The Galileo's Error by Philip Goff
Conventional media often depicts the trope of a hysterical woman embroiled in a heated debate with a man. The man insists, "That’s simply not true," to which the woman retorts, "But that's how I think and feel." Typically, in these portrayals, the woman's subjective reality diverges significantly from the so-called "objective truth." These scenarios often invite laughter and mockery, with onlookers derisively remarking, "Bitches be crazy".
Yet, there is a profound irony that from a philosophical perspective, the crazy woman is correct in at least one regard.
The reality is that we cannot declare anything to be objectively true with certainty, they can all be illusions. Perhaps we are robots programmed to think we are human, perhaps we are in the Matrix and our visual experience of the room around us doesn't correspond to anything real. Amidst these uncertainties, one thing remains indisputable: the existence of our thoughts and feelings, aka, consciousness. It exists that we felt that we are humans, whether that is true or not. It exists that we had visual experiences for things, regardless of their actual existence. Ironically, nothing is more certain than the existence of our consciousness.
“Cogito ergo sum”, or “I think therefore I am.”
Descartes captured this concept with his famous line. This phrasing may lead to misinterpretation. Descartes did not posit that his existence hinges entirely on his capacity to think. He aimed to address the nature of knowledge: He was certain of his thought processes, of his consciousness—and from this certitude, he deduced his existence. The indisputable awareness of one's existence as a conscious entity served as the foundational pillar of all knowledge.
Consciousness stands as the most undeniable certainty, yet it proves to be the most challenging to integrate into our scientific framework. We navigate reality through the prism of consciousness, and paradoxically, when compared with the significant strides science has made in explaining other phenomena, it becomes evident that our comprehension of consciousness remains disappointingly limited.
The scientific explanations of water and gasoline expounds the observable properties of these substances. We derive satisfactory accounts of why water boils at 100 degrees Celsius or why gasoline is flammable. Similarly, our scientific understanding of genetics offers insights into the mechanisms by which traits are transmitted across generations. Astrophysics elucidates the formation of stars and planets. Each of these domains furnishes us with gratifying insights. Yet, despite our comprehension of the brain's electrochemical processes, we remain in the dark about how these processes give rise to a subjective inner world.
Why has our progress in unraveling the mysteries of consciousness been so meager? Could it be mere chance that we find ourselves at the nascent stages of delving into consciousness, or is there a rationale behind this lethargic rate of advancement? Furthermore, if we persist on our current scientific trajectory, how probable are we to unravel the enigma of consciousness?
Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a new science of consciousness written by Philip Goff is a book that provides some clues to the questions above.
Galileo, the father of modern science, what does he have to do with the problem we are facing exploring consciousness? What does the author mean when he said Galileo’s error?
In 1623, Galileo made a revolutionary declaration that mathematics is the language of science. He posited that the universe, an ever-open book, can be understood only through this language, without which one merely wanders in a dark labyrinth. The fact that prior thinkers did not articulate their theories of nature in mathematical terms have a lot to do with the difficulties of incorporating sensory qualities into a mathematical equation. How could an equation ever convey the experience of seeing the yellowness of a lemon or tasting the bitterness of coffee? How could an abstract mathematical description encapsulate the rich aroma of freshly baked bread or the blunt pain of jamming your pinky toe? This posed a significant obstacle to Galileo’s aspiration that the book of the universe could be entirely expressed in mathematical terms. Galileo addressed this issue by radically reimagining the nature of the material world.
In Galileo's reconceptualized cosmos, material objects are devoid of sensory attributes and endowed solely with quantifiable properties: size, shape, location, and motion. These characteristics are amenable to mathematical representation. By eliminating sensory qualities such as color, smell, taste, and sound, Galileo established a material reality that could be described in the language of mathematics. But what of the sensory attributes? If the yellowness, citrus aroma, and sour taste are not intrinsic to the lemon, where do they reside? Galileo posited that these qualities reside in the perceiver's soul. Thus, Galileo’s worldview introduced a dichotomy: the material realm governed by mathematical attributes and the realm of consciousness experiencing sensory perceptions. This division birthed mathematical physics. Galileo is the father of physical science, but he only ever intended it to provide us with a partial description of reality. Just because Galileo thought that physical science could not explain the sensory qualities, it doesn't mean that he was right.
