By Ken Wilber [img_assist|nid=5|title=Ken Wilber|desc=Ken Wilber|link=node|align=right|width=92|height=100]

It is flat-out strange that something – that anything – is happening at all. There was nothing, then a Big Bang, then here we all are. This is extremely weird.

To Schelling’s burning question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?,” there have always been two general answers. The first might be called the philosophy of “oops.” The universe just occurs, there is nothing behind it, it’s all ultimately accidental or random, it just is, it just happens – oops! The philosophy of oops, no matter how sophisticated and adult it may on occasion appear – its modern names and numbers are legion, from positivism to scientific materialism, from linguistic analysis to historical materialism, from naturalism to empiricism – always comes down to the same basic answer, namely, “Don’t ask.”

The question itself (Why is anything at all happening? Why am I here?) – the question itself is said to be confused, pathological, nonsensible, or infantile. To stop asking such silly or confused questions is, they all maintain, the mark of maturity, the sign of growing up in this cosmos.

I don’t think so. I think the “answer” these “modern and mature” disciplines give – namely, oops! (and therefore, “Don’t ask!”) – is about as infantile a response as the human condition could possibly offer.

The other broad answer that has been tendered is that something else is going on: behind the happenstance drama is a deeper or higher or wider pattern, or order, or intelligence. There are, of course, many varieties of this “Deeper Order”: the Tao, God, Geist, Maat, Archetypal Forms, Reason, Li, Mahamaya, Braham, Rigpa. And although these different varieties of the Deeper Order certainly disagree with each other at many points, they all agree on this: the universe is not what it appears. Something else is going on, something quite other than oops….

 

Although I’m not entirely ready to discuss this issue, since I’m still mulling it around in my mind, I thought we might be in need of a topic to kick around for a bit, so I’ll wing it.

I have previously stated my view that God, as “Being” pervades all reality, down to the last atom. Some objectors noted that they saw no evidence of this. I would like to introduce some evidence, launching into it from a different discussion topic we have also had recently – the problem of reductionist arguments for psychological states – ie explanations for our mind which reduce the mind entirely down to physics and chemistry.

I wish to discuss the problem of conscious experience.

It is possible to imagine that physical sciences could eventually give us much insight on the FUNCTIONS of our mental experience. How information is analyzed, stored, collated and evaluated. How we focus our attention. How we control our behavior. Functional components simply need a functional mechanism as an explanation.

But functional explanations leave one phenomena untouched – our actual experience of consciousness. The experience of what it is LIKE to see a color, remember a face, or have a thought. I am not asking how our brain sees, remembers, or thinks – but how these mechanisms generate the actual experience of being conscious of these functions.

“How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp”. (T H Huxley)

We may notice that there are correlations between physical states of the brain and the experience of consciousness, but it is a logical error to assume that a correlation implies either a cause and effect, or (even more absurdly) an identity. We notice that whenever the Genii appears, Aladdin is rubbing the lamp. But this hardly “explains” the Genii. We would need to know HOW and WHY one produces the other. Much less can we say that Aladdin rubbing is lamp is ONE AND THE SAME as the Genii.

In a similar way, a brain state may be associated with the experience of consciousness. But it cannot be said to CAUSE it unless we know the exact how and why. Far less is it ontologically identical with conscious experience. The actual experience of seeing the color red does not seem, on observation, to have any identity in it’s NATURE to the firing of neurons in the brain.

Not only that, but it is difficult to see how any progress in neuroscience could possibly account for conscious experience. Neuroscience can possibly discover physical mechanisms which produce mental functions. But conscious experience is not a “function”. It is a state of being. There is no particular reason WHY a particular pattern of neural activity should produce our conscious experience of a vast subjective world.

Wrapping up quickly, I believe that conscious experience is completely unaccountable in terms of reduction to the laws of physics and chemistry. Conscious experience needs to take its place, like mass and space-time, as a fundamental “given” of the cosmos – part of its fundamental nature.

I could expand on many of these points greatly, but perhaps it’s best to let the discussion take care of that.

 

From “A Theory of Everything” by Ken Wilber

“M-Theory has certainly got intellectuals thinking; that is, thinking differently. What would it mean if there were a theory that explained EVERYTHING? And just what does “everything” actually mean, anyway? Would this new theory in physics explain, say, the meaning of human poetry? Or how economics works? Or the stages of psycho-sexual development? Can this new physics explain the currents of ecosystems, of the dynamics of history, or why human wars are so terribly common?

In the interior of quarks, it is said, there are vibrating strings, and these strings are the fundamental units of everything. Well, if so, it is a strange everything, pale and anemic and alien to the richness of the world that daily presents itself to you and me. Clearly strings are an important PART of a larger world, fundamental to it, but not that significant, it seems. You and I already know that strings, should they exist, are only a tiny part of the picture, and we know this every time we look around, listen to Bach, make love, are caught transfixed at the sharp crack of thunder, sit rapturous at sunset, contemplate a radiant world that seems made of something so much more than microscopic, one-dimensional, tiny rubber bands…

The Greeks had a beautiful word, Kosmos, which means the patterned Whole of all existence, including the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual realms. Ultimate reality was not merely the cosmos, or the physical dimension, but the Kosmos, or the physical and emotional and mental and spiritual dimensions altogether. Not just matter, lifeless and insentient, but the living Totality of matter, body, mind, soul and spirit. The Kosmos! – now there is a real theory of everything! But us poor moderns have reduced the Kosmos to the cosmos. we have reduced matter and body and mind and soul and spirit to nothing but matter alone, and in this drab and dreary world of scientific materialism, we are lulled into the notion that a theory uniting the PHYSICAL dimension is actually a theory of EVERYTHING…

Related Posts with Thumbnails
© 2012 PathsToKnowledge.com Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha