I came across an article written by a webmaster, Reflections on God and All Things, which really made me think. If it weren't for the development of blockchain technology, I might have missed out on many thoughtful people hidden in ordinary life. Of course, my reflections are not equivalent to agreeing with the webmaster's views. I have also skimmed through several other articles by the webmaster, and I know that our thoughts are based on different foundations. But I still want to write down some of my shallow thoughts on this mysterious thing called "consciousness".
The AI summary feature is indeed very useful: this article explores the origin of consciousness and the existence of God. The author poses a question: how do unconscious atoms combine to form consciousness? If we assume that atoms are unconscious, then this involves the theory of God's creation. If we deny this assumption, then consciousness/soul is something that all things in the world possess, similar to the theory of pantheism. The author believes that in any case, God exists, whether it is the theory of God's independent creation or the theory of pantheism permeating all things, or a combination of both. The author also mentions Aristotle's proposition that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," but is unsure if it can explain the vast gap between matter and consciousness. It quickly helped me find the core argument of this article.
First of all, my argument is that I find it difficult to agree with the author's views in general. If possible, with a critical eye, you can watch Kurzgesagt's video, where they introduce a phenomenon called "emergence" in a very popular way. It talks about how a bunch of seemingly unconscious matter can come together and become "smarter". This "emergence" is very similar to the argument of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" mentioned at the end of the blogger's article. Without looking at the end of the blogger's article, just looking at the beginning, his theory is already clear: he first proposes that consciousness cannot be formed solely by arrangement and combination of basic particles. In the subsequent argument, he builds on the assumption that his own theory is already complete: either there is a god at the micro level or at the macro level, and concludes that the existence of God is inevitable, and continues his argument based on this conclusion. However, the author did not realize that since the moment he proposed "consciousness can only be bestowed, not spontaneously generated," he had already admitted the existence of free will, and even added that free will can only be generated through bestowal, not spontaneously. He put himself in the realm of idealism. This may be the fundamental reason why the blogger's subsequent arguments are biased, because he has already limited his perspective to a relatively backward or at least narrow-minded philosophy. It is not difficult to challenge the belief that consciousness cannot be spontaneously generated. It only requires asking the question "if consciousness can only occur through bestowal, then who bestows consciousness?" If we continue this recursion, will there never be an end? The ability to think from another's perspective is a human skill. If we admit the theory of God's creation and the existence of God, then who created the consciousness of the gods? Then it's really over, this question will never find an answer.
But I don't want to limit myself to questioning the author's overall argument, and I think the author's most admirable point is not the presentation of this view. It is the subsequent discussions. Before the "update" section at the end of the article, the author has been denying that emergence can create consciousness. In the "update" section, the author puts forward a view similar to emergence, but asks the readers: can this theory really explain the emergence of consciousness?
At this point, the brain may start to get confused. Let's go back to the beginning of everything and start with the absolute existence or non-existence of free will. Classical materialism, without a doubt, denies the existence of free will, which can be seen as a denial of the author's view of the inevitability of God. The specific process does not need to be elaborated on because materialists have already discussed and studied this issue enough, forming a logically complete theory. It is difficult for newcomers to intervene. It is easier to pick the soft persimmons. From the perspective of an individual, it is too macroscopic to talk about the existence of free will. It is difficult to make sense: it is even more microscopic to talk about the existence of free will from the perspective of a particle, with too little reference material, making it difficult to be practical. So let's pick the soft persimmons and think about a situation of "non-absolute existence". This is because staring at an individual human, an atom, and thinking about how free will comes into being is not practically meaningful; instead, it will fall into a bottomless pit called "speculation" (debate). This is not just an assumption of pragmatism. Although I do support philosophy and thought serving life and production, the harm of speculation is not only that it cannot serve life and production, but also has varying degrees of impact on physical and mental health. So it is better to avoid Wang Yangming-style debates and think about the practical aspects of life.
So now let's turn to the practical situation. Science tells us that whether it is classical mechanics or quantum mechanics, there is a cruel fact - we do know that the effect of an object is completely corresponding to its cause. As long as we know all the causes, it is clear that we can predict the next stage of an object's development in a linear manner. Modern science tells us this to a large extent influenced by materialism, but what they say also conforms to our life experience. There is a ball on the ground, kicking it is the cause, and the ball running in the direction of the force is the effect, which completely conforms to this set of rules. And if we continue to deduce along this line, looking at a person as a collection of small balls being kicked around, it is obvious that their trajectory can be predicted. And if it can be predicted, it obviously means that true free will does not exist.
But why do you and I truly feel that we have the freedom of will? Is this an illusion that only fools would have? Let's go back to the example of kicking a ball. Have you noticed that this example is actually biased? Who told you that when you kick a ball, it must fly in the direction you apply force? I am not questioning causality, but rather, have you really considered all the other truly meaningful factors? If I kick a ball and it stays in place due to static friction, what should I do? What if the wind suddenly picks up and blows the ball in the opposite direction? What if the ball suddenly explodes? What if a mischievous child suddenly snatches the ball away? In a complex system composed of 3 or more particles, these seemingly accidental and complex factors interact with each other in an extremely subtle way, making it difficult to continue the work of predicting motion, and thus, free will can continue to exist in a hazy manner. Placing a block of wood on a flat, horizontal table is already extremely complex in terms of classical mechanics analysis, and with the development of quantum mechanics, this analysis is something that all of humanity combined cannot bear.
