Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi's Argument Against Atheism & Naturalism

This piece is a response to a discussion I had on the Facebook page Analytic Philosophy.

At first I simply responded to a post by Sufian Moin which presented Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi's argument. Later, Andalusi himself joined in the discussion and defended his position.

Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi is described (in The Andalusian Project) in this way:

“Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi is an international speaker for the Muslim Debate Initiative and Intellectual Wisdom Malaysia on the subject of Islamic thought and civilization. He holds a B.A. in Western Philosophy, an M.A. in Islamic Philosophy, Ethics, and Contemporary Issues, and is currently pursuing his PhD on the topic of the misapplications of Shariah Law in the modern world. He has lectured primarily on the phenomenon of contemporary atheism and has pioneered new arguments against atheists’ central tenets and beliefs. He also specializes in topics related to the philosophy of science, Islamic political thought, Liberalism, terrorism, and other issues regarding the current struggles of the global Muslim community.”

In terms of the specifics of the debate on naturalism, atheism and theism, Andalusi can be seen and heard discussing these issues in his 'Understanding Atheism' videos.

Introduction

Sufian Moin presents Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi's argument in the following way:

“A supposedly new argument that makes theism rational and renders naturalism false has been formulated by a Muslim philosopher whose name is Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi. This is his argument:

P1) If meaning (and explanation) can only be derived from the natural world, then all conceptions of reality are derived from the natural world

P2) If all conceptions of reality are derived from the natural world, then they must be a coherence of meaningful experiences

P3) People believe that there is a meaningful transcendental reality (God) that shares no properties with the natural world

P4) “If P1 and 2, then P3 is a conception of reality derived from the natural world, which content is a coherence of meaningful experiences

P5) “No number of meaningful experiences can direct one to consider the possibility of something meaningful beyond said experiences

C) “Therefore, P3 is not a conception of reality derived from the natural world

“This argument was presented in a lecture series that Asadullah gave in Malaysia...”

Sufian Moin goes into more detail by explaining the above in this way:

“P1 and P2 simply state the naturalistic worldview. 'Coherence of meaningful experiences" simply means meaningful experiences that are logically consistent. An example of a "non meaningful experience" is that of a round square, or a married bachelor.

“P3 just states a belief people hold (note: the argument is not arguing for the existence of God, so there is no presupposition here).

“P4 follows from P1 and P2.”

Naturalist/Empiricist Combinatorialism

Combinatorialism is usually seen as a philosophical position which refers to the combination of universals or elements/parts (e.g., resulting in a possible - rather than an actual – molecule). In other words, it's not usually taken to be about the combination of different experiences or different concepts (as in Andalusi's argument). However, it can indeed be applied to – or used in – this discussion.

So what does it mean to “imagine” the possibilities in Andalusi's argument? When people imagine such things, what, exactly, are they imagining?

When Andalusi says that the 

“mind is capable of imagining and conceiving of possibilities that the external world does not offer through direct experience” 

that means virtually nothing until I know what it is he's imagining and why he takes it to be an imagination of something real/actual and not simply an imaginative act.

Al-Andalusi says that “the mind is not constrained by concepts”; and yet he doesn't explain what that means. It's simply a statement as it stands and there's no reason for anyone to accept it. (It is like me saying “the body moves beyond the physical” and leaving it at that.)

In any case, there are naturalist (as well as plain old empiricist) explanations of the “mind [being] capable of imagining and conceiving of possibilities that the external world does not offer through direct experience”. The fact is, the mind doesn't really move beyond experience in these instances (though it may in others). It simply plays with experiences and juxtaposes them to create something that doesn't itself exist in experience.

All sorts of philosophers have tackled this issue. 

Take D.M. Armstrong's paper 'The Nature of Possibility' (1986). He sums of what happens with a single word: 'combinatorialism'.

He states, for example, that “all mere possibilities are recombinations of actual elements”.

However, I don't need to rely on this naturalist or empiricist position. My questions come before that. These are the questions:

i) What does it mean to imagine Allah existing in a place beyond time and space?

ii) What constitutes that act of imagination? Was it its content? What is being imagined?

