In this essay, I will explain why I believe consciousness cannot simply take a materialist form but rather a dualist form. To do so, I will firstly define consciousness and then discuss materialism and why I believe it is logically flawed. In doing so, I will present dualism as a stronger alternative, arguing that materialism is not sound. This stems from the fact that materialism presents a world of objective reality in which our brains follow a computational thought process; a view which fails to account for subjectivity and individuality. The shift in such views from a traditional dualist view presented by Boyle, to a materialist view presented by Papineau, I believe stems from a change in the dynamics of society- we have diverged away from a religious state in which there exists a greater being to a state in which we believe everything can be explained by science without the need of a greater being, a view at the forefront of Hawkings: The Grand Design. This view that we exist purely in the material essence has dominated recently as a result of societies rejection in their belief in a superior consciousness or being.
To adequately denounce materialism, we must first define consciousness and what a conscious being is. Chalmer divides this in to the easy problem and the hard problem. In his approach of the easy problem, he argues that consciousness can be defined by the abilities and functions of the consciousness. Chalmers discusses the idea that consciousness is a state of mind in which one is verbally reportable and internally accessible. This definition I believe easily refutable by counter example; ones’ state in old age where one has no perception of time and therefore, whilst is verbally reportable and internally accessible would not be described as conscious as they fail to perceive their environment and period. They can still relay their mental states, attend to pain they may feel but this doesn’t correspond them being in a conscious state due to a lack of awareness of their surroundings. To this extent, we would categorise those who lack sanity in its conventional sense to also lack consciousness- those who hallucinate would be expelled to a psychiatric ward. Thus, this definition of consciousness fails to account for what it provides us. Chalmers further argues that consciousness is when a system can react to stimuli, a view I further denounce due a plants ability to react to light stimuli and grow accordingly, known as phototropism- yet we do not perceive a plant as conscious. The hard problem argues that it is brain activity which gives rise to a conscious experience. I believe this ignores the essence and attempts to investigate the shell- what gives rise to brain activity?
Physically, there is no material difference between a new born baby and a still born baby- their material composition is arbitrarily identical. But, one seizes to have brain activity, and this therefore must transcend our material composition.
Hence, I do not believe that consciousness can be externally and operationally defined. Rather, consciousness is something that is qualitative; “what it’s like to be something”. It’s something individual, something unique, providing the essence for subjectivity. The Cartesian view that, if you doubt everything, you cannot doubt the fact that you are doubting springs to mind. Descartes extends this to: ‘I think therefore I am’. I would argue that rather, he thinks and therefore a greater being is- ‘I’ is a vague, undefined individual which is the contingent existence of something greater as he cannot be the only one to exist. This highlights the primacy of consciousness. Thus, I would define consciousness as the primary reality with which we judge every other reality. An understanding so unique and personal that it would not be possible for it to be limited to the material composition of matter.
Having a vague understanding of consciousness, we must now seek to explain why materialism does not hold. The materialist or physicalist argument is such that a conscious experience is purely a physical phenomenon, based on physical processes occurring in the brain. This mechanical philosophy acts to define the universe an eternal cycle of unintelligent, unconscious atoms forming the foundation and building blocks of greater more advanced beings who follow a set of computational orders and laws (computational theory). My first critique lies here- who set out or created these laws with which all matter must obey. If all things unintelligent atoms, and consciousness is a manifested information processing machine, there must be some being which transcends the laws to have set up the process and react accordingly. Nonetheless, we shall proceed to continue the discussion on materialism. The casual argument defines materialism in the following logical form:
1. Some conscious experiences have physical effects (mental causation) – e.g. pain leads to screeching
2. All physical effects are fully caused by purely physical causes
3. The physical effects of conscious experiences are not always over determined by distinct causes
4. Some conscious experiences are purely physical causes.
5. If some conscious experiences are purely physical causes then materialism is true
6. Materialism is true
Whilst this may appear logically valid, I believe that it is not sound. That is that the premises do not follow to the conclusion being made. The first premise:
1. Some conscious experiences have physical effects
I would argue to be logically flawed. The physical stimuli and experiences are felt by ones conscious, but the reaction to such stimuli is not a conscious action. To suddenly screech in pain isn’t necessarily a conscious action but rather an innate response to unfamiliar stimuli. Thus, the physical effect may not stem from a conscious experience. Secondly, I would argue against the second premise:
2. All physical effects are fully caused by purely physical causes.
A physical effect can be caused by a metaphysical experience, such as a dream. This is not a physical cause, such as a nightmare which manifests in to a physical screech. Similarly, it can be argued that there exists characteristics that transcend the physical properties, such as the following argued by Tim Crane:
(1) Before he tasted wine, Louis knew all the physical, physiological, psychological and oenological facts about wine and tasting wine.
(2) After he tasted wine, he learned something new: what wine tastes like.
(3) Therefore, not everything that there is to know about tasting wine is something physical.
There must therefore be non-physical things to learn about wine: viz. what it tastes like.
If there exists properties which we perceive greater than the physical realm then it must be true that physical effects are not only caused by physical causes. Hence if we can argue that some aspects of existence transcend the physical realm, materialism is not true.
Alternatively, we can prove materialism lacks sounded as its can be refuted through a dualist approach. Dualism argues that although consciousness is dependent on the brain function, “it is not itself fundamentally a physical phenomenon”. Arguing that ghosts are creatures experientially identical to us without a physical form, and zombies a physical being without a conscious experience, it is conceivable that whilst they don’t exist, they are possible in the broadest sense. If they are plausible, then the logic follows:
1. If zombies/ghosts are possible, then materialism is false
2. If zombies/ ghosts are conceivable, then they are possible.
3. Zombies/ghosts are conceivable.
4. Materialism is false.
The argument is said to be valid as the premises logically follow through to the conclusion. Argued by Raekstad as a plausible argument in the contemporary understanding of the metaphysical realm, it uses propositional logic to deduce that materialism is false. Its soundness however, can be questioned. To question its soundness, Chalmers argues that just because something is “conceivable, it is not a necessity that it is possible”. For example, one may conceive a man with 10 heads, but this is not possible. Thus, whilst the argument may hold in validity, its soundness can be questioned.
Thus, to argue against materialism, I shall refer to a flaw in man’s understanding of consciousness, and how materialism demonstrates a failed attempt by man to truly comprehend consciousness. The materialist approach explains life to be the epiphenomena of matter or energy, or fundamental particles which accumulate together. This explanation is devoid of any life, essentially creating a ‘dead’ reality. Argued as ‘brain activity’ being the hard problem of consciousness, I do not believe that materialism is consistent with the definition of consciousness earlier. It fails to account for love, beauty and life- all things that make us, us. We have proven that while Dualism may not be philosophically sound, it provides a plausible alternative to negate materialism. Thus, we cannot disprove materialism, not because it is philosophically true, but because we as humans fail to truly define our consciousness, an aspect that is at the heart of human life.