The Astonishing Hypothesis (the 4 1/2 -th Proof of Immortality)
Fifteen years ago, Francis Crick published a remarkable little book, "The Astonishing Hypothesis". The main thesis of this book was that the soul (aka consciousness) is the product of the brain: a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them.
I am skeptical of this astonishing hypothesis.
Consider a TV set. Don't the images it shows result from the "activities entirely due to the behavior of transistors, capacitors, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them?" That is certainly the case. But make no mistake that the broadcast it receives has nothing to do with this machinery; the only purpose of this sophisticated device is to provide reliable reception of what is external to it. Observe that what the TV sets show is different for each set. One shows in black and white, another is programmed to sports channels, etc. Even if the broadcast is common, the specific behavior of each set is not. A neolith man would never guess that, assuming that each TV set shows its own show, indicating that the sets have individuality. So the question is not whether the brain is producing consciousness, it is whether the brain is doing it autonomously or serving as a receiver, a unique TV set whose elaborate machinery has little to do with the essence of what it receives, but determines what part of the broadcast is received. That highly individual part of the common broadcast is called human soul. Then, naturally, the properties of the soul are defined by the broadcast itself rather than its receiver and the person should be viewed along the traditional religious lines: as the unity of the body (providing the reception) and the soul (what this receiver receives). I cannot think of any experiment purporting to prove that "we" are the function of the brain that is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Surely, tweaking a TV set will have some effect on the reception. This does not mean that the TV program originates in this manipulated TV set.
An interesting corollary of this view is that the mortality of the soul is wholly determined by the broadcast itself rather than the state of the body. For all we know, this broadcast may be eternal, and so is the part of it that is received by the particular brain. This part objectively exists as long as the broadcast itself exists. The decay of the body has nothing to do with the content of the soul even though the shape of the latter was defined by the body. Indeed, the soul is just a part of the broadcast that animates a particular body.
So, what makes Crick's astonishing hypothesis more convincing than this very familiar astonishing hypothesis, if no experimental evidence can be procured to falsify the receiver conjecture? The only intelligible answer I've heard was not an answer, but a question: tell us what is this broadcast? What is the medium? It cannot be micro- or radio- waves used by our stations, then what is it?
How about this familiar thing called Nature? I suggest that Nature is this elusive medium conducting the broadcast straight to our brains. I think it would be pretty hard to disprove my suggestion. I cannot think of the approach suitable for disconnecting of the brain from Nature... So every line in this magisterial book telling how the brain processes information about its surroundings remains firmly in place. The interpretation, however, is entirely different: the consciousness is not the product of the autonomous brain absorbing and processing all this information, but part of the broadcast sent to the brain through Nature which it receives and interprets in its own way.
This brings us to the character of this broadcast. If the essence transmitted through Nature is rational soul, one can fully expect rationality manifested in Nature itself. Indeed, all of our science is the search of rational principles organizing Nature on every level. It is the perfect medium for transmission of these principles and truths to the brain.
So we arrive at this picture: the brain is the receiver, Nature is the broadcast medium, and the rational principles of our own existence is the eternal broadcast beamed onto us, collectively and individually. I can name the originator of this broadcast, but that is not needed. What is needed is an explanation why this interpretation is inferior to Crick's astonishing hypothesis. This is clearly not the question of collecting observations and facts. This is a question of interpretation of these facts and these can always be interpreted both ways.
Isn't that astonishing?
I am skeptical of this astonishing hypothesis.
Consider a TV set. Don't the images it shows result from the "activities entirely due to the behavior of transistors, capacitors, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them?" That is certainly the case. But make no mistake that the broadcast it receives has nothing to do with this machinery; the only purpose of this sophisticated device is to provide reliable reception of what is external to it. Observe that what the TV sets show is different for each set. One shows in black and white, another is programmed to sports channels, etc. Even if the broadcast is common, the specific behavior of each set is not. A neolith man would never guess that, assuming that each TV set shows its own show, indicating that the sets have individuality. So the question is not whether the brain is producing consciousness, it is whether the brain is doing it autonomously or serving as a receiver, a unique TV set whose elaborate machinery has little to do with the essence of what it receives, but determines what part of the broadcast is received. That highly individual part of the common broadcast is called human soul. Then, naturally, the properties of the soul are defined by the broadcast itself rather than its receiver and the person should be viewed along the traditional religious lines: as the unity of the body (providing the reception) and the soul (what this receiver receives). I cannot think of any experiment purporting to prove that "we" are the function of the brain that is inconsistent with such an interpretation. Surely, tweaking a TV set will have some effect on the reception. This does not mean that the TV program originates in this manipulated TV set.
An interesting corollary of this view is that the mortality of the soul is wholly determined by the broadcast itself rather than the state of the body. For all we know, this broadcast may be eternal, and so is the part of it that is received by the particular brain. This part objectively exists as long as the broadcast itself exists. The decay of the body has nothing to do with the content of the soul even though the shape of the latter was defined by the body. Indeed, the soul is just a part of the broadcast that animates a particular body.
So, what makes Crick's astonishing hypothesis more convincing than this very familiar astonishing hypothesis, if no experimental evidence can be procured to falsify the receiver conjecture? The only intelligible answer I've heard was not an answer, but a question: tell us what is this broadcast? What is the medium? It cannot be micro- or radio- waves used by our stations, then what is it?
How about this familiar thing called Nature? I suggest that Nature is this elusive medium conducting the broadcast straight to our brains. I think it would be pretty hard to disprove my suggestion. I cannot think of the approach suitable for disconnecting of the brain from Nature... So every line in this magisterial book telling how the brain processes information about its surroundings remains firmly in place. The interpretation, however, is entirely different: the consciousness is not the product of the autonomous brain absorbing and processing all this information, but part of the broadcast sent to the brain through Nature which it receives and interprets in its own way.
This brings us to the character of this broadcast. If the essence transmitted through Nature is rational soul, one can fully expect rationality manifested in Nature itself. Indeed, all of our science is the search of rational principles organizing Nature on every level. It is the perfect medium for transmission of these principles and truths to the brain.
So we arrive at this picture: the brain is the receiver, Nature is the broadcast medium, and the rational principles of our own existence is the eternal broadcast beamed onto us, collectively and individually. I can name the originator of this broadcast, but that is not needed. What is needed is an explanation why this interpretation is inferior to Crick's astonishing hypothesis. This is clearly not the question of collecting observations and facts. This is a question of interpretation of these facts and these can always be interpreted both ways.
Isn't that astonishing?