Mortality and Qualia.

Mortality

Is there life after death? What is the meaning of life? Why is there something, rather than nothing? These are some of the largest and most profound questions that exist. Can meaning even exist in a world where entropy reigns supreme and death is the inevitable end of all?

That last question is hard to answer, but fortunately, I don't think answering it will be necessary.

Doubtlessly, my religious beliefs shed light on all of these points. However, for many reasons, I will presently set those aside, and lead us on a philosophical and scientific tour, rather than a theological one, on the nature of mortality.

In the modern era in which we live, it is quite natural for most people to turn to science for answers. After all, I type this on a laptop created by knowledge of the material world, and the rules that govern the interactions of material in space and time. We are immersed in technology, not the fruits of philosophical musings and metaphysics, but the yield of the study of empirical science and engineering.

It's easy to forget, not only how important philosophy can be, but that it even exists at all.

As pragmatic and tangible as the returns of these empirical arts are, something that is vital that is often overlooked, in our efforts to understand the nature of our existence, is that much of life is not so tangible or pragmatic.

Most engineers can tell you that their craft is almost as much an art as it is a science. Variations in designs of aircraft – from futuristic swept-wing, two-body asymmetrical designs, to a simple airliner fuselage – are a great example of how there are many ways to get from a requirement to a design that fulfills it. Since hard sciences only give us physical laws, and in many situations will not clearly state which route to take (sweep the wings forward or back?), in engineering there exists a large amount of philosophy and tradition. From “lighter is better” and “start with a fuselage and two wings,” to “put safety first,” there's a surprising amount of room for philosophical considerations in design.

Even in physics, the hardest of sciences (aside from math – though it could be argued that that is a philosophy), philosophy is often needed and invoked. Although the details go beyond the scope of this essay, there is a great example in quantum mechanics. The traditional “Copenhagen Interpretation” and the newer “Many Worlds Interpretation” are two different ways by which to interpret many of the primary features of the empirical study of the quantum world. The two paint very different pictures of reality – waves that suddenly become particles, or a constantly infinitely branching multiverse – and yet they both predict the exact same results from any experiment currently technologically possible to preform. So even in physics, there is room left for “taste,” and “personal preference,” that is, philosophical outlooks on reality.

And there is the key difference. The question of the existence of an afterlife is much akin to this issue of the two interpretations of quantum mechanics. Whether there is, or there isn't, we are left with the same experimental outcomes, only we will inevitably at the end of our lives, discover the truth of this question (or if there isn't an afterlife, I guess we wouldn't find out).

Therefore, this question lies outside the domain of what we can empirically test.

A common response, is “No, it is not. Science tells us consciousness arises from a complex set of neurochemical reactions, and when the brain is destroyed, consciousness ends; no afterlife.”

I would argue, that that is not correct. Science does not tell us that. That is dependent on your philosophical outlook, not on experimental results.

To explain, let us digress for a moment to consider a thought experiment called “The Chinese Room Argument.” It is crucial to the rest of this essay, so make sure you understand it. It goes like this: There is a person inside a room who can only speak English. There is a Chinese fellow outside, who can only speak Chinese. The Chineseman writes a note in Chinese, and slips it under the door. The Englishman takes the note, and has no idea how to respond since he does not speak Chinese. But fortunately, he has a guide. An enormous instruction book. The book tells him what lines to draw, depending on what lines the other person has drawn. The end result, is that the Englishman has written a few characters in Chinese in response, according to the book's instructions, and slips it back under the door, thus replying to the Chineseman's message without knowing what he said.

The argument was originally developed in response to the Turing Test – a test that said, “if you can talk with an Artificial Intelligence and can't tell it from a human, than it is a conscious (sentient, or 'hard') AI.” The book of instructions that the Englishman used is analogous to the software of a computer that runs an AI.

{/Aside/ : If you object to the human being involved because the Englishman is sentient: You need not have a human in the loop – the Englishman could be replaced by a picture-scanning robot and a system akin to a printer, where it pulls paper in and prints a page out – and you would get the same thing.}

An interesting objection that was pointed out to the Chinese Room Argument, though, is that this applied not only to electronic circuitry, but also to the human brain. The argument implies that you can have an entity that acts like it is sentient – it can tell you it hurts when it does, with the accompanying body language and intonation, it can act as though it feels, and tell you it does with as much passion as any human being, or even you would when faced with such questioning as to your own awareness – yet it is not sentient. It is not “aware” in the sense that we're familiar with the term, any more than the Chinese Room is. In philosophy this is referred to as a “Philosophical Zombie,” or “P-Zombie.” It will give you every indication that any human would that it is conscious, sentient, and aware. Like a Furby, it will tell you it is hungry when it hasn't eaten for awhile, and how it “feels.” But in truth, it is not any more aware than that “chinese-speaking” room. What this means is it lacks “Qualia,” the ability to feel. We say that something that has Qualia is sentient.



“I Think, Therefore I Am.”

And here is where I disagree with many; many will simply say that Qualia must not exist, or that it is somehow emergent from the complex interactions of the brain.