The basic fact is that Allah and a place beyond time and space may not be imagined in the first place. Some x's are imagined, sure; though there's absolutely no reason to believe that what's imagined are actually Allah and a place beyond time and space.

Simply repeating the mantra that the “mind [being] capable of imagining and conceiving of possibilities that the external world” doesn't get us anywhere.

Andalusi himself expresses a perceived limitation with the combinatorialist position:

“The idea of something being 'beyond' is not the result of direct experience from the natural world -- rather it is a projection.”

If by "going beyond" Andalusi means that such composite entities don't actually exist, then that's correct. However, what makes up the composites aren't beyond anything. The composite is exactly that. Indeed the word 'composite' itself suggests that it doesn't actually exist in the natural world (or perhaps anywhere else).

Empiricists or naturalists have no reason to reject composites or combinatorialism.

Conceiving Allah in a Place Beyond Time and Space?

Sufian Moin explains Andalusi's argument by stating the following:

“It's P5 that Asadullah really defends. Imagine you're a fish in a fish tank. Can you, with your little fish brain, come up a concept of the universe as we humans have?”

The fish analogy doesn't work because fish probably don't think at all. Or, at the very least, they have no imaginative capacities. Human beings do have imaginative capacities: hence the Ontological Argument; which Andalusi's argument seems very indebted to.

We don't need to apply a British Empiricist position to Andalusi's argument. We can simply ask:

What do you mean when you say you imagine Allah and his being beyond time and space? What is it, exactly, that you imagine?

There's no need to give Asadullah Ali al-Andalusi the benefit of the doubt. That is, if we assume that he does imagine Allah and his being in a 'place' beyond time and space, then how do we account for that? Why not simply say? -

He doesn't imagine or conceive such things in the first place. Sure, he conceives something. Though what he conceives is not an x outside time and space.

Now we could say (if we wanted to) that what al-Andalusi conceives is entirely determined by his experience. Though we don't even need to go that far.

Andalusi puts what he deems to be one aspect of the naturalist position:

“I can't think of a better way to make it clearer, but the claim is in effect like saying if my experiences determine everything I believe, then I would never be wrong about what my experiences commit me to.”

In Andalusi's case, experiences may well determine everything he both believes and conceives. However, that doesn't stop him from being committed to believing that he conceives of Allah and his being in a place beyond time and space. What he conceives is a x and he takes that to be Allah existing outside time and space.

Andalusi writes:

“.... we shouldn't be able to think of infinity or limitlessness, because both these concepts do not exist in our surroundings.”

These are all very familiar arguments.

Do people really “think of infinity” or imagine it? What does that mean, exactly? You can use the word “infinity” and even tackle the notion or concept [infinity]. However, since this argument depends on conceivability, I can ask the questions I asked earlier. 

What does it mean to “think of infinity”? What are you thinking of? Are you thinking about George Cantor's statements, a set of equations, a visual image of vast space, etc.? 

Perhaps; though none of these things, strictly speaking, capture infinity; let along imagine it.

In terms of infinity as tackled in mathematics, this can't be what this writer is talking about because that wouldn't deliver what he wants. You can't get infinite space, (non-mathematical) infinity or Allah out of mathematics alone.

And, in a similar vain, he writes:

“We can think of Allah being outside time and space (to an extent) and being beyond merciful and beyond kind, et cetera.”

So what was said about infinity applies to that statement as well.

What does it mean to “think of Allah being outside time and space”? It doesn't by definition mean that we do think of an actual Allah and an actual 'place' (which word can I use?) outside time and space. All we may be doing is simply using the words “I imagine Allah outside time and space” and that's it! Just because we utter the words that doesn't mean that something must match the words we utter.

I can utter the words "round square". A round square is logically impossible; though I still uttered those words. What about the words “I imagine Allah outside of time and space”? That situation isn't logically impossible (as such) – though that doesn't mean my words refer to anything specific. And if they do refer to something, it may not be to an x and that x's being outside of time and space. Whatever goes on in this writer's (or mystic's) mind when he says he can imagine “Allah outside time and space”, that doesn't mean that he has literally imagined Allah and his being outside time and space. His might have simply imagined what he deems to be Allah outside time and space.

