Justification Of What Is To Be Presented

We all build models of the world, which are supposed to explain what we are experiencing. The final condition that those models must satisfy is – they must explain WHY we are experiencing what we are experiencing, or to show the NECCESITY of the experiences.

 But before that final condition there is one other necessary condition which model should satisfy. The model must show the POSSIBILITY of what we are experiencing.

 It is understandable that the model in which the facts of our experience are possible doesn’t automatically mean that model is the right model of what is happening in the experience, and this condition (possibility) can’t be used as a positive test for validity of the model. So it is necessary, but not sufficient condition for the validity of a model - if in some model some fact is impossible, such model is clearly not giving account for everything in the reality, and should be changed with other, or at least altered.

 In that way different “How is it possible…?” are questions which can result in changing the model if it doesn’t explain them as such. The more possibilities and questions about them we have, and the more interrelated they are, the more they determine the model (collapse the number of possible models).

 Such modeling of the world is not so different (if not same) with the one in which an engineer has to design something which would include given number of possibilities. The only difference is that engineer may object the possibility of a design (model) which would include all those possibilities, and may ask the superior about changing some of those. But philosopher who is working on the model which should explain our experiences (of the world) can’t object about possibility of the facts of experience. Those facts are certain, and model must show their possibility in itself.

 When I started going to high school, my model of the world was built according to what we have learned at school about physics, chemistry etc. But those sciences didn’t say anything about sensations I experienced, and as far I could tell there was no possibility of experiencing sensations (e.g. redness, pain, sound etc…) in that model of the world.

 I still remember that I came to the “wonderful” (so it seemed) idea, that “Sensations aren’t real, they don’t in fact exist”, that the brain as something which is working according to the laws of physics and is responsible for thoughts, is lying to itself in some way about existence of feelings and sensations. It was easy to see this answer as right one, basically as it was the only possible answer having on one side the strictness of the physics, its success in practical life, and on other side the experience of feelings and sensations that same physics didn’t induce. My belief in the physical model was only leaving just that one option for me. Reasons of belief in physics should be clear to everyone – it seems to be just a step a way from fulfilling the need of model to explaining the stronger condition – WHY are we experiencing what we are experiencing. So why bother with lesser condition (of possibility of facts) when we have a model which is (almost) explaining WHY?

 After some time (some year later, still in high school), little by little I started to be aware that feelings and sensations can’t be explained out through the intelligence lying to itself, that such possibility can’t be comprehended to explain the vividness, the apparent reality of the experience of the sensations.

 I become aware that I can’t ignore the facts, how much they might contradict the model I use for explaining the world. And so, I was back at the beginning, again with the question “How are sensations and feelings possible in the physical model of the world?”

 One solution which could seem possible is that senses and feelings exist as a result of the very complex interaction patterns in the brain, but to me such answer was included in the first case of brain lying to itself. Because it was again saying that what SEEMS to be “real” to us (we are direct advocates of existence of sensations as experienced) doesn’t really exist by itself. So that idea wasn’t really explaining the possibility of feelings and experience of senses to me. (It is interesting to notice that I could easily see thinking as fully possible as consequence of those complex physical interactions even we yet don’t know how. It was really very easy to imagine a possibility of any system that would show intelligent behavior.)

 To describe the meaningless of saying that experience of sensations and feelings is consequence of complex interactions in the brain, I was using this thought experiment:

 We can imagine we have programmed a computer with every physical law (or the only universal law), and we have entered full information about the starting data of all particles in ones brain in the computer. Such computer could calculate same interactions which would happen in ones brain, receiving input from some reality (could be virtual or not), and controlling (virtual) motors in that (virtual) reality.

 I went further in the thought experiment and changed computer with bunch of people doing math, which would compute the physical laws by pencil on paper and then give information to other people.

 But how can we say there would be experience of senses or feelings in that “system”? It IS about doing math after all! Why would doing this calculation (and not some other) be so special, that it would induce *experience of senses, and feelings*? It can further be asked why would given calculation induce *experience* at all? Why would given calculation induce *subjective existence*?

 And we can develop the thought experiment further… Take a look at the proof that consciousness can't be modeled mathematically.

 I wondered about why can’t someone see the obvious then, but I think now that the arguments were not the problem, but it was about the fact that there was no alternative, same as my first reaction on this question, it was easiest to describe out the awareness, feelings and senses. After all alternative would mean questioning physics.

