The 'explanatory gap' is science's
inability to demonstrate, by logical chains of cause and effect, how brain activity
produces mental experiences.
From Wiki
'The explanatory gap is
the lack of an explanation for consciousness and human experiences such as qualia under physicalism.
Bridging this gap is known as "the hard problem". The explanatory gap has
vexed and intrigued philosophers and AI researchers alike for decades and caused
considerable debate.
To take an example of a
phenomenon in which there is no gap, imagine a modern computer: as marvelous as these
devices are, their behavior can be fully explained by their circuitry, and vice versa. By
contrast, it is thought by many mind-body dualists (e.g. René Descartes, David Chalmers)
that subjective conscious experience constitutes a separate effect that demands another
cause, a cause that is either outside the physical world (dualism) or due to an as yet
unknown physical phenomenon.
Proponents of dualism claim
that the mind is substantially and qualitatively different from the brain and that the
existence of something metaphysically extra-physical is required to 'fill the gap'.
The nature of the
explanatory gap has been the subject of some debate. For example, some consider it to
simply be a limit on our current explanatory ability. They argue that future findings in
neuroscience or future work from philosophers could close the gap. However, others have
taken a stronger position and argued that the gap is a definite limit on our cognitive
abilities as humans—no amount of further information will allow us to close it. There
has also been no consensus regarding what metaphysical conclusions the existence of the
gap provides. Those wishing to use its existence to support dualism have often taken the
position that an epistemic gap—particularly if it is a definite limit on our
cognitive abilities—necessarily entails a metaphysical gap.'
Physicalist approaches to the Hard
Problem
Attempts by physicalist
(aka materialist) philosophers to bridge the gap between the brain and the mind have
always started from the brain, with the Hard Problem formulated in terms of 'how can
physical phenomena give rise to mental experience'; as if the mind were just a passive
consumer of whatever the 'neural correlates' dished up for it! To quote Wiki
"Providing an answer to this question could lie in
understanding the roles that physical processes play in creating consciousness and the
extent to which these processes create our subjective qualities of experience."
This is what is known as begging
the question or assuming the outcome you have not yet proven.
Buddhist approaches to the Hard Problem
Since the physicalist attempts to bridge
the gap from the neurological side don't seem to be getting anywhere, perhaps we should
investigate whether we can start to build a section of the bridge out from the opposite
end, from the mental side.
To do this we need a clear definition of
what the mind is, before we can begin to consider how it might interact with physical
systems.
In Buddhism the mind isn't a 'thing' or
'substance'. It is a formless, non-physical (and hence non-algorithmic)
process that interacts with matter but is not itself material. The correct
terms for mind in Buddhism are 'Mental
Continuum' or 'Mindstream, which emphasise its impermanent and ever-changing
nature as a process.
The mind is not a 'thing
in itself' and it is important to avoid reifying
it as some sort of ultimate
ground of existence.
 |
| Clarity of Mind |
The mind is defined as that which
is clarity and cognizing:
Clarity refers to the non-physical
nature of the mind, in contrast to the physical brain. The mind "is a formless continuum that functions
to perceive and understand objects. Because the mind is formless, or non-physical, by
nature, it is not obstructed by physical objects."
The fact that the mind is formless means
that it is unconstrained, and hence has immense potential. The mind can comprehend all
objects including its own creations. The description of the root mind as 'formless'
doesn't just refer to its non-material nature, but it emphasises that it is unlimited, non-mechanistic
and totally free from any structure or topology. The mind cannot be understood in terms of
circuit diagrams and flowcharts. It is
pure awareness."
'Non-algorithmic'
means it is non-deterministic, in that it cannot be understood by chains of logical
reasoning, but needs to be experienced intuitively, using subjective (though reproducible)
techniques
such as meditation. The fact that the mind is non-deterministic allows for
freewill.
Cognizing refers to the 'aboutness'
of the mind, how it gives meaning to objects (mind
and meaning are derived from the same ancient root word) and of 'intentionality' and semantics (as distinct from syntax).
"Intentionality is the power of minds
to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs...As
the Latin etymology of ‘intentionality’ indicates, the relevant idea of
directedness or tension (an English word which derives from the Latin verb tendere) arises
from pointing towards or attending to some target.... Because intentional states are of or
about things other than themselves, for a state to have intentionality is for it to have
semantic properties." - Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In Buddhism the mind is not regarded as a
mere passive or derivative epiphenomenon
of active physical systems. The mind is itself active and is said to go to, or
apprehend, its objects over and above merely pointing towards them.
The properties of the Mind can be
summarized as:
- Process
- Devoid of structure
- Clear
- 'About' its object (intentionality)
- Source of semantics and meaning
- Experiencing qualia (happiness, suffering, peace, stress, beauty, ugliness etc)
- Non-physical
- Non-algorithmic
- Non-deterministic, possessing freewill
- Required for the survival and evolution of complex animals.