The author, Goff, warned us that we need to bear in mind that physical science success began when Galileo took the sensory qualities, out of its domain of inquiry. Thus, we have no reason to assume that it will be similarly successful if it turns its attention to the sensory qualities. According to the Goff, Galileo's error was to commit us to a theory of nature which entailed that consciousness was inevitably mysterious and definitely not physical. In other words, Galileo created the problem of consciousness. The concept of mind and body, matter and soul, this dualism belief exists in many cultures and religion. They are just as likely to be true as they are to be false. How can we correct Galileo’s error and effectively explore all possible hypotheses of consciousness?
Throughout the book, Goff explored three mainstream hypotheses: Dualism, materialism, and panpsychism. Spoiler alert, the book is a full-on defense for panpsychism. Funny enough I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of the main conclusions, but I thoroughly enjoyed all of side topics discussed, especially the Goff’s view on philosophy’s role in scientific discovery.
Dualism:
After explaining Galileo’s error, Goff first delved into the philosophical position of dualism, which posits a separation between mind and body. Goff explored the strengths and weaknesses of dualism, particularly its challenges in providing a coherent account of how mind and body interact. The book illustrated how certain interpretations of quantum physics, notably exemplified in Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, have been perceived as potentially bolstering the tenets of dualism. Quantum mechanics, with its inherent unpredictability and the role of the observer, has prompted speculation regarding parallels between the behaviors of subatomic particles and the essence of consciousness.
In Schrödinger's cat scenario, where a feline within a sealed container exists simultaneously in states of life and death until observed, the conundrum of quantum superposition is vividly illustrated. Some scholars have inferred from this indeterminate nature a suggestion of consciousness or observation affecting reality, thus intimating a semblance with dualistic propositions regarding the mind's influence on the physical realm. However, Goff refrains from endorsing dualism based solely on these quantum conundrums. Instead, he contends that while quantum phenomena pose inquiries about the fabric of reality and consciousness, they do not furnish a resolution to the age-old mind-body quandary. The interpretations of quantum mechanics remain speculative, and their relevance to the discourse on consciousness and dualism remains a subject of ongoing scrutiny and deliberation within the realms of both physics and philosophy.
Materialism:
Next, materialism was discussed. This is where I have some questions and disagreement with the book’s examples and conclusions.
Materialism refers to the position that consciousness and mental phenomena can be fully explained by physical processes in the brain, period. No souls, just body and brain chemical reaction. Materialism holds that all aspects of consciousness, including subjective experiences, thoughts, and emotions, are ultimately reducible to and explainable by the interactions of physical matter, such as neurons and neurotransmitters, within the brain. Just like in 19th century, we used to think some people are “demon possessed” when they lose bodily control, turns out that they are just patients with epilepsy.
Materialism asserts that there is no need for any non-physical entities to account for consciousness. Goff critiques this reductionist view of consciousness.
Goff critiques the materialism stance by bringing up the famous "black-and-white Mary" thought experiment, a classic argument in philosophy of mind that challenges materialism. The scenario involves a scientist named Mary who is born and raised in a black-and-white room and has never seen color. Despite her lack of firsthand experience with color, Mary is a neuroscientist and has complete knowledge of all the physical facts about color vision – the neural mechanisms, wavelengths of light, how the brain processes color information, etc. However, the thought experiment raises the question: Does Mary learn anything new when she finally steps outside her black-and-white room and sees color for the first time? Proponents of the thought experiment argue that Mary gains new knowledge– the knowledge of what it's like to experience color. This subjective, qualitative aspect of conscious experience cannot be fully captured by physical descriptions alone. Thus, the thought experiment challenges the materialist idea that consciousness can be entirely explained by physical processes. The author brought up this experiment to discredit the materialism view.
This is where I disagree. The "black-and-white Mary" thought experiment doesn't discredit materialism in the sense of proving the existence of a non-physical soul or entity. At most, it discredits a specific aspect of materialism known as the "knowledge argument." Of course, it is now apparent that there is knowledge about consciousness that cannot be gained through purely “reading” descriptions, just like reading what “red” is like, doesn’t equate to “seeing red”. Yet, “seeing” colors with “physical eyes”, and processing colors in “physical brains”, are nevertheless, physical processes. This experiment cannot discredit materialism in the sense that the new conscious experience Mary gained was yielded by another physical organ, her eyes which transmitted the image to the brain. It is true that currently, what neuroscientists observe in the brain and nervous system does not get anywhere near subjective, qualitative experience, yet, the absence of discovery does not necessarily negate the validity of any hypothesis; rather, it underscores the potential early stage of our scientific journey in exploring that domain. I am by no means endorsing the materialistic, just making a point that the black-and-white-Mary example is probably not a valid one to discredit materialism.
