Philosophy of Mind

Consciousness – the question is not ‘do we have it’ but ‘how did we get it’ and ‘where did it come from?’  Practically every other TedTalk (that doesn’t deal with artificial intelligence, of which there may be a trifle few too many plagiarizing from one another rather than corroborating with one another) deals with this subject in some form or fashion.  From Indian gurus, to Bhudist masters, to cognitive research scientists, to even astronomers – or ‘astrobiologists’, which apparently is a legitimate endeavor and title now – everyone seems to be interested in consciousness and how it arose and exactly what is its substance.  And I used the word ‘substance’ with scalpel blade precision, knowing that a massive debate over this very word actually has led to theologians having fist fights (see the real Saint Nicholas at the Council of Nicaea – not even kidding).  Rene Descartes plagued himself with the very issue of consciousness to, some would say, the verge of insanity and back again.  But perhaps he was being more reasonable and sane than the rest.  Descartes presumed from first principles that his mind, and thereby consciousness, had to be separate from his body and not emerge from it, though they were inextricably and integrally connected in some transcendent way.  That is, he was a major proponent of dualism, as opposed to it primary philosophical competitor monism.  The former argues that there is more than one ‘substance’ to the reality of humans – two, to be precise.  The latter argues for one and only one and that what their dissident counterparts argue for as the second substance, i.e. consciousness, only seems to be an entirely separate entity but actually and simply is a direct result and by-product of the other.  C.S. Lewis, a dualist himself (and I’m quite sure he could have handled himself in both an intellectual or physical ‘dual’ – you see, their separateness is demonstrated even in presumption) argued that if our consciousness arose from our physical body and neurons, there would be no reason to trust that the thoughts we have are reasonable and rational and actually are true to reality.  Our minds could be fooling us entirely.  Furthermore, he argued quite simply (and simple may be all that is needed here), that it would be like a glass of milk spilling and the spilt milk being able to convey in some form of communication, exactly how it was it was spilt.  This would be equally as absurd as the raw physical universe with no intelligent mind behind it producing sentient, cognitive beings that could understand how they themselves and the universe came to be and describe such processes.  Sigmund Freud, grappling with the realities of his and others behavior and the inadequacies of popular theories of his day to explain cognition, and recognizing the moral component to it all, developed the idea of the 'id, ego an superego'.  While this may have be super-egotistical (in the worst kind of way) to dispense with other theories altogether, he may have actually been on to something in recognizing the decisional process of the matter.  That is, we do have drives and urges that are purely physical, yet there is that nagging conscience (which is different from consciousness, mind you) that restrains them and then we have to decide whether or not to act on them.  Maybe, just maybe, ancient texts that deal with the issue in a holistic and summative way, and yet where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, were light-years ahead of their time.  That is, in speaking of the person who has, not is, a body, the person who is a spirit inextricably linked to that body and who has, not is, a mind/soul with decisional capacity able to interact with both body and spirit… “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thess. 5:23)