natural processes I.e: atoms, molecules, etc), is actually a philosopher. This means he understands logic. Odd because he’s clearly violating its rules as he misapplies his metaphor in a way that is plainly illogical. Here’s why the magician metaphor doesn’t work.
When a magician tells you that he’s about to saw a woman in half, it’s basically a lie. Sure, we wouldn’t call it that. We call it showmanship. But the statement is not true. It’s false and he knows it. He knows it and you know it. (At least I hope you do. If not…hey…buddy…magic is trickery and slight of hand…in a good way) Ok. So when he shows you the woman inside the box and appears to saw her in half, he’s doing so with an understanding. He understands that you and he have entered into a bargain, an arrangement whereby you both agree to suspend disbelief, investigation and the scientific process at this time and in this place. You paid money to be entertained, not to conduct an investigations into scientific truth. The question of whether we can survive after being sawn in two has already been settled. (And just in case this is news…breaking… we cannot). We’re just enjoying the bargain and the dazzling and agreeing to suspend disbelief. However, if you remove this bargain and follow that logic to its natural conclusion… well then you might just jump onstage and decide to investigate the situation. That’s when the whole deal really falls apart. And it falls apart precisely because that was never the point of the show. You wanted the wonder; you paid to be dazzled; you’re content with a bit of mystery.
Now turn to the question of consciousness. There is no magician. There is only science. Hard-working doctors, neurologists, neuroscientists, etc. grappling to understand what is going on inside the mind and the subjective reality of consciousness that the person experiences. The metaphor of the trickster magician fails. There is no trick because there is no trickster. There is mystery and it is dazzling but you would not argue that there is someone out front lying to you about what you’re seeing.
Consciousness is truly a mystery. But why? My answer is controversial yet simple. Our science is primitive. Which is fine. Be cool. There’s nothing wrong with us. I’m sure we’re right where we should be developmentally. It’s ok. We’re just a product of 2017 and not…say… 2117. That’s fine, really… perfectly fine. There’s no shame in that. We’re still winners. Everybody’s a winner here. We can be cool about this. We can. Maybe… I don’t know… maybe… we could even be.. a little… just a little bit… humble?
Oh no!!
No?? No? Ok. That feels too strange, huh? We’re the greatest civilization ever, you say? No one can compete with us? Ok. Ok. We’re the best. Calm down. We’re the best. No one’s ever understood the multiverse and the iPhone like we do. No one. You can be proud of that. No one.
But anyway… ok. So why do I say this… that our science is primitive? Why do I say this? Right. I’ll explain with the help of a slightly better metaphor than magic.
Consider what happens when a culture, in say the Amazon, which is unfamiliar with our tech gadgets encounters a camera for the first time. They may initially conclude that the camera is actually a device which has cleverly captured and stolen a piece of their soul. They may go on to explain it this way among themselves. We will ourselves, of course, know this conclusion to be preposterous and false. We’re more familiar with the technology, the device, the camera and the science that supports it… initially. However, as time goes by, the other culture will likewise gain a similar understanding of what was once a foreign device/technology as we might also with exposure begin to understand their foreign chemical concoctions such as Ayuhausca and begin to fear it less. The first conclusion the civilization makes is wrong, but at no point have they been tricked. They’ve been dazzled and stunned and their initial observations were wrong. They fed their observations and limited data through their existing paradigm and sadly it did not lead them initially to the truth. Unfortunate but rather plain and simple. I see a parallel in this to our application of what we would consider to be much more advanced methods of observation to questions such as consciousness. I believe that our plight with respect to understanding consciousness is in reality very similar. We don’t understand what we’re seeing and we at the moment, find it dazzling and mysterious.
At the end of the day you may find my explanation and Dennett’s explanation of the problem to be similar. “You’re both saying that it’s dazzling and we can’t fully understand the mechanism at work. So…what’s the difference.” You might be right. There might only be one small difference. But small though it may be, I feel like it makes a pretty significant difference. Humility. We could use more of it in academia. When I look at science both in the 1800s and today, I see far too little of it. In 2117 they’ll prove us all wrong and laugh. But keep your head held high. I hear that new iPhone 8 is supposed to be amazing.
*in this article, grammatical conventions are deliberately flouted
**Definitions:
. Naturalism — 1) all nature can be described by the movement of atoms 2) the laws of nature can be expressed as mathematical formulas; all phenomena we observe is the emergent result of facts 1 & 2
. Consciousness — the state of being aware; awareness; the ability to perceive
. Soul (Dennett’s use) — the operator; the decision-maker who is capable of directing the mind to picture Idris Elba as the next James Bond sitting in a shiny Aston Martin (great idea…btw…did you come up with that? Good job!)
. Soul (my definition) — DNA + life experience; the thing that separates one person from another even for twins who have the same DNA but separate life experiences
. Spirit (my definition) — the operator; the decision-maker who is capable of directing the mind to picture John Legend recording his Curb Your Enthusiasm version of “You Don’t Know Me” (another great idea!!)
