Consciousness, Free Will and Roger Penrose

[Note:  since I first wrote this entry, I've worked on developing a new theory of consciousness and free will that starts here.]

          I just finished reading a book called “Shadows of the Mind” by Roger Penrose.  It was written in 1994, and I see he has some more recent books out now, so I might check those out.  This book had some pretty interesting sections to it and brought together a few of the thoughts I have expressed in some of my previous entries.  Therefore, I thought it would be worth discussing the ideas in this book a bit.

          First of all, I have to admit that this book was the most technically-challenging book I can ever remember reading (excluding, I suppose, various textbooks from my college courses, but I don’t remember those anymore!).  I wouldn’t say the math is extremely advanced, but I found it very very difficult to follow.  On the back of the book there is a quote from the Los Angeles Times: “Elegant…beautifully written and argued.”  I seriously doubt that the average reader would understand the middle 80% of the book.  I mean, I’m not a mathematician or physicist, but I do have a PhD in engineering so I figure I’m at least an average reader with respect to a mathematical and scientific background, and I found this to be extremely difficult to follow.

          Despite the difficulty, there are some very interesting ideas put forward.  But what I’m mostly interested in is how this book perfectly illustrates a point I often try to make about our preconceived notions.  The theme of the first half of the book has to do with whether computers (or “Turing Machines”) will ever be able to achieve human consciousness.  Ultimately, Penrose shows that humans can understand certain things about mathematics that can be “proven” to be non-computational.  Since computers can only operate on computations, then they can never achieve the same level of understanding.  I’m not sure that our non-computational understanding of mathematics is the same as consciousness (!), but the point he is trying to make is that computers will never be able to duplicate what humans can do in this particular instance.

          Penrose proposes four viewpoints regarding this issue that I would like to copy here because I think they are worth considering:

“A.  All thinking is computation; in particular, feelings of conscious awareness are evoked merely by the carrying out of appropriate computations.

B.  Awareness is a feature of the brain’s physical action; and whereas any physical action can be simulated computationally, computational simulation cannot by itself evoke awareness.

C.  Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness, but the physical action cannot even be properly simulated computationally.

D.  Awareness cannot be explained by physical, computational, or any other scientific terms.”

          Penrose fully supports Option C, and the rest of the book is about defending that option.  His point is that A and B cannot be true (based on the proofs he goes through, among other things) and therefore a “new science” is needed.  The subtitle of the book is “A search for the missing science of consciousness”.  He shows that there is nothing in science that can possibly achieve some of the key aspects of consciousness, therefore we will need some new approach.  Ultimately, he suggests that this new science might be found somewhere in the mysterious connection between the quantum world and the Newtonian world and suggests this might occur in the cytoskeletons of neurons.  But this is only a vague perception of where this new science of consciousness might begin to be found.  It’s not a real suggestion of a solution – it’s just a possible direction to start looking.

          Although I fully support Option D, I do appreciate Penrose’s approach to trying to figure out a scientific answer to this issue.  What Penrose does show is that there is a fundamental difficulty in answering the problem of consciousness using current scientific understanding, but he fully expects that there will, ultimately, be a scientific explanation.

          I argued for Option D <*here*> - that was before I read Penrose’s book.  I was focusing on free will, but the issues related to consciousness are the same in this case [1].  I argued that, since science had no explanation for free will, and no clear hope of ever being able to explain free will, the logical conclusion was that there was a non-material (i.e. supernatural) explanation for free will.  What Penrose clearly illustrates is what I have pointed out elsewhere:  no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient to cause a committed materialist to allow a supernatural element into his/her thinking.  Penrose admits that Option D is a possible option in this case.  He shows that Options A and B cannot be true.  But when it comes to Option D, all he can say is “give me a chance to show you that Option C is a reasonable option.”  This is because he can’t rule out Option D – all he can do is just eliminate it on the basis of his a priori biases against any supernatural explanation for anything.  This is what I have referred to as “locking and bolting the door” with respect to belief in anything supernatural. 