It is also questionable that the author identified materialism, the ancient and overwhelmingly plausible view that everything in the universe including consciousness is wholly material, with the obviously false and hyperscientistic view that everything in the universe, including feelings of pain, sexual joy, experiences of colour, and so on, can be described in such a way that its nature is fully conveyed, in the language of the physical sciences. I haven’t read of any materialists who think this, and it’s certainly not true of Thomas Hobbes in 1651, or the electrifying materialist panpsychist Margaret Cavendish in 1666, or Joseph Priestley in 1777, and thousands of others since. Panpsychism is a wholly materialist view in almost all its versions, and even the author himself recommends the materialist panpsychist view that “consciousness is located in the intrinsic nature of the physical world”. Anyway, I will pause here and move on to the next hypothesis.
Panpsychism:
Lastly the book examined Panpsychism, which is the hypothesis that Goff strongly advocates for. So from the book’s perspective, dualism fails due to the inability to explain how soul and body connect, materialism is inadequate as we’ve been scanning the brain and nervous system yet we haven’t found anything close to subjective experience. Now, Panpsychists step into the explanatory gap left by the failure of both dualism and materialism to make sense of the relationship between the mind and the brain. Goff suggests that this is not just a little local difficulty to be resolved as brain science advances. What is needed is a radical rethink of the place of consciousness in the order of things.
Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that posits that consciousness or mind is a fundamental feature of the universe, and it exists in some form or another in all things, not just in certain living organisms like humans or animals. Panpsychism suggests that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter, much like mass or charge. Every particle or entity in the universe, from subatomic particles to rocks to plants and animals, possesses some degree of consciousness or subjective experience.
Goff advocates for panpsychism by drawing references from philosophy, neuroscience, and quantum mechanics. He builds on David Chalmers' distinction between the "easy" and "hard" problems of consciousness, suggesting that traditional physicalist and dualist approaches fail to address the subjective nature of experience. Goff proposes that by treating consciousness as intrinsic to matter, panpsychism reintroduces qualitative aspects into our understanding of the universe, addressing the epistemic gaps left by other theories. He acknowledges The Combination Problem—how simple forms of consciousness combine into complex experiences—but argues that this is a more manageable issue than the hard problem itself. By suggesting that consciousness exists on a continuum and is fundamental to all matter, panpsychism offers a simpler, more cohesive metaphysical framework that avoids the complexities and incoherencies of dualism.
As for scientific reference, quantum physics, particularly through the phenomena of superposition and entanglement, offers some support for the panpsychism hypothesis. Superposition demonstrates that particles can exist in multiple states at once, while entanglement shows that particles can maintain correlations regardless of distance. Panpsychists suggest that these quantum features may shed light on consciousness, proposing that if consciousness is fundamental, it might similarly exist in a superposition of states. Additionally, the quantum measurement problem, which highlights the role of observation in collapsing the wave function, has led some to theorize that consciousness could be integral to this process. Quantum mind theories, such as the Orch-OR theory by Penrose and Hameroff, further explore this connection by suggesting that consciousness arises from quantum processes within neuron microtubules. While these ideas remain speculative, they represent significant attempts to link the enigmatic nature of consciousness with the foundational principles of quantum mechanics.
Towards the conclusion of the book, Goff addresses potential objections to panpsychism and offers insights into how this perspective can inform and enrich various scientific disciplines. He emphasizes the need for a more inclusive approach that acknowledges the significance of consciousness in shaping our understanding of the universe.
Overall, this is an amazing read. In the final chapters, Goff reflects on the broader implications of his arguments and encourages readers to reconsider their assumptions about the nature of consciousness and reality. He concludes by advocating for a paradigm shift in scientific thinking, one that embraces the role of consciousness as a fundamental aspect of the cosmos.