Andalusi backs up his argument by saying:

“But, responding to the contention, a unicorn is just a combination of things that do exist in the real world.”

Yet you could say more or less the same about the locution “I imagine Allah outside time and space” as you would say about statements which refer to unicorns.

One, that imaginative act may indeed include things which “do exist in the real world”. Anything over and above that (such as a place or an existence outside time and space) isn't imagined at all – it's only spoken about. Either that, or some proxy is imagined instead.

My point is blatantly simple: 

It may be that no one “travels beyond the limits of the external world”. 

People may believe that they do so; though believing that you do x doesn't mean that you do x. That is, no one conceives or imagines Allah beyond time and space. That which they do imagine will be proxies for Allah and a place beyond time and space. And those proxies may well be derived from their experiences of the natural world.

This isn't Andalusi's attempted proof of Allah's existence as such. If anything, it's an attempted proof that we have knowledge of Allah and Allah's existing beyond time and space – beyond the natural world. Yet there's no such proof because it all depends on the assumption that people do conceive of Allah 'in' a place beyond time and space. It is that which must be tackled.

Conceiving Allah Beyond Time and Place?

Andalusi now makes a distinction between the words 'conceive' and 'imagine' He wrote:

“Let's not reduce my argument to only one of the terms I used: 'imagination'. I also used the word 'conceive'.”

They may not be synonyms. However, everything that's been said about Andalusi's use of the word 'imagination' can also be applied to his use of the word 'conceive'. Exactly the same problems arise.

Despite that, Andalusi explains the distinctions which can be made between conceiving and imagining. He writes:

“Imagination is the the result of experiences and the minds ability to mold them into different forms or to conclude connections between them. It takes two to tango in this regard. Conception is more abstract and doesn't require external experiences at all.”

Nonetheless, imagination may still be required to juxtapose or 'tango' with one's 'conceptions'. If conceptions (does Andalusi mean concepts?) are abstract entities, it will still require the imagination to juxtapose or use them. And Allah and a place outside of space and time aren't deemed to be abstract entities or concepts themselves.

Terms used in the Argument

Now I'll make some very short points about the (philosophical) terms Andalusi uses in his argument.

So let's take each premise one at a time:

P1) “If meaning (and explanation) can only be derived from the natural world, then all conceptions of reality are derived from the natural world.”

Meaning isn't derived from the natural world. I believe that Andalusi means significance (at least in this context) when he uses the word 'meaning'. However, let's take it that he's using these words as (near)synonyms.

Conceptions of reality aren't only derived from the natural world – they are applied to it. Though conceptions themselves can be seen as being part of the natural world.

What is meant by 'conceptions' anyway? Here again I believe that Andalusi means concepts by 'conceptions'. Concepts can be seen as abstract entities or mental items. Conceptions are usually seen as the result of mental acts. For example, you can form a conception of the concept [liberty] or [truth].

P2) “If all conceptions of reality are derived from the natural world, then they must be a coherence of meaningful experiences.”

Again, does Andalusi mean significant experiences when he says “meaningful experiences”? What does he mean by “meaningful experiences” anyway? Is Andalusi doing ethics or theology or is he talking about the semantic content of experiences regardless of what he calls 'meaningfulness'? (I think the former is the case.)

P3) “People believe that there is a meaningful transcendental reality (Allah) that shares no properties with the natural world.”

Andalusi uses the word 'believe' here. That is, he says that “people believe that there is a meaningful transcendental reality....” He doesn't say that “people conceive a meaningful transcendental reality”. He's talking about people believing in a “meaningful transcendental reality”.

I can also add the Kantian point that if something is truly transcendent, then it can't be either conceived or imagined. (As with Kant's noumena; which are “beyond experience”.) I also believe that Andalusi means transcendent when he says 'transcendental'. These two words have different meanings in philosophy. For example, in Kant again, the transcendental concepts or categories of the mind determine what is transcendent. More succinctly, things that are transcendent are beyond experience. The transcendental in Kant, on the other hand, determines experience; though, in other philosophies, it can determine or delimit other spheres.

