Chapter 4

EVOLUTION’S UNANSWERABLE QUESTION

Evolution’s unanswerable question is: How did consciousness evolve?

Long ago, the philosopher John Locke wrote, “It is impossible to conceive that pure incognitive matter should produce a thinking intelligent being…” (J. Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, IV. X, 10, 1640) And even Charles Darwin himself said, “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (C. Darwin “The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin” Appleton Cc. V.1, 225, 1887.) Since Darwin wrote those words, have we made any progress toward knowing how consciousness came to exist? Today’s students are usually told that the human mind, with its ability to consciously reason, reflect, and plan ahead, results from the mindless processes of mutation and natural selection.

But how could the brain develop conscious awareness of itself if consciousness never before existed in any realm of reality? Are we now any closer to answering that question than Darwin was when he introduced evolution in 1869?

Trying to discuss the origin of consciousness may be quite difficult. Let’s first just try to understand consciousness itself. We should ask David Chalmers, a cognitive philosopher at Australian National University. He says: “There is nothing we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there’s nothing harder to explain.” That’s why they call it “the hard problem.” He goes on to say that “most theories of consciousness either deny the problem, explain something else, or elevate the problem to an eternal mystery.” (D. Chalmers, “Explaining Consciousness, the Hard Problem” J Shear, ed.., Cambridge MA, 9, 28, 1995.)

That’s not much help. Let’s ask Colin McGinn at the University of Miami. He says the problem of explaining consciousness must involve some as-yet-unknown aspect of the universe. He believes that consciousness will remain an eternal mystery.

But listen to Albert Einstein. In a 1936 essay, Einstein wrote that the eternal mystery of the universe is its comprehensibility. He also said, “…one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way. (C. McGinn, “Explaining Consciousness, The Hard Problem, J. Shear, ed., Cambridge MA p.362, 1945)

Surely, in the last 100 years, we must have made progress in understanding consciousness! David Chalmers claims that experiences and feelings have irreducibly subjective non-physical qualities --over and above whatever physical qualities they happen to have. He calls this an unbridgeable gap. Unbridgeable forever? If that gap must be unbridgeable forever, then wouldn’t that make conscious self-awareness an eternal mystery?

And John Searle, of U.C. Berkeley says: “We don’t have a clear idea of how anything in the brain could cause conscious states,” --“they resist theoretical explanation.” But he believes consciousness to be a biological phenomenon that does have a discoverable, intelligible, explanation. At the same time, he says that consciousness is irreducibly subjective --it only exists when it is experienced by a living being. Therefore, according to Searle, it can’t be reduced to any objective phenomena. (J. Searle, The Mystery of Consciousness” New York Review of Books, N.Y. 189-213, 1997)

But how could consciousness ever be an intelligibly-explained biological phenomenon if it cannot be reduced to any objective phenomenon!

Cognitive philosophers haven’t been much help. Let’s ask a neuroscientist. The late Benjamin Libet, formerly at U.C., San Francisco would say that consciousness is “non-physical in nature, meaning that we can’t observe it by any physical means. His theory accepts our own deep feelings that we’re not robots. (B. Libet, “Consciousness, Free Action, and the Brain” J. Consciousness Stud., 8(8), 160.)

Is Consciousness only an illusion?

Now, if consciousness is non-physical, and can’t be observed or measured by any physical means, then how could science possibly investigate it? Not only do materialists have no explanation for consciousness, they have no idea how to get one. Some just take the easy way out: They simply deny that consciousness is real. They say: “To us, it only seems like we have conscious self awareness. But we really don’t –it’s just an illusion!

The era of “the mind as a machine” arrived in the 1950’s. That’s when Professor Marvin Minsky co-founded MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Professor Minsky says: “We are machines made out of meat.” “One ought to feel insulted when accused of not being a machine.” “M. Minsky, as quoted by P. Bloom, “Edge, the Third Culture, www.edge.org/3rd culture/Bloom.}

The British physicist, Roger Penrose remarked when he “attempted to refute the computational view of the mind,” that his “arguments were met by howls of outrage.” Howls of outrage? (R. Penrose, as quoted by Searle in “The Mystery of Consciousness” 189-190) But why should that be? Here’s what I think. Some people believe the computer age has given them a new way to understand themselves. Today’s academics seem fascinated with problems of consciousness and the mind, regarding them with a passion unlike that felt for other philosophical or scientific issues.