 But to me, it was so obvious, that I couldn’t think otherwise. And as more I was thinking about it, I was surer that there is something missing in the physical model, that it can’t give possibility for existence of feelings and sensations.

 Next logical step for me was the possibility to extend the model of science. Scientific model we (human society) got so far explains almost every fact in the experience. We would just need to add those “problematic facts about experience” from outside and we are done.

 Further it was clear that feelings and senses we experience ARE connected with what is going on in the brain; they SEEM to be a consequence. So the obvious possibility is to deduce that even experience of the feelings and senses is not implicit consequence of the model of the brain, it can be consequence of the brain itself. So it looked right, in order to explain possibility of those, to superficially (explicitly) add feelings, senses to the model as things which aren’t implied by the mathematical model, but have existence by themselves in particles (or material) which makes up the brain. In such way I figured, thinking would be result of “normal” physical interactions, and that would be visible in the model, but feelings and senses would be result from some correlation interaction of particles and separatly existing simple sensual qualities (colors, sounds etc.) which is not implicit in the model, but which would be implicit in reality. We would have to just accept that as fact, and add it to our model explicitly. In such way it was clear that computer or group of people doing math and computing the brain would get “intelligent” system, but it wouldn’t sense - it wouldn’t experience. In such way – zombies, beings which act same as conscious beings, but are not conscious, would be possible.

 But this solution didn’t last long. It was days or weeks later when other “possibility question” appeared:

 “(Then…) how is it possible that I KNOW about (this issue with) feelings and sensations?”

 That we know about them is a fact. And I wouldn’t even start with the first question, if I didn’t know about their existence. But the solution to which I got previously, was not solving this, this was definitely not possible in that model where thinking and sensing were divided.

 Again, what comes to mind as first reaction (at least to me), is to check if I’m sure in the premises. Because, if thinking knows about feelings and senses, and those are not possible in the physical model but need “additional domain in reality”, then it would be needed to transport thinking into that “new domain”. But, if we move the thinking in that new domain, and if we say that there is such thing as “spirit” which thinks and feels, then what do we need brain for? That was also unacceptable track to follow.

 The only rational solution for me was to conclude that if there is such thing as “spirit” (not as some mystical concept, but just as something in which the possibility of thinking and experiencing senses and feelings could both be explained), then the brain must be IT, the brain must be that “spirit” BUT as we see it through our senses. That was, and still is only viable alternative to me, if you have in mind all “how it is possible…” questions.

 Something might be missed here, so I will explicitly point to it. Accepting this last idea doesn’t mean just rejecting physicalism (that everything can be described trough physics), but also means rejecting possibility of physics to model the behavior of the brain. Why is that?

 The spirit was defined up there as something which thinks, experiences feelings and senses. The brain on other hand is seen as its projection onto our senses. Such spirit not just that has possibility to think and know about experiencing of senses and feelings, but thinking about them makes it BEHAVE differently. So, not just that I started to think about senses because I knew about them, but also I started to write this paper because of that!

 So any attempt of physics to give model of HOW the brain is working must fail (according to given idea of course).

 Or put it another way, zombies are not possible, not because every system designed by model of brain would be also experiencing senses and feelings, but because we can’t design model of brain.

 Of course having in mind the power of physics, from my point we have just one possible option to follow here - that brains behavior can’t be described FULLY through physical laws, and the only place in physics which gives such possibility for is quantum mechanics (QM).

 Even there is an equation in QM which describes the evolution of the system - it is describing the evolution that can’t be observed. When the system comes to be observed, or to say anything “actual” of what would we experience observing that system, it looses its power to deterministically predict observations, and only gives us statistical account of them. So theoretically there is possibility that if some of the processes of the brain are on the QM level, it would be not possible to determine the brain as macro system fully through QM, in our case to determine by mathematical equations the behavior of the brain – what he will say, what he will write.

