Consciousness and Determinism

I picked up “the universe in a single atom” by the Dalai Lama this weekend. Thanks to the Dad and Jane for mailing me books out here! I always get a lot from reading the Lama; his thoughts are nuanced but holistic and profound as well as humble. The book is an attempt to discuss the implications of science for spirituality, critiquing at times, but most often calling for acceptation, adaptation and reconciliation on the part religious schools. I hope that I have distorted his ideas in this entry.

I found one particular point of his regarding consciousness to be particularly cogent to me (he used the word ‘cogent,’ so I decided I can too). He noted that in Buddhist philosophy the “mind,” encompassing perceptive, rational and emotive consciousness, is “luminous and knowing.” Luminous refers to the ability to interpret and reflect and knowing meaning perceiving. The implication is described by a metaphor,

“As the primary feature of light is to illuminate, so consciousness is said to illuminated its objects. Just as in light there is no categorical distinction between the illumination and that which illuminates, so in consciousness there is no real difference between the process of knowing or cognition and that which knows or cognizes. In consciousness, as in light, there is a quality of illumination” (125).

The Lama goes on to assert that most Tibetan and Indian schools cannot reduce mental world to “a subset of the physical.” This is somewhat at odds with neurobiology, which has been pushing scientific understanding toward a more deterministic understanding of consciousness such that our biological and genetic predispositions combined with sensory inputs determine our feelings, responses and actions and by extension, our consciousness.

I think that the Lama’s analogy is revealing. Like the inseperability between space and time introduced by relativity consciousness and reality may indeed be inter-dependent. I believe The Lama errors however when he associates inter-dependence to indistinguishability and thus with no determinism. By introducing this credible issue of indistinguishability, The Dalai Lama casts doubt on the material basis of consciousness. Or at a minimum he suggests that consciousness is a two-way street such that both brain chemistry affects our conscious state and that our conscious state may affect our brain chemistry. I perhaps agree with the conclusion but I would alter the argument.

But to consider Buddhisms analogy of the objects and illumination, is it possible for the objects to conceivably exist without the illumination? Yes, they would still exist as essentially the same objects minus some characteristics that are incoherent in a universe without illumination. Could illumination exist without objects? No, illumination is differentiation of light and that requires matter. Therefore it is matter that is determines consciousness, though the existence of consciousness alters (though does not determine) the existence of matter.

The Lama admits aversion to the notion that the matter determines consciousness, because, I believe, it weakens the centrality of the main concerns of Buddhism: morality, alleviation of suffering and attainment of happiness and perhaps even whispers nihilism and the irrelevance of moral orders. I assert that while some ground may be lost to moral relativism, there is still plenty of room for consciousness to operate as a powerful affective agent of material reality, if not as a co-determinate.

There are a few concepts that may be fitting analogies/examples of this position. Before the Big Bang, at which time The Dalai Lama (informed by contemporary physicists) asserts that all matter and space-time existed as a singularity. The laws of physics that govern the universe after the Big Bang (and inform our understanding of it) break down at this singularity. Nevertheless, this linguistically incoherent state determined our contemporary spacio-temporal universe. In one sense they are continuous in that at no point is one moment-place divorced from the precedent and following moment-place. Yet over a broader perspective they are clearly distinguishable, in one state the laws of physics apply, in the other they do not. A similar distinction seems plausible pre- and post-consciousness. In fact, as consciousness changes it is conceivable that our universe undergoes change. It seems impossible but quantum physics shows that the measurement of a quality is often deterministic.

A person is more than the sum of body parts, so too may consciousness be more than the sum of the material inputs that compose it.

Basically I would put forward that, at least for now, there may be a middle way that allows consciousness to be fundamental determined by material reality but that allows for consciousness to significantly affect our perception material reality.

This has some basis in my experience and the experience friends have shared with me. My friend Ben describes how certain locations, New Mexico and Washington, have distinct (though sometimes overlapping) realities. When he is in either of these places he feels connected with that “loop” of reality consisting of the people, places and past he experiences in either NM or WA.

For me, traveling in the wilderness with friends allowed me to appreciate the relativity of space-and-time. Going far away without friends has given me some perspective on consciousness and the relationships that, for me, define it. Also, I like wilderness and world travel because they are interesting in their own right as well as revealing of different perspectives. The ideas are related but I don’t want to give the impression that I sit in Bishkek and ponder the nature of consciousness all day.

The upswing of all of this is that I think there is firm ground to say that consciousness affects reality. So it makes sense to be kind, compassionate and understanding as that may disperse positivity and enhance the interconnected reality we share for the better. So even if our consciousness originates from the material world, The Dalai Lama’s quest is not irrelevant.