Right and wrong in science and philosophy

Lent 2018: Day 22

“If  panpsychism is real, then life can have started with some form of consciousness that must have evolved very much from electrons to E. coli and Stentor, a single-celled organism with no neurons, to us.”

This is an almost incredible statement coming from Stuart A. Kauffman, a renowned scientist with a lifetime's work to draw observations from. Many of his peers will sneer dismissively, convinced that consciousness can only exist within the brain of living creatures – and nowhere else. In their conviction, they have cut themselves off from considering other alternatives.

Why trust one scientist and not another? At the end of the twelfth chapter of Humanity in a Creative Universe, I've pencilled the words “Kauffman is right/wrong.” It's binary. Kauffman's theory (not just his, I must add) is itself in superposition, like an electron in a quantum experiment. He is neither right nor wrong until such time as a conscious observer can peer into a box to view the result of a putative experiment designed to test subatomic matter for such properties as consciousness and will. As of time of writing, science has not unravelled these mysteries. Therefore it is as wrong to say that Kauffman is wrong as it is to say that he is right.

But could he be part right/part wrong? Kauffman talks about Aristotle's philosophical notion of the excluded middle, the answer to which, like the result of a quantum measurement, cannot be anything other than 'yes' or 'no'. The electron's spin, on measurement by a conscious observer, is either 'up' or 'down'. Before measurement, it is both. But ideas are not subatomic particles. Many philosophical, political or economic constructs are right up to a point. Some, being far from perfect, are just about good enough to stand the test of time – existentialism, social democracy, capitalism, quantitative easing. But this is not sufficient for Science.

Sceptics refer to the 'God of the Gaps' – what we humans don't understand, we tend to ascribe to the workings of a supernatural being, whether it's lightning or floods. Kauffman is careful to avoid talk of a supreme deity. When covering the history of science and philosophy, however, he describes how the notions of deism (a non-interfering God) and theism (an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God) competed with one another. He notes that Newton's worldview had the effect of relegating God from an omnipresent deity to the watchmaker that once made, and wound up the clock, and then stood back to let its motion unravel across the fullness of time. Rather, Kauffman's God is consciousness, distributed across space and time, continually evolving from electron to single-celled organism to us. This of course begs the question – what next?

Before moving on, some thoughts from my brother, who emailed me the following comments about Humanity in a Creative Universe (which he bought me, before buying a copy for himself).

“There are questions with unknown answers; then there are problems where we don't know the right questions to ask; and then there are the problems where we don't know or even have the language with which to formulate the questions. Kauffman has spent many years trying to formulate such a new language. 

"Prior to the Enlightenment, nearly all debate about heat and fire was couched in nouns rather than verbs; we now know that fire is a process. Science too is also a process - not simply a body of knowledge. Orthodox religions have become bodies of knowledge rather than emerging constructs; perhaps this is where the conflict between science and religions lies.”

This time two years ago:

Free thinking at the Second Vatican Council

This time four years ago:
Getting ul. Karczunkowska ready for Biedronka opening

This time five years ago: 

God's own risk

This time six years ago:
A third of the way through Lent

This time seven years ago:
Balancing surfeit and shortage

This time eight years ago:
Congruent consciousness