A February mindful stroll

A February stroll along the philosophical road of the mind and its quest for meaning. 

I agree with Richard Rorty, who championed the idea of a social narrative based on freedom from pain and humiliation, to usher in a state of open-mindedness, to take precedence over from all prior philosophical conventions. Rorty doesn’t say that analytical philosophy is wrong or that there cannot be realised meritorious connections to its principles, but rather he doesn’t believe in any exclusivity of knowing that can only be realised by philosophy.

That is to say, by reference to a logical progression, to continue to ask questions, is what philosophers need to do. For whatever concrete ethical values we ascribe to, nothing can prevent us from falling off the tightrope at times. As guardians of rationality, one can see fit to advance the various causes that add meaning to one’s life and society in general. But increasingly in an ever complex world that meaningful narrative demands reciprocity and empathy for any real progress to be made.  

Even so, it continues to be helpful to consider the ancient Greek roots of our western philosophy.  What I aim to do is to provide an abbreviated narrative that attempts to trace that mindful journey. In the process I attempt to link some of the scientific discoveries that shaped that evolving thought process. Ultimately we end with an important realization – mystery has its place, so I aim to end on a positive theoretical high note.  

A Philophers guide to reality and meaningful existence.       

Philosophers like Plato based their thinking on the premise our well-being is the moral code for existence which can be attained by leading a virtuous life. Plato attributed the mind being able to understand how to be good and that virtue might emanate from obtaining that knowledge.

But as our level of awareness increased, natural curiosity prompted us to ask questions about reality and how one can meaningful define our state of being or existence.

Aristotle (322 BC-384 BC provided the first formal paper on metaphysics.

Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality, inclusive of the relationship between mind and matter.

In his philosophy Aristotle is concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has., That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity.  A measure of his contribution to metaphysics was his ideas remained virtually unchallenged for over a thousand years. Today they are the cornerstone for the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions to define our state of being from a religious philosophical perspective. It is not my perspective however to rigidly assert all the Abrahamic faiths are totally reliant upon the Aristotelian view, rather his broad metaphysics profoundly influenced or was a cornerstone to much of it (with varying degrees) although I acknowledge in some sects they went entirely different ways inclusive of splits in Christianity.

Of course Aristolean logic was hostage to the notion of a central earth about which the stars and planets revolved. It was not until the invention of the telescope and Galileo’s observations that the Aristotelean view was finally refuted in the seventeenth century. Galileo reduced Aristotle’s metaphysics in religion to attribute GOD only to the primary causes (or those not understood) with the balance known as secondary causes comprehensible as mechanical processes.

His refutation of the Aristotelean idea of a fixed central planet earth met with stiff opposition as his note to Kepler testifies:

‘I wish, my dear Kepler that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. (Galileo Galilei)

The most dominant philosopher at that time was René Descartes who expanded the idea of a mechanical view of the world to include physics, biology and psychology. His famous phrase ‘I am thinking, therefore I exist’ denotes his idea of a distinct human intellect for all human perceptions unaffected and separate to the senses.
Hence his metaphysics talked about a distinction between the mind and the substance of a material world comprehensible from a mechanical perspective.
His ideas were plausible then, given the feeling of solidness to the world and the predictability of observable outcomes for mechanical systems.

Descartes ‘concluded that the essences of all things and those calculable mathematical truths’ perceivable from enquiry were immutable and eternal causes established under the hand of GOD.

The next great advancement of science was from Newton (1643-1727) who took a 7-year fellowship with Trinity College in 1667 which was reliant on him swearing an oath ‘I will either set Theology as the object of my studies and take holy orders when the time prescribed by those statutes arrives, or I will resign from the college’

He was the first of the great Scientists to show the laws of science are indeed universal laws that effect everything. For Newton and many of his contemporaries God was the architect of it all. Newton even went on to say God was a "hands on” architect who might interfere from "time to time". John Gribbon- Science A History -1543-2001.

18th century

At the beginning of the 18th century the famous botanist Linnaeus (1707-1778) who was responsible for over 7000 descriptions for species of plants and most European animals rejected the Aristotelean metaphysics which defined plants as substance with properties. Instead he proposed their existence was based upon the provision of nutrition and in the propagation of their species.
Thus the interconnectivity of all living things was beginning to take root- if you will excuse my pun!

Immanuel Kant (b. April 22, 1724- 12.4.1804) was a German philosopher who greatly influenced all subsequent philosophy. Kant recognized the problem of the human mind and provided a solution as to how we can escape from the confines of our mind to a reality of an outside world physically beyond it.

Kant’s solution posited that prior known truths are insufficient to describe metaphysics but from prior knowledge (which he called a priori) the mind is capable of joining up with analysis to understand how to proceed. This may seem a rather straightforward matter for us today but it was a major move forward in thinking then to run counter to existing philosophy.

His ideas ensured a much better understanding about how the mind joins past knowledge and links to analysis to posit judgments about our interaction with the outside world.

Kant employed in his thinking what is known as the transcendental argument about the minds ability to be aware of things outside of the minds existence about which it has no prior knowledge by joining with a partial priori to give rise to analysis and subsequent comprehension. E.g. the mind itself is aware of its own experience. Kant then argued that a philosophical investigation into the nature of the external world must be an inquiry into the features and activity of the mind that knows it.

Kant argued the mind gives objects some of their characteristics in accord with its compliant nature to bring uniformity within its structured conceptual capability.

Kant’s transcendal argument however does not mean philosophically he saw grounds for ideas such as, ‘God is a perfect being.’ as Kant maintained that the mind was a tool to formal structuring that enables the conjoining of concepts into judgments, but that the mind possesses a priori for judgments, not a priori of judgments.

