Science Essay - Why the difficulty in making Science of Philosophy lies at the roots of their differences yet guides their interconnectedness

Can you measure a thought? How would you even start? A study published in Biophysical Journals in January 2020 went on the venture of doing exactly as such and did so by employing the newest branch of physics. Danko Georgiev of the Institute of Advanced Study in Sofia, Bulgari published an article that starts off by discussing classical physics shortcomings of any ability to observe or measure the apparent non-physical nature of conscious experience. He emphasizes that we are only certain of our own perspectives and that we are objectively unable to establish who has consciousness. In addition, he highlights that we also face the impossibility of being able to communicate the nature of experience, for example, such as the difficulty in telling someone what red looks like (Georgiev, 2020).

Therefore instead, the research takes advantage of the nondeterministic, probabilistic domain of quantum physics and quantum information and argues that since quantum states are not observable and neither is consciousness it may be beneficial to explore one another by using each other. The study contemplates further on this perspective and runs through many issues using this viewpoint. For instance, reductionism, which tries to understand phenomena by looking at underlying fundamentals, when applied to the mind usually leaves a gap. For even though the process of neurons and the physicality of the brain is being better understood, we are still unable to reason how those processes lead to such inner thoughts and feelings. Though with quantum physics, referring to his use of Schrodinger’s wave equation and variables, Georgiev stated that, “identification of the conscious mind with the quantum information contained in the quantum state of the brain is possible because the physical states are assumed to be unobservable and fundamentally different from the observable brain.” The study concludes by offering that while this approach may still be incomplete it is supposed to be a new perspective and framework to assist both physicists and philosophers on pondering upon this problem (Georgiev, 2020).

So again referring back to this problem, what philosophers and scientists have deemed the hard problem of consciousness, concerns the present inability to reason why physical processes lead to such subjective qualitative phenomena (Howell & Alter, 2009). This element of not being able to connect the two also establishes why there are differences and a divide between science and philosophy. As sentient beings, we have the ability to understand our very nature and we continually use our awareness to learn about everything and anything. Our senses create our perceptions as we garner endless knowledge, but our senses are also limited. We have been able to use what we have to create measurements and observe our environments, but for other questions, including the question of consciousness, there are yet to be any answers or ways to reach them. Instead, we are left to ponder and think for ourselves what certain things may mean or why they are what they are. We can distinguish the wavelength and frequency of visible light to determine red but we are unable to explain what it means to see red. Similarily we can learn about the universe and our evolution but still have trouble finding our fits and purposes in the cosmos. In reality though much of how we have come to make sense and continue to reason about our very world and existence requires a combination of both. So while we may have to balance on this line between the two methods of reasoning on why things are the way they are, as history has also done such, a discussion will take place to help in understanding the interconnectedness of both as well as reasoning where the future may lead.

 It was only until the 6th century BC that philosophy and science were separated from theology as Thales became the earliest to ask, “what is the basic stuff of the universe from which all else comes” (Mark, 2009), a question that physics and chemistry later answered with atoms. Yet between science and philosophy, the difference and separation were not even clearly defined until the times between the 16th and 19th centuries as the scientific revolution took place and an empirical process was attributed to the “natural philosophies” which have now been renamed as the natural sciences (Engel, 2014). To even further add to the separations other sciences such as economics, politics, and etc. are regarded as social sciences and are also distinct from natural sciences but are still sciences compared to philosophy. These areas of study deal with more scientific processes similar to the ones used in the natural sciences. Therefore for the sake of this essay, these sciences will both still be referred to as simply science and philosophy as philosophy. So as it stands currently, the major difference between the two lies in that science concerns a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment and derives its knowledge through observations while philosophy attempts to reason and understand the fundamental and general nature of man, existence, and the relationship between two. More interestingly put as said in an interview by Vanderbilt University Physics Professor Sokrates Pantelides, “philosophy has been at the roots of science because they [early natural philosophers] were the guys that were puzzled by things and wanted to figure things out, but that's only a branch of philosophy. There are other branches that worry about ethics, for example, right, that worry about logic, that worry about the way you think.” 

 For many publicly educated students, the same hard body problem of consciousness may have been their first encounter with philosophy, though instead with the introduction of a similar philosophical argument: Mind-body dualism/monism. What was proposed in the 17th century by Rene Descartes, who many consider the father of modern philosophy, was the same problem of the difference between the physicality of being able to understand the body and its parts/workings yet the dualism that arises since the mind is said not to exist in spatial terms and therefore lies completely distinct from the body (Westphal, 2019). On the other hand, there are many proponents of the monism belief with the two major theories being either materialism, nothing exists except for the material world, and phenomenalism, nothing exists except for mental objects and physicality is the result of the perceptions of the mind. While the monism view may fall on the opposite sides with dualism falling in between yet separate, it brings us back to how we started this essay with a discussion of a physics study that approached this goal of trying to understand both the mind and the body.

