It seems common for consciousness to be viewed either as an
inexplicable mystery or as something we will only be able to comprehend if
advances in science can explain how thoughts – a rich inner life - can somehow
be created from matter. However, the problems we have in comprehending the
emergence of consciousness may stem from our habit of thinking in terms of a
separation between mind and body.
The idea of mind as separate from body has been part of
Western philosophy for a long time, but is commonly referred to as Cartesian
dualism after René Descartes (1596–1650). Descartes who famously said, “I
think, therefore I am”, concluded “I knew that I was a substance, the whole
essence or nature of which is to think … [that] does not depend on any material
thing”. These days, not many people believe consciousness to be a substance,
but dualism still seems to linger on in much discussion about consciousness.
Descartes reached his conclusion after going through a
process of considering what sources of knowledge could not be doubted, and
discovering that he could not doubt that he was thinking. In his book, The Metaphysics of Emergence, Richard Campbell suggests
that Descartes was on the right track in observing that he was unable to doubt
that he was thinking:
“If I seriously think that I am not thinking, what I am
thinking is pragmatically self-refuting.” (283)
Descartes error arose when he asked himself, “What then am
I?” after observing that he could not doubt he was thinking. As Campbell points
out, that question “presupposes that he takes himself to be some sort of thing”.
(Campbell’s discussion reminds me of the part of the long speech
Ayn Rand had John Galt make in Atlas Shrugged in which Galt proclaims
the axiom that “existence exists”, and that consciousness is “the faculty of
perceiving that which exists”. Galt adds “a consciousness with nothing to be
conscious of is a contradiction in terms” (1015). Readers who are allergic to
Ayn Rand will be pleased to note that Campbell’s book contains no references to
her, or to Objectivism.)
Before going further I should note that Richard Campbell is
an emeritus professor of philosophy at the ANU. The Metaphysics of Emergence
was published in 2015.
Campbell asks what conclusion we can draw from the
observation that we cannot doubt we are thinking. His answer:
“Thinking that one is thinking, being
aware that one is aware, has to be at least a meta-level operation,
interacting with the processes of more basic awareness.”
To understand what Campbell is getting at here, it may be
helpful to have some knowledge of the general line of argument he develops in his
- In the
preface, the author explains that he has come to the view that any satisfactory
account of the emergence of complex phenomena has to begin with recognition
that “processes underly what seem like stable enduring entities, and
therefore should be accorded priority over them”.
- Campbell argues that everything is fundamentally in process.
That line of argument is opposed to the dominant tradition of Western
intellectual history (began by Parmenides) which views entities as the norm. The
view that everything is a process presents us with the challenge of explaining
the emergence and apparent stability of enduring things, whereas under the
dominant tradition change requires explanation.
- Campbell suggests
that Plato may have misrepresented Heraclitus in claiming he said, “You cannot
step into the same river twice”. Heraclites may have been trying to convey the
insight that the river stays the same even though it consists of changing
waters. Campbell suggests that rivers exemplify “that the continued existence
of things depends on their continually changing”.
- The view of stability as the norm led to a focus on
particular entities and the “matter” of which they were comprised. Since matter
itself seemed to be comprised of entities (atoms and sub-atomic particles) it
seemed to follow that everything was composed of entities (countable things).
However, advances in physics make that view no longer tenable. Although sub-atomic particles are often still
talked about as though they are well-defined micro-entities, they behave more
like processes than entities. Entities can no longer be accorded the role of
the primary way of being.
- Entities, including living things, can be best understood as
special cases of generic processes constrained in certain explicable ways. Entities
are minimally homomerous – they exist in fixed portions or units. If you cut a
cow in two the result is not two smaller cows.
- Many types of dynamic system retain their distinctive
properties even though their constituents are replaced over time. That points
to the importance of the constituent processes in maintaining the system.
- Living creatures perform actions. Interactions between
internal and external processes binds them together as cohesive entities and
enables them to behave as integral wholes. Their actions are an emergent
phenomenon – resulting from the interaction of many processes.
- As Aristotle recognized, talk of actions carries
implications of teleology – actions are directed towards some goal or end. In
the case of simple multi-cellular organisms, goal-directedness is directed
toward survival, but does not carry any implication of conscious choices or
purposes. “The recursive self-maintenance of an organism is what requires the
category of action to be predicated of it as an integrated action system and provides
the necessary condition for other kinds of action which are directed at ends
other than survival.” (176)
- As evolution proceeds, living creatures become capable of
performing selective actions in response to differences in their environments.