          I am not at all proposing that it is wrong to diligently seek for a scientific explanation for consciousness and free will.  In fact, I’d like to explore that area in my own research (if I had the time…which doesn’t seem likely these days).  I like Penrose’s approach and his search for ideas and I, personally, think he has some pretty interesting proposals.  All I want is for the materialist to be honest.  The materialist rejects God a priori, not because of any logical argument.  And, not only that, but the materialist locks and bolts the door against any possible intrusion of anything “supernatural.”  As a result, the one thing that the materialist cannot say is “if God wanted me to believe in Him, all He would have to do is appear before me.”   As I have argued before, that is simply not true.  If you really want an honest experience with God, you will first have to unlock your committed materialism and allow for the supernatural (i.e. miracles) to at least some degree.

          There are a small minority of committed materialists – those who are called the “new atheists” – who shake their fists at God and say “if I don’t believe, it’s Your fault.”  Some of these individuals have become famous and their views make the popular media.  I don’t believe they represent the vast majority of scientists and academics.  But these extremists do make it seem as if they are giving God a chance when, in reality, they have locked Him out.  If, instead, they were honest and said “there is no God and there is no amount of evidence of any sort that will change that fact”, then I could accept their position as being logically consistent.  I must admit that I have come to believe the opposite:  “there is a God (Jesus) and no amount of evidence of any sort will change that fact.”  I have come to that conclusion based on my own experiences, some of which have convinced me of the reality of Jesus.  But I didn’t start out that way – I didn’t start out with the conviction that Jesus was real.  However, as far back as I can remember, I always did allow for the possibility of the supernatural.  I always left the door open. 

          As far as I can tell, the consciousness that Roger Penrose imagines seems fundamentally random and void of a real will.  He proposes a new science will be necessary to even create a theory of consciousness.  Yet that still leaves us far short of achieving anything resembling a will - especially a free will, responsible for its own actions.  What will that require???

[1] Actually, since writing that sentence, I've changed my mind about this statement.  I now believe that free is such a unique and different problem when compared to the problem of consciousness that the two should not be lumped together.  See here to get a sense of that line of thinking.

Experimenting - #18 – Test Tube #1 – Example #3

          We are reviewing a few examples of people “hearing” from God through the Bible.  The first example happened in the late 30s AD and the second onehappened in the late 300s AD.  Both of those experiences resulted in the conversion to Christianity of the person involved.  Now we are going to jump to 1978 and describe an experience that happened to me.  In this case, the words I “heard” didn’t result in conversion, but it did set the path of my life from a career perspective.  Again, the point here is not that the experiences themselves are necessarily compelling, but they serve as examples of the way in which God can speak to human beings using the Bible.  If you’re totally skeptical of such things, then you will remain skeptical even after reading these examples.  I can’t blame you for that.  But my goal is to encourage those of you who are skeptical to put yourself in a position of possibly experiencing these kinds of things yourself. If you’ve already decided that God doesn’t interact with human beings, and no amount of evidence of any sort will change your mind, then you’re really wasting your time reading this blog.

Example #3 – My Path to Biomedical Engineering

As I was growing up I always wanted to be…well - two things.  When I was younger, like grade school (third grade especially), I really wanted to be a doctor.  I was fascinated by anatomy and physiology.  I thought the way the human body worked was incredibly fascinating.  So I wanted to be a doctor.  But over time I also got interested in machines and electricity.  I was especially interested in Thomas Edison.  I read books about Thomas Edison and about how he had this big laboratory where he just sat around and invented things.   I thought that was the greatest thing ever.  I loved inventing things.  So I began to think to myself:  I’ll become an inventor instead of a doctor.  Besides, it seemed like you had to go to school a long time to become a doctor, so maybe being an inventor was better.  It never entered my mind that you don’t just go to school and major in “inventing”.  So when it came time to look into going to college, I was very disappointed to find that there was no major in inventing.  I began to try to figure out what inventors major in.  It seemed like mechanical engineering was close to what I was imagining when I thought of being an inventor.   I was also interested in electronics, but it seemed like mechanical engineering was the area I would want to go into.  So that was my plan.  I was going to go to college and major in mechanical engineering, graduate, and be an inventor. 