This idea is not too far away from studies undertaken into cognitive neuroscience. It was concluded the frontal lobes of the brain assemble all of the information (including that which is conveyed from the senses) from other parts to make judgments based upon all of the assembled information to hand. Elhanan Goldberg – The Executive Brain.

19th & 20th Century

it was in the 19th century the pace of change quickened with the social upheaval of the Industrial Revolution; discoveries of Carbon Dioxide, water as an element, the Steam Engine, Electricity, Oxygen and Darwin’s theory of natural selection.  

One of the prominent philosophers of great influence was Friedrich Nietzsche ( 1844-1900) whose work today is subject to countless interpretations (or should I say misinterpretations) and who is better known for his quote ‘God is Dead’. For Nietzsche, ‘all things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.'

As an insightful and enigmatic philosopher whose unusual style (he often wrote in aphorisms) Nietzsche was apt to ferociously attack any philosopher or religious philosophy captive to universal principles which he proffered was to reduce our state of being into one of a slave mentality to descend into nihilism.

The key to Nietzsche's philosophy from my perspective is his will to power and his metaphysical claim this is the essence of being. He posits our being comprises of instinctive interactions – the true, false, real, fictitious or unintelligible. His claim was 'that all sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for the future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values.

In his works entitled 'Beyond good and evil' he gives rise to the idea of ‘free spirits’ to emphasize ones self-knowledge that allows one to go beyond the bounds of morality to be free to unearth or uncover the conscious drivers or our wills.
Nietzsche’s hope is for philosophers to be free spirits unbounded by the shackles of dogmatism and willing and able to embrace hardships in a constant state of meaningful existence.

Another philosopher Albert Schweitzer, although heavily influence by Nietzsche, eventually went down a different track:  ‘Reverence for life means to be in the grasp of the infinite, inexplicable, forward-urging Will in which all Being is grounded.’ 'Reality is the Being which manifests itself in phenomena'

Schweitzer’s world view was influenced by Spinoza, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Native American religions aimed at providing a bridge for Christianity to be revitalized; to return to the ancient mystical links for a naturalistic world view. He posited eschatology entrapped Christianity to a journey of unjustified value judgments to fuel unwarranted pessimism about the intuitive human spirit. His world view was based upon our link to mysticism as a basis for reasoned understanding- not the other way around. Eschatology was central in his thinking as the catalysis for the pessimistic renunciation of a human society which was bound and captive to the continual overtures to an approaching kingdom of God.

What Schweitzer attempted to do was to remove the metaphysical Jesus of love housed in the God-Man-Creed- Dogma entrapments to be supplanted within his reverence for life based upon his life affirmation and unity for life themes. Wherever you see life – that is yourself.

But during this time science was also transformed as in 1905 Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity was published. The foundation stone was the constancy of the speed of light and that nothing exceeds the speed of light which was supported by experimental evidence.

He went on to develop the special theory of relativity to include the warping effects of gravity.

Many of the metaphysical ideas described so far have been principally based on our interactions involving everyday experience to define that reality of our state of being. But following on from Einstein people began to link existence more so to relativities. Concern mounted are there no longer any absolutes?  That idea was in keeping with the realization the only absolute appeared to the concept of space time. But what subsequently emerged were theories about the mind which would support the duality principle first logically argued by Descartes.

This theory is based on the quantum revolution (study of sub atomic particles called protons and electrons) which demonstrated that light could behave as a wave or as a stream of particles. Scientists have postulating a number of theories about the behaviors of electrons and protons inside or outside of atoms. The bizarre notion of quantum mechanics postulate where two photons were entangled any successful measurement of either will force the other distant photon (however far away- even were it to be on the other side of the universe) into a corresponding same spin cycle as if it is still connected (even though it isn’t) rather than behave in accord with expected probabilities.

From a scientific point of view we remain unable to provide a satisfactory metaphysical model about reality - our state of being and their ontologies. All we can say is our minds give us a comprehension of reality (even if it's not reality) verifiable by independent scientific means. All that proves is comprehension is correct according to the observation but not that it is real. Of course it is real to the extent it needs to be real for us to exist but that is all above the quantum level and according to large scale physics where it works very well.

Can quantum theory explain mind, consciousness and afterlife? 

A cosmologist shared his views with me, in attempting to answer those questions. The plausible theory presented is a viable alternative to the materialistic idea the minds and brains are inseparable- so the mind can only be explained as an emerging property of the brain. Rather, he talks about a weird kind of Cartesian mind brain dualism. encompassing a non - material, non - locality aspect to the workings of the mind. The theory he talks about was as the result of a collaboration of  Anaesthiologist Stuart Hameroff and physicist Roger Penrose, together with a team of other physicists posited the possibility the mind need not be limited to the neuronal activity of the brains circuitry. Rather, consciousness could conceivably arise at the subatomic quantum level by virtue of a microtubules protein filaments within the neurons. These would form inside each neuron and act as an internal nervous system, processing information by quantum computation at a much faster and denser rate than the assembly of neurons, far exceeding Moor’s law. Hence neuronal microtubules are a latticework of microscopic protein subunits.  They would separate chromosomes during cell division and self assemble and in such a way as we associate with normal brain activity. What becomes evident is our consciousness could reside both inside and outside of the brain by virtue of the non- material non - locality aspect of quantum mechanics.
We tend to think in terms of holding one thought at the time, but under even general quantum theory there is no reason why we couldn't simultaneously hold different thoughts at the same time.
 
Conclusions. 
But just as we clothe ourselves to add colour to our character, all of the great philosophers and scientists I have subjectively mentioned add meaning to our existence. I feel like it is just as if one is having a conversation with a trusted friend. At least that is my experience and my hope is it is yours. And to all the dear departed loved ones, can you please wish me luck when it's my time, as you see me fly by.