In relatively simple organisms, those actions are instinctual rather than
choices involving deliberation or calculation. Selection becomes more
significant in more complex creatures which need to choose between fighting and
fleeing, or whether to search for food or find a mate. Complex organisms can
learn by detecting that some action they have performed is in error.
- The appropriate question regarding motivation is what makes
an organism perform one action rather than another, rather than what makes it
do something rather than nothing. Living organisms cannot do nothing, or they
cease to exist as living beings.
- When an organism has the ability to learn which kinds of
action yields rewards and to select actions on the basis of that learning it
seems reasonable to say that it can evaluate the projected outcomes. As
organisms become more highly developed, goal-seeking activity becomes
increasingly self-directed, more flexible, and more generic (not confined to
specific task routines). The behaviors of many species of non-human animals indicates
that they have some awareness of their surroundings.
- The consciousness of humans evolved from the awareness
displayed by other animals. Primate awareness includes elaborate event
representations in which experience across many sources including bodily
feelings are integrated and can be remembered. However, primates seem to lack
the “fundamental defining capacities” to develop language skills (unless raised
by humans) and do not express any kind of self-description.
- Human evolution went through several stages: a mimetic
culture employing the whole body as an expressive device; the mythic stage in
which spoken language evolved (arguably to meet specific cognitive and cultural
needs); and the theoretic stage beginning around 5,500 years ago with invention
of the first writing systems. The theoretic stage is characterized by “institutionalized
paradigmatic thought” – using external symbolic devices to store and retrieve
- One’s sense of oneself is an aspect of consciousness that
seems to be distinctively human, although some species of apes and elephants
can recognize an image in a mirror as their own. “Our individual
self-understandings are informed by our autobiographical memories, whose
meaning depends on a shared oral tradition.” (290) Our consciousness of
ourselves has been shaped by cultural and institutional factors that influence
how our brains develop and function. While we talk metaphorically of the evolution
of modern humans, this is not evolution in the Darwinian sense. A child born
today differs little genetically from one born 60,000 years ago.
- The development of human brains is strongly influenced by
personal experience. Cultural interactions play an important role in
determining the way the brains of children develop. They do not reach their
mature architecture until adulthood.
Some further explanation can now be given of what Campbell
meant by writing that being aware that one is aware has to be at least a meta-level
operation, interacting with the processes of more basic awareness. He is
suggesting that when he detects something with one of his five senses there is
more than one operation going on:
“I am actively eliciting and processing those sensory
inputs, and at the same time reflectively experiencing the qualities of that
awareness. If that is right, then the way many philosophers today pose the
issue of experience – how is it that certain complex physical systems are also
mental – is misconceived. The situation is not that there is one phenomenon which
has two aspects: one physical; one mental. Rather, experiencing is an on-going
self-organizing activity which involves two distinct types of process:
exploratory sensory activity (which is both bodily and neural); and another
higher-level process operating upon the former. Being self-organizing, these
interactions essentially involve feedback. That is why humans’ consciousness is
reflective, reflexive, and thereby self-aware.” (283-4)
Before concluding, I should make clear that I prepared the
above summary to improve my own understanding of the line of argument in
Richard Campbell’s book. I hope it is a reasonable summary, but it not a
substitute for reading the book. I am publishing this article in the hope of
encouraging others to read the book.
I would also like to mention that I was prompted to read The
Metaphysics of Emergence by a comment made by Robert L Campbell, a
psychologist, in his review (published in JARS)
of Harry Binswanger’s book, How We Know. I am pleased that I was given
that prompt to read the book because I have a long-standing interest in explanations
of consciousness - for example, see my comments on Alva Noё’s book, Out of
Our Heads, published on
this blog over a decade ago.
We cannot doubt that we think. That seems to me to be a
profound observation. We may have reasons to doubt that what we are thinking at
any moment is related to reality, but we cannot doubt that
we are thinking. We are aware of both the flow of inner experiences – thoughts
and feelings – and of our experience of the world in which we live. Thinking
about our experience of the world enables us to contemplate the goals we seek,
to make choices in pursuit of those goals, and to learn from experience. Our
observations of the world tell us that many other animals also engage in similar
processes - which imply an awareness of their surroundings. We have no problem
in understanding that their awareness emerged/evolved to help them to survive
and reproduce. Our human consciousness is just another step in that
evolutionary process. Awareness of our own awareness has emerged to help us to
flourish as individuals in the cultures in which we live.