It should go without saying that the reality of the
experience of consciousness constitutes a seemingly extraordinary conundrum (no
matter one’s metaphysical convictions). This mystery should confront one’s
momentary reflection of such a phenomenon with a sense of awe. No less
extraordinary than the reality of consciousness, and, arguably, what grounds
the mysteriousness of consciousness, is the nature and essence of the
experience itself. Philosopher David Bentley Hart articulates such experience:
[O]ur ability to know the world, to possess a continuous subjective awareness of reality, to mirror the unity of being in the unity of private cognizance, to contemplate the world and ourselves, to assume each moment of experience into a fuller comprehension of the whole, and to relate ourselves to the world through acts of judgment and will.
Hart articulates perfectly the complex and mysterious intricacies
of consciousness that make it such a seeming perplexity—again regardless of
one’s ontological convictions.
Yet consciousness seems to constitute an even more profound
mystery if predicated upon naturalistic assumptions. For the nature of
consciousness seems to be everything physical matter is not. The physical is
devoid of intent, meaning, purpose, direction, and teleology, and yet all of
these make up the very essence of consciousness. The nature of matter also
diverges with consciousness on probably the most important aspect of mental
activity: rationality.
Moreover, the physical is known and observable to us through
objective third-person research; but consciousness is, of its very nature, a
unique first-person phenomenon. One cannot know the private and subjective
qualitative essence (known as qualia)
of my consciousness unless I so choose to reveal it. No one can experience what
it is like to think my thoughts unless they are me, and no objective
third-person observation will bridge this gap.
So how, on a naturalistic metaphysic, is it that matter
reaches its complete opposition in the generation of consciousness? How can the
essence of consciousness be in absolute contrast to the nature of the physical,
and yet still have its genesis in the latter? Notice that this chasm that
exists between the behavior of consciousness and matter is a qualitative one (analogous
to the qualitative gap between non-being and being), and I maintain that such
gap cannot be traversed by simple quantitative cumulative steps.
With all that being said, I do not wish to promulgate the
above comments as some sort of philosophical treatise. I simply wish to
demonstrate the seeming incompatibility between our experience of consciousness
and what naturalists maintain about the nature of reality. If this partnership
is even metaphysically possible (and I don’t see that it is), then it is a
partnership that eludes our comprehension and seems to be the epitome of
paradox.
No comments:
Post a Comment