          During the summer between my junior and senior years in high school, for some reason, I picked up the “Science Year Book” to read.  The Science Year Book was a yearly supplement to the “World Book Encyclopedia” series.  There was one Science Year Book put out each year.  I started reading the articles in it.  I don’t know why, but I did.  There was an article in this particular one on prosthetic arms.  In particular, it was about myoelectrically-controlled prosthetic arms.  It totally fascinated me.  I thought it was the coolest thing ever.  The article talked about how these prosthetic arms were being developed in a new field of study called “biomedical engineering”.  I thought it sounded like a fascinating area, but I didn’t think of it as applying directly to me. 

Early in my senior year of school, we had to do a report on different careers.  I felt like I already knew about mechanical engineering, so I decided to do the report on something I didn’t know anything about.  I picked the field of biomedical engineering since it seemed kind of interesting.  I got a book from the library about biomedical engineering.  It turned out to be almost a propaganda book about biomedical engineering, with the primary purpose of trying to encourage people to go into that field.  I read through it and it was really interesting.  Biomedical engineering combined medicine and engineering and was very interesting to me.  But still at that point, I wasn’t going to change my own plans.  It seemed like too big of a step.  To me it was like changing my major – a huge decision - even though I hadn’t even started applying to colleges yet!  I didn’t know that most people change their majors at least once after they get to college.  I don’t know why I felt like it was wrong to change my plans, but I did.  Looking back now, it just seems odd. 

          As the fall went on, however, the thought began to creep in that maybe I should seriously think about majoring in biomedical engineering.  I began to pray for some kind of guidance.  I guess I was afraid that I would make a wrong decision.  Also, I think I knew even at that time that it wasn’t easy to find schools with biomedical engineering degrees.  Oregon State University, which was where I was planning to go for mechanical engineering (I lived in Oregon), didn’t necessary have a program in that area.  I wanted to stay near home – at least stay in the state of Oregon - I had no interest in going off into the wide world.  All of these things were weighing on my mind at that time.

          In the midst of my praying and thinking and stewing about this issue, I was sitting in Sunday school sometime in the fall of my senior year.  I was daydreaming and I wasn’t listening to the Sunday school teacher at all.  I was thinking about the field of biomedical engineering and what I should do and whether I should make what seemed like a huge change in the direction of my life.  I thought about how it combined all of the interests that I had had – medicine, engineering, inventing – how it kind of combined all the things I thought I was good at – all my talents…and just as I was thinking this, the Sunday School teacher was reading a verse somewhere in I Corinthians and he said that the verse showed how we should use all of our talents for God.  So just as I was saying to myself “…all my talents”, I was suddenly conscious of the fact that the Sunday school teacher was also saying those exact same words, reading from the Bible.  The coincidence of my own thoughts and the Sunday school teacher’s words made it seem to me exactly as if God were speaking directly to me.  Suddenly it was obvious – I should go into biomedical engineering – I felt that was exactly what God wanted me to do.  To me, there was no doubt about it.  From that moment on, I started looking for schools with biomedical engineering programs and I was set on that path to this day.  I am still in that field almost 40years later!

          So, that’s an example from my own personal life.  As with the other examples, it could simply have been coincidence.  All I can say is:  “you had to be there”.  For me, having someone else speak out loud my own private thoughts word-for-word for a sentence or so was hard to ignore.  I can’t expect any of you to understand how mind-boggling that was without experiencing it yourself.  There was no question about it for me – it might as well have been a lightning bolt from sky.

          Could this happen to you?  I can appreciate significant skepticism, especially if you’re pretty convinced that there is no supernatural element to the universe.  Even I, when I think back on some of my experiences (including the one I’ve just related), I think they are somewhat corny and even childish.  Isn’t a scientist above attributing simple coincidences to a supernatural being?  It seems so silly.

          I’m just looking for a moment of complete honesty here…we just think we have it all pretty well figured out and we don’t need to fit God into the mix.  But as we discussed before <*here*>, if we prevent God from speaking to us using any natural means, and we reject all supernatural means, then what is left?

          I have come to believe the following:  God really does want to communicate with us – but it’s really hard to get our attention without being rude.  And God is not going to be rude.  I made a personal rule in my own life never to interrupt someone when they are talking – I just don’t do it.  But I can tell you that sometimes that is a really difficult rule to keep because people go on and on in their ignorance and never stop to take a breath!  I feel that we are like that with God.  We go on and on and we never stop to listen.  All I can ask is that you take a breath and listen – really listen.  I know that’s hard to do.  But you might hear something surprising!