P4) “If P1 and 2, then P3 is a conception of reality derived from the natural world, which content is a coherence of meaningful experiences....

P5) “No number of meaningful experiences can direct one to consider the possibility of something meaningful beyond said experiences Therefore, P3 is not a conception of reality derived from the natural world.”

If you ignore all these philosophical and definitional problems, then of course P5) follows from the rest. Yet you can't have a logical argument if some of the language is confused or can't be accepted as it stands. In other words, before you follow through from P1) to P5), I believe that there's a bundle of assumptions and mistakes in between. Indeed P1) only follows through to P5) if we don't see those assumptions and mistakes.

So, sure, if you ignore all that, then P5) "logically follows" from the rest.

The other thing that can be said is that Andalusi doesn't really have a position on naturalism as such (in the above argument) other than to hint that naturalism may well (or does) explain things up to the point that 

“people believe that there is a meaningful transcendental reality (Allah) that shares no properties with the natural world”. 

That could be an acceptance of naturalism up to Allah and the transcendent realm. Thus the argument isn't itself an alternative theory of naturalism.

Against Scientism

Andalusi says that his “main target is scientism”.

If the main target is scientism, it would have helped if he had said that. The original argument (of five premises and a conclusion) doesn't (in itself) read like an attack on scientism at all. It may be an implicit or tangential attack on scientism; though the central thrust of the original post is that we can move beyond the natural world. That is an attack on naturalism. Unless, of course, Andalusi is using 'the words scientism and 'naturalism' as synonyms. (They aren't synonyms.)

Now we have what amounts to Andalusi's definition of the scientistic stance:

“It is the belief that 'science is the only way to know anything' or in the very least that 'science is the most reliable form of knowledge about anything'.”

Here we almost have a conflation of two things which are very different; though Andalusi does seem to acknowledge the difference.

One can happily believe that “science is the most reliable form of knowledge about anything” without also believing “science is the only way to know anything”. How can even hardcore scientists believe the latter?

For example, what about maths and logic? (Unless logic and maths are seen as science.) What about knowledge of past events? The additional point here is that all these modes of knowledge have naturalistic explanations and will therefore be acceptable to 'scientistic' philosophers and scientists.

I would say that most scientists and even scientistic philosophers would express their position this way:

Science is the most reliable form of knowledge about "most things". However, science isn't “the only way to know anything”.

Clearly, if we paint our opponents as saying extreme things, then they will seem extreme.

One further argument offered by Andalusi - against what he calls 'scientism' - is this:

“.... the Verification principle, it became a full blown ideology that is still expressed today among the lay masses and even scientists themselves....”

The “lay masses” certainly do not adhere to verficationism. The reason for that is that it's a philosophical notion; it doesn't belong to any kind of "folk theory" (as it were). So this is like saying that the lay masses adhere to eliminative materialism or to transcendental realism. Of course there may be some vague analogies between what non-philosophers believe and verificationism; though it can also be said that there are vague analogies between anything and anything. Indeed even the scientists who accepted verificationism will have needed to have done so explicitly. And I doubt that there are any philosophers around today who do so.

Scientism &/or Naturalism?

Scientism can be seen as a position (or stance) on the huge importance of science to philosophy and - often more broadly - to just about everything else. Thus this position needn't be taken to be a philosophy which advances independent arguments or positions on philosophical subjects. Indeed if it did do such things, it would be like a position within philosophy (such as anti-realism or physicalism)...

Naturalism, on the other hand, is indeed a position within philosophy.

Scientism, therefore, can be deemed to be over and above naturalism.

It can be argued that one can be a philosophical naturalist without displaying strong scientistic leanings. Such a philosopher can be broadly naturalistic in his philosophy; yet not strongly scientistic. Indeed he may know little science and therefore not feel the need to consult the findings of science every time he tackles a philosophical issue. A scientistic philosopher, on the other hand, would argue that science must always be consulted when it comes to virtually every issue.

For example, if a philosopher is tackling the notion of an object or a person (or even if he's tackling whether or not there's a God who exists outside space and time), he must see what science has to say on this issue. Either that or he must use scientific findings as a tool to clarify the issue or help him find the answers.

