Publications
Partners
“What is mind? Never matter. What is matter? Never mind” T H Key
The ultimate chicken-or-the-egg conundrum: Which came first, mind or matter? Is the mind- or consciousness- the product of matter, or is matter the product of mind? Or in other words is this a material or mental/spiritual universe?
Consensus on these ‘mysteries’ remains elusive though.
There are two basic worldviews in this regard, in the first the mind is the primary or ultimate reality.
Material reality either issues from a pre-existing mind, or is shaped by a pre-existing intelligence, or both according to Stephen C Meyer, a PHD in the history and philosophy of science.
The opposite view holds that the physical universe or nature is the ultimate reality. Either energy or matter (or both) are the things from which everything else emanates. This worldview is called naturalism or materialism.
Current mainstream academia and researchers are committed to a belief that the immaterial mind emerges from ordinary matter, especially with regards to the brain. This stance or position is what is known as materialism or physicalism, has replaced the mind-body dualism as the mainstream academic position on the mind-body problem.
Dualism holds to the view that mind and matter are completely different substances, and mind (or soul or spirit) merely inhabits matter. If dualists cannot explain the mechanics of this interaction- that of the physical and non-physical co-existence- materialists avoid this dilemma entirely by identifying the mind as matter- not separate entities.
By doing so they forget the influence the mind has over/on the body. There seems to be a temptation to skip the difficult steps of linking complex mental phenomena with neural processes. Instead this step is regarded as just working out the details and filling them in, replacing mental terms like ‘intention’ ‘attitude’ or mood with terms that are less nuanced like ‘pleasure-chemical’ ‘depression gene’ or ‘empathy neuron’.
This has proved to be wholly inadequate though for constructing a mechanist theory of how the mind works. It appears to be a type of reductionism to explain the mind away.
Physicist Henry Stapp writes in his book ‘Mindful Universe:
“In short, already, the orthodox version of quantum mechanics, unlike classical mechanics, is not about a physical world detached from experiences; detached from minds.”
To paraphrase physicist George Stanciu and philosopher Robert Augros,
……….. The material universe cannot always have existed because matter had a beginning…..whatever has always existed is non-material …… the only non-material reality seems to be mind.
Why then does modern biology embrace naturalism despite the insight of modern physics? Maybe because physics is a branch of science that most closely approaches the boundary separating science from philosophy and religion. Certainly much more closely than biology does. In other words physics deals with the fundamentals or ‘big picture’ aspects of our reality.
By way of explanation, biologists once reserved a place of distinction for the human mind, but have moved toward the hard-core materialism that characterised nineteenth-century physics. Physics on the other hand have moved away from strictly mechanical models of the universe – as a result of
facing compelling experimental evidence- to a view that sees the mind as playing an integral role in all physical events. It has been described as the two disciplines on different fast-moving trains- going in opposite directions and not noticing what is happening across the tracks.
Interestingly, naturalism is critical for maintaining an atheist worldview.
Mind must be the product of mindless matter for this stance to stand.
Therefore, the insights of modern physics have to be rationalised away to prevent the belief system from collapsing. And because materialism is the predominant cultural context within the insular world of atheist biologists( as well as other branches of academia) this is done collectively.
Professor of Biology- Lynn Margulis notes; ……… ‘people are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of ‘truth’ – scientists especially- if not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.’
The other motivating factor for atheism amongst biologists however is that the admission of the existence of a creator/ intelligent designer would mean there are aspects of the phenomenon of life beyond the bounds of science and ergo their understanding.
Keith Ward, retired Professor of Philosophy at Kings College, London states;
“ Materialist philosophers argue that consciousness is a construct of matter.
but Plato and almost all the great classical philosophers, East and West, suggest the opposite. Matter, at least as it appears to us, is a construct of consciousness. …… which is real and creative ……and not just a by-product of the world we perceive. Without consciousness the world we perceive would not even exist.
Quantum physicist, John von Neumann said, “All real things are contents of consciousness. This is about as far from materialism as you can get- , and it is an interpretation of modern physics ………………….. .
So there you have it, mind matters, but matter does not mind.