But some people may still insist, doesn't this still emphasize that free will absolutely does not exist? Doesn't this completely avoid facing the webmaster's question? Not necessarily. These people may think, "Does the inability to collect enough information to make predictions mean that it is random?"
If these people think this way, then they have fallen into the bottomless pit of speculation. Reality tells us that, within the visible future, it is probably never possible to collect enough factors to predict the stages of an object's development. From a large wooden block to a small atom, we have no way to achieve true predictions. The next time you go to play soccer, you don't even know if the soccer ball will be snatched away by a mischievous child. But if I really make it clear that not knowing is equivalent to non-existence, then I am equivalent to digging a hole of idealism and jumping into it. My point is, what needs to be abandoned is speculation, and thoughts should emerge from reality. If it is never possible to collect enough factors, then why hold such a deep obsession with them? Why not simply let them be. Because on the day of playing soccer, I can check the weather forecast and if I know that it will be windy, why not go to the gym to play badminton, which also exercises the body.
Some people may still stubbornly think that this is still idealism, and it is "pragmatic idealism". This kind of thinking is wrong. The premise is that I have not affirmed the absolute existence of free will, nor have I denied the material world. Let's rewind and look at the pseudo-concept I created - "classical materialism". Does this concept really exist? It is all fictional, fake. This is actually a kind of "mechanistic materialism". Dialectical materialism provides a better and updated explanation, different from the mechanistic belief that everything can be predicted and developed linearly; dialectical materialism acknowledges the duality of things, acknowledges complexity, acknowledges dialectics, but at the same time, it does not acknowledge the absolute existence of free will.
Although it does not acknowledge the absolute existence of free will, dialectical materialism is much warmer than mechanistic materialism. I say that the trajectory of the ball's movement cannot be predicted, and this is true. But it is also true that we can check the weather forecast in advance to avoid windy weather. How is the weather forecast made? Is it based on collecting the force conditions of each air molecule and then using a supercomputer to deduce? Just thinking about it, you know it's impossible. The weather forecast is based on a general "trend". The warmth of dialectical materialism lies in the fact that it does not acknowledge that everything can be predicted, but it acknowledges the existence of this trend. Mechanistic materialism tells you to lie down, that when it rains, not a single drop will be missing, while dialectical materialism brings weather forecasts.
Think about it carefully, doesn't this viewpoint of dialectical materialism conform to the reality of life? In history, social scientists can predict the overall trend of social development, but they cannot really list a news list of what will happen in the next month or two. It is possible to deduce a person's final outcome, the overall tone of their life, whether they are a so-called "successful person" or a "failure," based on their work and life, but it is impossible to predict whether they will drink 1200mL or 1201mL of water tomorrow. Emergence should not only acknowledge that unintelligent things can form intelligent things, but also acknowledge that when there are many unpredictable things, they can form predictable things, and when there are many reversible things, they can become irreversible trends.
Entropy increase is a more sophisticated example. Entropy itself is an interpretation of time, and time is another theory that has stood the test of time alongside consciousness. There is a theory called the "arrow of time," which actually coincides with the thinking of dialectical materialism. The motion of each atom is reversible, or in other words, theoretically predictable, but if you really reverse the motion of each atom, you will be shocked. The arrow of time is an arrow pointing forward in the visible eternity, but if you zoom in, each pixel in the arrow is a two-way arrow.
Unpredictable and unknowable individuals can form predictable and knowable collectives. Individuals who do not have absolute free will, after being involved in social relationships, may break free from a state of confusion and become an unpredictable individual who contributes to the predictability of the whole.
Returning to the author's question. What makes unconscious atoms come together to create consciousness? The answer to this question is: there is no real answer. Because these atoms and molecules have never truly created what we call consciousness. It is just a result of the natural laws of inevitability, where the unpredictable is reflected as "less unpredictable," and thus becomes a "consciousness." And this consciousness itself becomes another particle without consciousness in society, under the guidance of entropy, and together with other particles, forms something that is "less unpredictable."
Another point I want to mention is my seemingly vulgar argument: if we admit the theory of God's creation and the existence of God, then who created the consciousness of the gods? If consciousness can only occur through bestowal, then who bestows consciousness? If we continue this recursion, will there never be an end? If the object that bestows consciousness itself does not possess consciousness, then why can't we become gods who bestow consciousness without consciousness? In the end, we do get a corresponding answer. Just return the entire recursive argument: consciousness has already ceased to exist from the very beginning, from an indivisible entity. And each recursion quietly creates an illusion of consciousness. This illusion is realistic enough that it can even be regarded as a kind of unconsciousness, and then usher in the next recursion, that's all. When you jump out of the bottomless pit of speculation, this ethereal illusion becomes a real tool.