In terms of self-described supporters of scientism, they'll carry lots of baggage about the relation between science and... well, everything else. As for those who're accused by others of being proponents of scientism (which happens a lot), I don't suppose they'll carry that much – or any – baggage.

Thus scientism, surely, requires an explicit and self-conscious commitment to science and its role in all subjects.

In terms of philosophers and scientism again.

A distinction has to be made between what philosophers actually write (or argue) and their general attitude towards science. What they write (or argue) can't itself be science; though they can still have an attitude towards science which people may call "scientistic". This was true of the logical positivists – and that's a point which they admitted to.

In more detail: the logical positivists - and Quine later - argued that science tells us “what is” (i.e., it provides our basic "ontological commitments"). That effectively means that science has the last word on what is. Nonetheless, what scientistic philosophers (as well as logical positivists in the past) do isn't itself science. It can be scientistic (as well as scientific); though it isn't itself science.

Criticisms of Scientism

Having said all that about the relation between scientistic philosophers and science, some would still argue that

“scientistic people tend to be less concerned about actually consulting scientifically sound theories and more about being arrogantly in opposition to whatever they deem 'unscientific' -- notably religion”.

Following on from that, others have argued (understandably) that scientism works against the “commitment to religious freedom as an integral part of democracy”. However, I could imagine even a hardcore scientistic philosopher still being committed to religious freedom. If I were that hardcore scientistic philosopher, I would be committed to religious freedom.... except when that religious freedom leads to a lack of other people's freedoms and even (I dare say) to the destruction of “evil atheistic secularism”. In other words, the freedom of a religion may bring about the denial other people's freedoms. Indeed such religions exist.

However, there's also a problem with coming at scientism from that angle: i.e., that scientism is automatically arrogant and even somewhat totalitarian. Sure, it could be... in principle; though that's true of all philosophical and non-philosophical positions. So I'm not sure why scientism should be singled out for displaying traits that most schools display and which nearly all religions and political ideologies most certainly have displayed.

***************

Comments on Quine's 'Observation Sentences'

When one first comes across a description of an “observation sentence”, it would seem, prima facie, that such a thing doesn't exist.

How does Quine describe them? In the following way:

“... a sentence is an observation sentence if all verdicts on it depend on present sensory stimulation and on no stored information beyond what goes into understanding the sentence.” (From Quine's 1969 paper 'Epistemology naturalised'.)

Firstly, there are indeed sentences which we utter that do depend on “present sensory stimulation”. They also depend on “stored information”.

For a start, they require the stored information about the meaning of words and our memories (amongst many other things).

However, Quine does qualify his definition by the final clause: “beyond what goes into understanding the sentence”.

That means that the two things I mentioned (i.e., knowledge of the meanings of words and memories of, say, the objects and events in the observation) can be classed as “what goes into understanding the sentence”.

So even though these things are included in a Quinian observation sentence, it's still nonetheless the case that the sentence is about a current observation. (It's about what a person is a present experiencing or observing.) Yes, other things are needed in order to understand the sentence (things which came well before the observation). However, that doesn't stop the sentence - or what we utter - being an observation sentence if the content of that sentence is only about a present observation.

(This isn't that unlike Kant's acknowledgement that even the knowledge of a priori statements requires the experience of what words mean, etc. - and that's obviously, in Kant's terms, a posteriori knowledge.)

The sentence

“There is a rabbit running before me.”

is about a current observation. Nonetheless, I require previous knowledge in order to make such a statement. Still, the sentence isn't about that past knowledge (or those past memories or experiences). The sentence is about the rabbit. The past knowledge is simply required to make the statement and understand the observation. It's not the subject of the sentence.

Quine himself talks in terms of “stored information”. He writes:

“The very fact that we have learned the language evinces much storing of information, and of information without which we should be in no position to give verdicts on sentences however observational.” (298)

Quine stresses his position on observation sentences by writing:

“... an observation sentence is one on which all speakers of the language give the same verdict when given the same concurrent stimulation.” (298)

All that accepted, there can still be an argument against Quinian observation sentences. Indeed don't Quine's various arguments for holism automatically work against the existence of genuine observation sentences?

