The significance of consciousness

Over the years, I have encountered a lot of different approaches to understanding the nature of life. Many people have studied the inanimate world and living things (including us) to figure out what makes them tick, and others have pondered what our existence means in the grand scheme of things. Thus, we see that there are basically two kinds "why" questions to ask when exploring life; one is "how," and the other is "what for." Science and engineering allow us to find out how things work, while philosophy and religion address what life is for, or what our purpose is. In short, science attempts to explain how life works, while philosophy attempts to discern the meaning of life. Many people think the two world views compete with one another, and that one must either be a scientist or a believer, but not both. I disagree. Because science is concerned with physical mechanisms, and religion with metaphysical causation, I think the two complement each other quite nicely.

There are, however, a few areas of overlap, and that's when conflict arises. If people interpret the Bible story to mean that the universe is only about 6,000 years old, they are in for a painful shock. Scientists have shown that the universe is not only some 20 billion years old, but also that the concept of "years" is relative. The question of the universe's age lies in the realm of mechanisms, so it's no wonder that science trumps religion here.

But what happens when science delves into the realm of ultimate causation? Many (but not all) scientists are agnostic or atheist, and have no trouble with the idea that the universe is completely physical, and that any experience of the metaphysical must be illusory. Neuroscientists are making great strides in understanding how the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nervous system work, which helps them treat these organs and tissues when they are damaged. However, has it also given them a false sense of confidence when it comes to understanding the human (and animal) mind as well?

It's true that the physical condition of our brains affect our thoughts, feelings, and attitudes. People with organic neurochemical imbalances may suffer from mood disorders or have problems with concentration, and people with gross (i.e. - large, not "disgusting") anatomical aberrations may exhibit behavior quite different from others with more normal brain structure. But from this knowledge, is it safe to leap to the assumption that we will some day completely understand what makes us human (or dog, or cat, or elephant), simply from our biology? I don't think so.

One thing that biology has failed to explain - and I submit will always fail to explain - is consciousness. Why do people, and apparently other intelligent animals as well, have consciousness? Why do we have a subjective experience of life? Why do we think and feel the way we do, instead of just walking around like mindless automatons all day? We are not just organic machines or motile lumps of goo; we are individuals with personalities, goals, and intentions. Why?

Biological theory alone cannot explain this. It's true that we are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe ("Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"). The physical body does obey certain physicochemical laws, and natural selection has shaped living beings to survive and procreate. But none of these facts explain why we actually experience the world around us the way we do. As a mechanistic theory, science can elucidate certain natural laws that the universe must obey, and it can explain why the physical world - including its organisms - behaves the way it does. But it simply cannot explain why living things actually perceive the world around them.

From a purely evolutionary standpoint, the meaning of life is to procreate. That's why we're here, but this is more of a "how come" explanation than a "what for." Ever since Earth's primordial soup of some 4 billion years ago, organic molecules have been replicating themselves, and we are the products of that long, long chain of events. As such, our behavior is an epiphenomenon of natural selection, which is dependent upon chemistry, which is in turn dependent upon physics. That's how the world works, and that's fine.

But none of this explains how it is that we can perceive anything. No amount of neurotransmitter release, neuronal organization, or hormone absorption can explain why we actually feel the emotions of fear, hatred, excitement, or love. They can't explain how it is that we can think about ourselves, those we care about, and the world around us. It seems, therefore, that we are forced to invoke a metaphysical explanation. Whatever life is on a physical level, there must be more to it. In short, the fact that we have consciousness proves that we have souls, and the fact that we have souls proves that life is very significant indeed. Say what you will about the existence or nonexistence of a divine creator; I can prove neither one. The fact that we have souls proves that life is not just some random collection of molecules. Rather, life is precious and sacred. That is the significance of consciousness.

Happy Thanksgiving,
Gaddy Bergmann