The fundamental nature of the mind
Buddhist philosophers claim the mind is a
fundamental aspect of reality, which is 'axiomatic', in the sense of not
being reducible to a physical basis, such as to the physico-chemical activities in the
brain.
This axiomatic view identifies 'mind' as a
primary fact of reality, like space-time, in which we live, and move, and have our
being. The axiomatic view cannot be reduced to other facts. It is implicit in all facts
and in all knowledge.
Mind is directly perceived or experienced,
and there is no proof or explanation possible, or indeed necessary. Mind is
the basis on which all other proofs and explanations rest, and is one of the three
foundations of functioning phenomena, the other two being
causality and structure.
From this view, the mind is so intertwined
with 'objective' existence that objects and their apprehending mind are said to co-arise.
In other words, the observer is part of the
system, as has been demonstrated by quantum physics.
Approaching the gap from the side of the
mind.
In the past, apart from a few puzzling
quantum phenomena, the only way of exploring the explanatory gap from the side of
the mind has been by introspective meditation.
But recently a new methodology has
appeared, whereby the short-term and long-term effects of controlled mental states such as
meditation can be studied. These have shown the curious 'mind over matter' effects of
downward causation, which have demonstrated that thoughts are not 'epiphenomena' of neural
activities, but have causal
abilities from their own side.
This approach is still in its early stages,
but obviously has great potential to narrow the gap between neural events and mental
experiences.
---------------------------------------
UPDATE 3-MAR-2012
---------------------------------------
I received a very interesting comment
from Sunyavadin which, rather
than leave in the comments section, is worth quoting in the main text of the article, with
my reply following.
Generally agree with the direction
you're taking, but it is interesting that the Buddhist view of nature-of-mind was not a
consequence of trying to 'understand the mind'.
The problem which the Buddha set out to
solve was 'cause of suffering' or 'the knot of existence'. In so doing, he arrived at a
point where 'nature of mind' became clear to him (and so to subsequent generations of
Buddhists). But I don't think that the Buddhist understanding of mind is at all available
on the level of discursive reasoning at all.
I know there is a lot of activity around
neural Buddhism and so on, but at the end of the day, I can't help but think that as long
as the approach is to 'understand mind' it must fail, because of the deeply recursive
nature of that problem. The mind is 'that which understands', not 'that which is
understood'. In fact, knowing that the mind is not something that can be known, would
radically alter the direction of research. By its nature, it is knowing. What is knowing?
Well, we can't go there, can we? We can't explain explanation, or find reasons for reason,
and so on.
When we really deeply realize that, we will
abandon the pursuit of 'scientific understanding of mind'. This will be the big
breakthrough!! Then science can concentrate on doing the millions of things that science
can be doing, instead of covertly trying to replace spirituality by 'explaining the mind'.
29 February 2012 23:06
REPLY
I agree that Buddhist psychology is not
about understanding the workings of the mind. To quote Rudy Harderwijk. 'the distinctions in
Buddhist psychology are made from the point of view of how to obtain liberation and
buddhahood; and certainly not to figure out how 'the brain works'.
It may well be that no discursive reasoning
can unravel the workings of the mind, for if the mind is non-algorithmic,
then it is simply not amenable to explanation by logical chains of cause and effect.
I also share your doubts whether neural
Buddhism will ever completely close the gap, or indeed if the gap is in principle
closable. Over 140 years ago John Tyndall wrote:
"the passage
from the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthinkable.
Granted that a definite thought, and a definite molecular action in the brain occur
simultaneously; we do not possess the intellectual organ, nor apparently any rudiment of
the organ, which would enable us to pass, by a process of reasoning, from the one to the
other. They appear together, but we do not know why. Were our minds and senses so
expanded, strengthened, and illuminated, as to enable us to see and feel the very
molecules of the brain; were we capable of following all their motions, all their
groupings, all their electric discharges, if such there be; and were we intimately
acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and feeling, we should be as far as
ever from the solution of the problem, "How are these physical processes connected
with the facts of consciousness?" The chasm between the two classes of phenomena
would still remain intellectually impassable. Let the consciousness of love, for example,
be associated with a right-handed spiral motion of the molecules of the brain, and the
consciousness of hate with a left-handed spiral motion. We should then know, when we love,
that the motion is in one direction, and, when we hate, that the motion is in the other;
but the "Why?" would remain as unanswerable as before."
And nothing has changed much in the
intervening 140 years. We are no nearer closing the explanatory gap from the
physical end of the problem.
There is a school of philosophy called Mysterianism which claims that
understanding the mind is beyond human mental capabilities. However it
may well be, as you suggest, that it is the deeply recursive nature of the problem itself,
rather than the inability of our intellect to grasp it, that prevents our understanding
the mind.
Nevertheless, I feel that before science
finally abandons trying to explain the mind in physical terms, it should at least attempt
to define why the mind can never be thus understood or explained. This would
give Buddhism a rational basis for counteracting any further covert attempts to replace
spirituality with mechanistic pseudo-science.
- Sean Robsville, adapted from Bridging
the Explanatory Gap of the Hard Problem