One of the most fundamental encompassing natural sciences is physics. Physics is the study of matter and the entities related to it. Physics’ main goal is to understand the nature of the universe. An especially relevant, though hypothetical, unsolved problem in physics as of now is the theory of everything which aims to create a framework that explains and links together all physical phenomena in the universe (Mann, 2019). Many thinkers of this field consider that for this to happen consciousness will also have to be explained in this grand unifying theory. However, as aforementioned, this becomes extremely hard given the very nature of the concepts. Nonetheless, physicists explore this problem among many others and our understanding of physics, along with all other sciences, is only increasing and new theories and findings have only created newer ways to look at and answer many problems of philosophy. It was not too long ago that Thales was considered a philosopher for asking a question that physics solved and it may not be too long from now when this problem of consciousness may too be figured out by science. 

This view may come off too optimistic for the realms of science, yet regardless of what stands, the main point remains that some of the underlying questions of philosophy may be significantly guided by discoveries in science as well as the opposite holding true. Quantum mechanics was one such rather recent discovery that has guided new philosophical thought as well as the fact that even the discoveries have required natural sciences to at least consider consciousness. This point could best be made using Schrodinger’s cat which is a thought experiment used to explain the problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, one of the most widely used interpretations which states that, “a quantum particle doesn't exist in one state or another, but in all of its possible states at once. It's only when we observe its state that a quantum particle is essentially forced to choose one probability,” (Clark, 2007). In this thought experiment, it is said to imagine an alive cat in a closed box placed alongside a contraption that will kill the cat depending on if the radioactive substance decays or not. As the decay of substance is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, this means that as the box is closed we are said to assume the cat is in a superposition of being dead and alive until an observer or measurement is taken place to collapse that superposition and determine the result. Though the use of the cat was used to explain the absurdity of a simultaneously dead and alive cat, it is still regarded by many physicists today to explain the novel reality that the indeterministic nature of quantum physics holds. Not only, therefore, does this strange view of understanding the world lead to scientific implications but it also creates questions for philosophy on what things can really mean, especially as these discoveries have revolutionized previously held thoughts on the concept of knowing. At the same time, these physicists were also plagued with philosophical uncertainties and questions of consciousness being an agent in understanding which they had to consider.

“I think therefore I am,” Rene Descartes, or rather it be in alternate versions, I am therefore I think, or even, therefore I think I am. Regardless of how you choose to view it, reality is not easily understood and we are still right in the middle of trying to understand it. While we have been able to advance our knowledge, our human efforts in understanding our nature, our selves, and our interactions rely on a need for inter-multi-disciplinary efforts because only the collective of all that is our information will be able to answer everything, or at least try to. 

The same problem of why consciousness has proven so hard to scientifically understand also helps explain why there is a difference between the workings of philosophy and those of science. Some things currently are systematically observable, some are not, to make sense it of it all we have to employ it all but even more importantly we have to be able to understand that advancements and pondering from each respective domain may assist in the discoveries or questionings of the other, for the gap, although currently there, could one day simply be a part of their history. However until then, I will play to the scope of the vastness of all that is human nature, curiosity, and reason and will refer you to what Philosophy Vanderbilt Professor Lenn Goodman stated, “Science and Philosophy sounds pretty broad, but tell me more.”

References

Clark, J. (2007, October). How Quantum Suicide Works. Retrieved from 

https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/quantum-suicide4.htm

Engel, J. (2014, December 17). When Did Science and Philosophy Separate Into Different Fields 

of Study? Retrieved from 

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/12/when-did-science-and-philosophy-separate-into-different-fields-of-study.html

Georgiev, D. D. (2020). Inner privacy of conscious experiences and quantum information. 

Biosystems, 187, 104051.

Mann, A. (2019, August 29). What Is the Theory of Everything? Retrieved from 

https://www.space.com/theory-of-everything-definition.html

Mark, J. J. (2009). Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/philosophy/

Mcleod, S. (2018). Mind Body Debate. Retrieved from 

https://www.simplypsychology.org/mindbosdydebate.html

Robert J. Howell and Torin Alter (2009) Hard problem of consciousness. Scholarpedia, 

4(6):4948.

Westphal, J. (2019, August). Descartes and the Discovery of the Mind-Body Problem. Retrieved 

from https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/discovery-mind-body-problem/