I’ve tried to show you that when it comes to explaining consciousness, not only are neuroscientists and cognitive philosophers deeply divided among themselves --but some of their views seem internally inconsistent.

Do you believe any computerized robot could ever think about itself? How can you even use a first-person pronoun without thinking about yourself? But you can. And you can care about others. (J. Bermudez, “The Paradox of Self Consciousness, Cambridge, MA, 1998) You can have a very creative and abstract imagination. Do you actually think any computer-like robot brain could ever invent a brand new branch of mathematics? I don’t.

How did you get your ability to use common sense, or to daydream some creative new idea? And somehow, you can use your mind to help you find meaning, purpose, and a value system connected to the ultimate reason why you exist.

Marvin Minsky calls himself a functionalist. He has a prior metaphysical commitment forcing him to believe that the brain’s mental activity results solely from physical processes that function in the brain. (M. Minsky, The Society of Mind, Simon and Shuster, N.Y., Chap. 4, 1986)

Evolution Must Fail as a Complete Explanation of Life’s Existence

Now, if consciousness is destined to be an eternal mystery, where does that leave evolutionism ---the view that every aspect of the origin and existence of life will (or can, at least in principle) be explained by scientists using the scientific method? Before I answer, Let’s be clear about one thing. Evolutionism is a metaphysical ideology because it postulates that the unguided (or un-designed) processes of evolution provide us with a satisfactory explanation for the existence of all life.

Evolutionism must fail, as a total explanation for life on our planet, because it is so far from a complete explanation.

Beliefs of modern scientists have strayed very far from those of its early pioneers. Seventeenth century astronomer, Johannes Kepler said: “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God, and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” (C Baumgardt, Johannes Kepler: Life and Letters, Philosophical Library, N.Y. 1951)

Those who design and program “artificial intelligence machines” in laboratories at MIT are some of the brightest, most clever people in our best institutions of higher learning. But for 50 years they have been unable to get their devices to mimic your ability to use common sense, let alone your conscious creative ability to manipulate abstract ideas.

The late Nobel laureate neurophysiologist, Sir John Eccles regarded materialism as a superstition held by those who confuse their metaphysical belief with their science. (J. Eccles, as quoted by Beauregard and O’Leary, p.125)

Physicist James Jeans (1877-1948) remarked that “…The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. In fact, other highly respected physicists have proposed that an information realm is fundamental to the physics of the universe.

But Marvin Minsky says: “I do not think there is any such thing as genuine understanding” (We, being machines, have, as he puts it, only “ simulated understanding”.) To me, it seems that evolutionists are among those who lack genuine understanding.

For purposes of argument, let’s suppose that an evolutionist did claim to have an explanation for how human consciousness came to exist within the brain –the most complex system that we know about in the universe. He could only claim, with Darwin, that the human mind was a late bi-product of animal evolution. If our ability to reason is only a product of natural selection, how can evolutionists rely upon their supposed rational argument in favor of natural selection?

The British biochemist, J.B.S Haldane put it this way: “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true …and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

In an atheist universe, universal unchanging truth has no source. But, remember that to Albert Einstein, rational comprehensibility of the universe is either a miracle or an eternal mystery. Without rational intelligibility, we’d live in a meaningless universe, but one with conditions remarkably favorable to conscious human life –including a brain with sufficient intellect to ask questions science cannot answer.

Since our brains process new information everyday, then evolutionists need to answer the question not only about how information is filtered and selected in a meaningful way, but also where, in our nonliving environment, did the design information that made conscious rational thought possible come from? Couldn’t that source have been a conscious intelligent designer—one that created us “in his image”? If it was, then the “hard problem” of cognitive philosophy ceases to be a problem at all.

Evolutionists seem blind to the mystery of the origin of their own conscious awareness! I’ve tried to make the case that evolutionism must forever fail as a total explanation for life on this planet. Harvard astrophysicist Owen Gingerich believes that our universe is the product of a super-intelligent creator who gave it meaning and purpose.(ref?)