First off, I cannot prove that you are not a P-zombie, so perhaps you [any reader] do not actually possess Qualia. It is impossible to show an aware, sentient being, apart from a P-zombie. But, I know for myself that Qualia exists, because I feel it, experience it every moment that I live.

In fact, I am more sure that it exists than anything else in reality. I may be in a coma, all my real memories forgotten and replaced with fake dreamt-up ones. I may not be sitting at my desk, typing this right now. I may be lying in a hospital bed somewhere, my other-worldly family and friends hoping I'll leave this delusional world behind and return to the “real” one. I may be dreaming, in the bed that I think is a few yards away. Or perhaps this is all a computer simulation, and my brain is sitting, preserved, in a jar somewhere, being fed false sensory input through a super-computer, to simulate my sensation of typing.

In any of those scenarios, the laws of physics may be completely different than what I know (or rather, think) them to be (which also means scenarios I can't even imagine might be the case). Gravity may not exist. Perhaps I'm actually a cute purple pony with a severe case of schizophrenia. A Chinese philosopher once said; “Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.”

The point of these last two paragraphs is to illustrate that all of physical reality, even the very laws of nature, may not be what you, I, or anyone else believes them to be. Senses can very well be lied to, and thus, ultimately, are not 100% trustworthy.

However, I am keenly aware that my mind exists. I directly experience it. “I think, therefore I am,” Rene Descartes put it. That is the single, only full and undeniable proof that actually exists.

However much any scientific discoveries may assert Qualia is only an illusion, or something that emerges from more complex physical systems, I remain unconvinced, for Qualia is more certain to exist than any scientist who stands in front of me and tells me it doesn't, or any amount of compelling evidence he shows me that it doesn't.

I would sooner believe that all my memories, are in fact, false, than I would that Qualia does not exist, because I think, therefore I am, so “I must exist” is the first truth I know to be true before anything else. The very fact that I can think that I don't exist, proves that I do, by virtue of Rene Descarte's revelation.



Let's be kind

Now, suffer one more digression so that I can illustrate another important prerequisite before moving on;

If you can't physically prove that Qualia exists (by the Chinese Room Argument), you can't tie it to any specific thing. That is, to review, you cannot prove that anyone is anything other than a P-zombie.

Now, there exists a point where we must simply say; “Alright, I don't have solid proof, but... I'll take it on faith.” That other individuals experience reality, and are not P-zombies, is something I take on faith. I can never prove it nor disprove it, even in principle, and no amount of technology will ever be able to overcome the “Chinese Room” problem. Experimentation can show how that “instruction book” works, but never that it is a person who comprehends Chinese, rather than a big, complex book. Science, being empirical, can never show that they're not a P-zombie, by definition of what a P-zombie is.

Maybe I'm the only one that experiences any of reality, maybe not, I'll never know and there is no way to show that anyone or anything is any more than a P-zombie, but for the sake of a pleasant life, and for the sake of ethics, I'll take it on faith that anything that acts like it has Qualia, has Qualia.

So, I know Qualia exists, and I take it on faith that I'm not the only one here in this universe, and that other humans, at the very least, have it as well.



In conclusion

Now, if one adheres to the principle fully that their senses can be lied to, and thus the only thing assured to exist is their own awareness – then that puts the question of “is there life after death?” in an entirely new context.

Sure, we see other people die, their brains stop and their sentient-like behavior comes to an end... But remember that was only a “let's be kind” assumption we made, and took on faith for quality of life purposes.

Because you haven't shown that their Qualia actually exists... Neither can you show that it actually comes to an end.

That is to say, we've seen what could be philosophical zombies die, but have never truly confirmed that death of a qualia-possessing being is even capable of happening. If philosophical zombies can exist, then that alone shows that Qualia is a separate entity than anything physical within the human body. Ergo, it can continue to exist independent of the body.

And simply put, we can't prove that philosophical zombies can't exist – but neither can we prove that they do (though it has been argued, that the very fact that we can conceive of them is proof that they exist; because it shows that having Qualia, and acting like you have Qualia, are two actual different things – and if they are actually different things, then Qualia must be an actual thing, ie, must exist). Thus, they remain the purview of philosophy.

Thus, if you find the assumptions, the thought experiment leading to the conclusion that P-zombies can exist favorable – that is, if you accept the Chinese Room argument – then you are inevitably led to the conclusion that there's no reason to believe consciousness ends with death. It has never been observed, any more than we have ever observed the destruction or creation of matter. Conservation of Qualia, therefore, exists just as surely as conservation of energy; if you accept that you will wake up when you go to sleep, then you, to some level, already believe it.

If Qualia does not exist, then the “you” that wakes up from a nap, is a different consciousness than the “you” before the nap, because your consciousness ended, and re-started. Thus, what you called “you” before and after a nap, your consciousness, is no longer “you.” You have memories of the previous “you,” but are not them, and when you nap, you will cease to exist.

But, it's all philosophy. We can't really prove any of it one way or another, so the question is, which positions do you feel to be the most accurate to reality?



Personally, I think, therefore I exist, therefore I think that I (my Qualia) exist(s).



~I highly recommend delving into the further reading linked in the description.