Why Observation Sentences?

The naturalistic or scientific bonus of observation sentences – at least according to Quine - is their inter-subjective nature. (Therefore their scientific nature.) In other words, we've moved beyond the first-person pronoun of the aprioristic epistemologist.

As Quine puts it:

“.... the observation sentences are the sentences on which all members of the community will agree under uniform stimulation.” (299)

If inter-subjectivity is stressed, then we must also have moved beyond experiences, sense-data (in the old style) and other personal mental happenings and be focusing instead on the world (or on objects and events in the world). The very fact that there's an element of communal agreement involved when it comes to observation sentences (with a stress on the word “observation”) means that “subjective sensory states” become less relevant or not relevant at all.

Quine put it this way:

“The old tendency to associate observation sentences with a subjective sensory subject matter is rather ironic when we reflect that observation sentences area also meant to be the intersubjective tribunal of scientific hypotheses.” (299)

This alone seems to lead immediately to not only naturalism; but perhaps also to some form of externalism.

Rabbits - rather the experiences of rabbits - are now given priority. (Or at least it seems that way.) Of course the Cartesian/internalist arrived at rabbits via his experience of rabbits. However, the Quinian still arrives at rabbits from communal agreement on the experience of rabbits. So the experiences of rabbits must still be part of the story. It can be said that we've moved to what Roger Scruton calls (if in a different context) a “first person plural” in that it's the grand “we” that determines the nature of rabbits. No single mind can find the truth on rabbits by doing, say, some kind of Cartesian (or Husserlian) reduction.

Clearly we've moved a long way beyond the “Cartesian subject” here. Yet the Cartesian subject ruled epistemology from Descartes (17^th century) to the 20^th century.

Theories of Consciousness Must be Biological

According to neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman, consciousness “can only be understood from a biological standpoint, not through physics or computer science or other approaches that ignore the structure of the brain”.

When did consciousness become a (fit) subject for science?

According to the science journalist John Horgan (in his book The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Science in the Twilight of the Scientific Age), it was as recently as 1990 — only 32 years ago! This is how Horgan put his case:

“In 1990, Crick and a young collaborator, Christof Koch, a German-born neuroscientists [] proclaimed in Seminars in the Neurosciences that it was time to make consciousness a subject of empirical investigation.”

Following on from that, it could be said that when consciousness became a subject of science; it then became acceptable subject for (at least some) philosophers. (Or at least for those philosophers with scientific credentials or who had a commitment to a strong science-philosophy relationship.)

The essential — and some would say obvious — point that the molecular biologist, biophysicist and neuroscientist Francis Crick made was that the study of consciousness must be a biological — therefore a scientific — study. That is, it isn’t about “arguing over psychological concepts and definitions” (which is what Crick believed philosophers do); but one of “lots of experiments”.

According to Crick, psychologists (as well as philosophers) have

“treated the brain as a black box, which can be understood in terms merely of inputs and outputs rather than of internal mechanisms”.

So consciousness is all about the brain.

In fact it’s even more specific than that in Crick’s case: it’s all about neurons.

As Horgan puts it, “[n]eurons must be the basis for any model of the mind”.

The biologist, neuroscientist and Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman (1929- 2014) is also said to have held the position that the mind

“can only be understood from a biological standpoint, not through physics or computer science or other approaches that ignore the structure of the brain”.

[Clearly all this chimes in well with the philosopher John Searle’s own “biological theory of consciousness” — see here. That said, the scientists mentioned in this essay will almost certainly have at least some problems with Searle’s philosophical positions on consciousness.]

To demonstrate his point, Edelman put the seemingly extreme position of “functionalists” (such as Marvin Minsky) who “say they can build an intelligent being without paying attention to anatomy”.

Two

There’s a simple reason as to why scientists and even philosophers must now concentrate of the brain when it comes to questions about the mind and consciousness. According to Horgan, it’s

“precisely because philosophical approaches to consciousness have all failed that scientists must focus on the brain”.