 Note: There is also similar approach to come to the same problems and conclusions: Let’s say that universe (its behavior) can be modeled by mathematical laws. Such fully mathematical model itself could not ever give reason for actuality of what it is modeling (universe)… Such thing should be added from outside explicitly, that is, we should add to the model the fact the Universe by this model actually exists. The existence is not present in the model implicitly. Or said differently, there can’t be anything in the mathematical model which would show the necessity of its actual being, or bring that what is modeled into being (note: this is separate question from question of the necessity of the “real” universe – why is the universe they way it is). So reality would have to have something *more* then the model, which *more* would explain its actuality. Even if we use a anthropomorphic principle that the actual universe is such, because in it people are possible which would ask those questions, the model can’t answer the question why would *any* type of universe be actual (or just “be”). And what is most important we get to the question: How is it possible for us to think about existence or about us as existent? As of course in such mathematical model, existence can’t be reduced to numbers nor modeled, how is it possible that our actuality raises such questions and affects our behavior, so we can think, speak and write about it? And this is not about the “actuality” of a wider mathematical model to a mathematical entity “living” in such model, but for the direct certainty of this one existence. Even this can be seen as stronger case compared with one mentioning the experiences of senses and feelings, in what is to I will try to reduce this one to the previous one.

 This result can hardly be seen as satisfying, but it is a start. And from my point it is a something which we must have in mind when we think about things. Now we must continue and see where further we can go…

 The spirit as it is defined here, should experience senses and feelings, and should have possibility to know about them, think about them, and act by them.

 That brings one question to mind – Can it be that we ourselves are that spirit, as we fulfill all those conditions. Can it be that Mind is the Spirit because of that?

 Here it is about question if what we marked with word “spirit” in the model of the world, (which was defined only so far by possibilities) is equal to our direct existence, because WE HAVE those possibilities.

 But in order to accept such thing and in order to equate our direct awareness to what was defined as Spirit, we should be able to present a model of Mind, model of our direct existence and awareness, which will describe the possibilities of everything that was mentioned, but also to give account for its connection to physical model. It is also needed in order to claim any objectivity of spirit, to be able to present the Mind not as subject (we should be able to explain its subjective dimension) but as something that can ontologically exist.

 While we think in such direction, it can seem that there are not much things that can guide us in building that model, as we are missing a scientific method. But on further inspection, it appears that there are so many facts about us, that alone the fact that the model should give their possibility gives us lots of material to think of. The more facts we can find the more we are reduced in our possibility to bring different models.

 Let me write down some of them: “How is logic possible?”, “How is meaning possible?”, “How is mathematics possible?”, “How is natural science possible?”, “How it is possible we feel the pain in our little finger if Mind is what we see as brain, or how it is possible we hear a sound/ see a color outside of our body?”, “How it is possible that we have unity of consciousness/different feelings/thoughts which makes up ONE thing?”,  “How it is possible that we can distinct different qualities, e.g. red from blue, and quantities  like darker, smaller, left of etc ?”, “How is it possible that we are not directly aware of answers of those all questions?” etc…

Also the introspection gives us some more clues in the form that “it seems that…” which talk about how it seem to us that our mind is doing certain things. Of course those can not be taken as facts, but the model must give possibility for things to “seem” certain way to us.

 In further text “possible” model is given, built using this method, which tries to answer those questions, and also to give additional justification, if one presented here wasn’t enough.

 One of the main context in which this model is built is then the directness of the feelings, emotions, but also the possibility to know about this things AS direct; so the models task is also to somehow connect the direct with the abstract, to explain how can it be that abstract can refer to the concrete, and how can concrete be put under abstract.

Other thing that should be noted is that different persons reading this material have different starting model (or multiple disconnected models) about the world they live in, or about their experiences. For each of those models the words and concepts the persons are using have some less or more determined meaning. On other side this work tries to develop different concepts, to show their meaning, but can’t do it right away, and while presenting this development, I don’t have other way then using the concepts in more or less in their common-sense meaning (so having certain model already in mind), which might sometimes conflict with already “developed” meaning of the models the specific reader is starting with. Because of that I want to ask the reader of little flexibility about the concepts used, and the impreciseness of their usage as the work is unfolding.

 Such need to model a system which would have all possibilities is what guides every building of the model. What will be presented is a model which is reached after thinking in such way, but systematization of it came when it was more or less finished in some chaotic form, and even the methodology I presented here came at the end when I could see the model in its whole, and try to present it. I hope that I presented the right possibility questions which guided me in building this model, as I assume that it would be most persuasive if I can succeed in getting you, the reader, confront the impossibility to model some of the possibilities in any other way then the way that is presented here.

On other side, being software engineer I have witnessed more then once that what seems to have just one solution (just one model) often has more solutions, and some of them are better then others. With that on mind, I can just hope that I "hit" the target in some places of the model, not really be sure that what I claim is how it is.

Next:Notes on Some Consequences