MATTER FOR SCIENCE OR PHILOSOPHY?

As a society, we often use science as a tool to help us navigate life’s mysteries Science is undeniably useful as it provides us with empirical and rational explanations, however there are times in which science alone is not enough to provide clarity, such as the nature of human consciousness That is, man’s self-awareness of their relation between self and the universe. Therefore in my article, I will be assessing whether consciousness can be explained best as a biological or metaphysical phenomenon.

A purely scientific lens explains mental experiences entirely as physical processes: ‘the mind is nothing but the motions in certain parts of an organic mind’ Hence, science tells us that consciousness can easily be reduced down to neurological events that occur in our brain. For example, the feeling of excitement is a brain state caused by the chemical release of an adrenaline hormone, or the feeling of stress is catalysed by the release of cortisol. This links to the idea of monism: the mind and body are not separate substances but are in fact both part of the material world. A world that is, ultimately, biological. In this way, our mental states are identical to our physical states, and one could argue that consciousness is a biological phenomenon

However, there are limits to this view ‘Mary’s Room’ is a fascinating thought experiment proposed by Frank Jackson, which challenges the purely material conception of consciousness. Jackson asks us to imagine a girl called Mary who has lived in a black and white room her whole life, and has never witnessed the colour red. Mary educates herself on everything there is to know about vision and the neuroscience of the colour red. But, if she were to see a red apple for the first time, Jackson poses the question of whether she learns anything new. Despite the fact that she had obtained all of the physical information, it seems largely intuitive that Mary learnt something from witnessing the colour red, as it is an experience and sensation. Therefore we can conclude that there are elements to experience and knowledge that transcend fact. Moreover, the scientific view subscribes to the idea that everything belongs to a material world. However in order for this to be true, conscious states would need to possess material properties such as mass, shape, temporal/spatial locations. However these properties can not be applied to thoughts, sensations or feelings. This can be characterised as ‘qualia’. In light of this, I reject the physicalist depiction of human nature, as it leaves no room for an acknowledgement of qualia, and does not allow for differentiation between mental and physical states.

An alternative approach to this, is the theory of substance dualism proposed by Descartes. A dualist conception of what it means to be a human being suggests that all of us are composed of the mind and body which are two separate and distinct entities that can interact Dualists believe that these entities co-exist yet are fundamentally distinct due to their differing properties. For example, the body belongs to the physical world and is characterised by the fact that it is destructible and has material properties such as mass, shape, weight etc. By contrast, the mind is indestructible, as it belongs to the immaterial world, the mind has extension beyond precise locations in space

Hence, in contrast to physicalists, dualists believe that mental phenomena are non-physical states i.e consciousness is not irreducible to brain function, as the mind is not identical to the brain. Therefore, dualists would believe that the thought of someone walking is not simply triggered by the interaction of neurons in the brain, as it is a non-physical event In essence human beings belong to two separate realms: the material and the immaterial.

Whilst dualism acknowledges qualitative elements to consciousness, I believe that it is a theory that is inherently flawed This is because it fails to resolve the problem of interactionism It seems apparent that there is a relationship between our mind and body: my mental thought to raise my hand in class is then acted on by the physical deed of raising my hand, therefore our thoughts and actions are undeniably correlated As pointed out by Princess Eliazabeth of Bohemia , dualism fails to provide an adequate explanation for this relationship as if the mind is an immaterial substance how can it have causal influence over our body which exists in the spatial temporal world. Moreover, dualism disregards any biological components of consciousness, which seems implausible, as people who are brain dead experience consciousness differently

The philosopher Daniel Dennet sought to resolve the problem of interactionism through epiphenomenalism which states that consciousness emerges from brain functionality but is not reproducible down to it. Hence, whilst epiphenomenalism acknowledges physical states, (such as a light bulb striking your retina allowing you to witness a tree), it also explains that mental states are an emergent property of these physical processes, that have no causal influence over what happens in the brain and body. Thus, consciousness is something that supervenes on the processes that occur in the brain. Whilst this is not a perfect theory, it recognises both non-physical and physical elements to consciousness and provides a clear causal link between them, uniting the deeply philosophical with the scientific.

In conclusion, our subjective experiences are both defined by neurological events but also by the qualitative states that occur as a result of them (feeling of pain, smelling a rose, the redness of red) which can not be explained simply by physical facts. The question of what consciousness is undeniably one that will continue to puzzle academics. Maybe the answer lies somewhere in between. If this phenomenon teaches us anything, perhaps it indicates that it is time we stop viewing science and philosophy as incompatible fields, and instead develop an understanding of the ways in which both studies can enrich human understanding.