Indeed another way of putting that is to say that these philosophical theories of mind and consciousness all failed (if that’s truly the case) because they completely ignored the brain!

Perhaps most philosophers didn’t see the brain as being a fit subject for philosophy — or even for the philosophy of mind. Nonetheless, many 20th century philosophers certainly did utilise the findings of neuroscience; especially from the 1960s onwards.

The obvious reason as to why philosophical theories about consciousness — and perhaps the mind generally — are seen as problematic is that they’re all (according to Francis Crick) “untestable and therefore useless”. Indeed it’s been said that even highly-sophisticated philosophical theories of consciousness are in the same ball park as beliefs about the Holy Ghost. Or as the neurophysiologist and computational neuroscientist Christof Koch (1956-) once put it:

“Why don’t you just say that when you have a brain the Holy Ghost comes down and makes you conscious!”

In fact he said that to the Australian philosopher David Chalmers! Chalmers replied to Koch’s rhetorical question. He argued that a belief in the Holy Ghost is “unnecessarily complicated” and that “it would not accord with his own subjective experience”.

Minsky's Solution to the Problem of Consciousness: Higher-Order Processes

There are philosophers and scientists who believe that “the problem of consciousness” is solved.

One example is Marvin Minsky.

Or, more specifically, in response to John Horgan's claim (in his The End of Science) that there are “those who doubted whether computers could be conscious”, Minsky claimed that “consciousness is a trivial issue”. Moreover, he said: “I've solved it, and I don't understand why people don't listen.” (184)

Minsky's definition of “consciousness” is very simple and very counter-intuitive. Or perhaps it seems that way simply because I've never really heard it before. That is, I've never heard anyone define consciousness is such a specific and peculiar manner.

Horgan says that Minsky's definition includes the idea that consciousness is “merely a type of short-term memory”. Minsky himself says that consciousness is a “low-grade system for keeping records”. And here's where Minsky's Artificial Intelligence comes in. Horgan says that

“computer programmes such as LISP, which have features that allow their processing steps to be retraced” are, according to Minsky, 'extremely conscious'” (184).

Prima facie, in Minsky's account there are two things which are either being correlated with consciousness or which are being said to actually constitute consciousness: memory and what philosophers call “higher-order thoughts”.

It's clear that memory is certainly part of Minsky's picture. After all, he talks about “short-term memory” and “keeping records”.

In a sense, higher-order thoughts (or at least higher-order processes) tie in with the idea of memory in that memories can be about prior thoughts, processes and experiences.

So, yes, computers “keep records” of their previous computations or processes (as do humans). More specifically, programs such as LISP are said to “allow their processing steps to be retraced”. And that, according to Minsky, makes them “extremely conscious”.

The first response to this is to say that memory and higher-order processes are aspects of consciousness. They don't actually constitute consciousness.

In other words, is Minsky making a claim here of numerical identity (or definition)? Is he saying? -

consciousness = memory and higher-order processes (thoughts)

Again, higher-order processes are accompanied by consciousness or occur “within” consciousness. Acts of memory too are part of consciousness. Not consciousness itself.

It may indeed be the case that I'm getting bogged down with metaphors and analogies here in that phrases such as “processes are accompanied by consciousness” and “acts of memory are part of consciousness” may not be conceptually appropriate. They may not even make sense.

Nonetheless, there still seems to be something wrong with saying that consciousness simply is memory or higher-order processes (thoughts).

If we move away from computers here and concentrate on persons or human beings, this would be to say that introspection is consciousness. Many philosophers have indeed stressed the importance of introspection and indeed self-consciousness. Though I don't recall any who've said that introspection is consciousness. Again, I would say that introspection occurs within (forgive the spatial metaphor) consciousness or that it is an aspect of consciousness. Not that it is consciousness.

As for the words “self-consciousness”: that sort of gives the game away. It is, after all, meant to signify consciousness of the self. Thus there are two things: consciousness and the self. That means that self-conscious and consciousness can't be one and the same thing. Or, in other words, it is the self which is aware of consciousness or the self which is aware of the self. Again, the self is something given in (another spatial metaphor!) consciousness.