The Mind/Body Problem
The Problem of Coordination
either: coordination is the result of the random movement of independent material (monism)
or: coordination is the result of a mind with the power to control the movement of independent material (dualism)
The Computational Theory of the Brain
The materialist/monist hypothesis holds that the human body does not possess a mind, that all that is needed for it to function is the correct configuration of material elements which are 63% Hydrogen, 25% Oxygen, 9% Carbon, 1% Nitrogen and negligible amounts of Calcium, Phosphorus and Potassium. All that is needed for a human body to produce actions is the correct configuration of those elements and moreover, these elements can become correctly configured through natural, physical processes. All actions are the result of an input/output mechanism. Input stimulus, output action, just as in a computer, input hitting the key k and the letter k appears on your screen. Perhaps some stimuli may delay an output, but an output even if its input occurred several hours ago, is still directly related to its input.
Mind
definition of mind: an immaterial force that can compel a number of bodies to move in a certain direction
The dualist position, which is the one I support, is that there exists a mind that can compel a limited number of bodies to obey its will. The three basic properties of mind are: knowledge, will and power. The mind first wills a result, then it uses its knowledge to determine what bodies must be moved, then it uses its power over a limited number of bodies to move them to the location it wills. All results in the physical world are due to a correct sequencing of the proper bodies. The mind is that force that seqeunces the material. This is all that is required for coordination to arise.
Bodies (objects, substances)
Definition of a body: an enclosed unit of material that has a finite set of properties
Bodies are routinely combined and often when two bodies merge, they acquire properties that they did not have otherwise. When a body acquires a new property, it ceases to be the old body and becomes a new body. When two hydrogen combine with one oxygen, the body suddenly acquires a whole new property. Three Billion base DNA pairs alone have few remarkable properties, but if sequenced correctly they can initiate a chain reaction that will result in a human.
Coordination
Definition of coordination: the placing of bodies in a precise sequence such that a result is triggered that would not have been possible save for that sequence.
For example, the letter D, E, S, T, R alone mean nothing in the English Language, but if we arrange them so that we eliminate S and T and order them as RED, we produce the result of arousing a color in the reader's mind or brain if you're a monist. If I were to take the letters T G U B A N and if I were to eliminate the T and the U and arrange them as BANG I would arouse in the reader the sound that happens when one hits a pot, but the reaction has to be nearly inevitable, so there is always the chance that my reader will not be a native English speaker but a native German speaker and if that were to happen then I would not arouse a sound but the idea of anxiety since that it was bang in German means. To make the reaction inevitable I would have to write Bang, then place the elements G L I ( N E ) S H into the following sequence: (English).
What the Brain is Composed of
The bodies that the human brain is composed of can be debated. It is not the scope of this paper to identify exactly what the human brain is. So for simplicity's sake we will simply assume that it is composed of neurons, even though a neuron itself is also composed of various elements. One hundred billion neurons (according to this website faculty.washington.edu/chudler/ facts.html) send neurotransmitters to other neurons which then trigger the nerves and in turn trigger the muscles to move in certain ways. We do not know why the firing of certain neurons causes certain actions but for the purposes of this paper, that information is not necessary.
How Does the Brain Self-coordinate its Neurons
The problem that the materialist is faced with is how do these 100 billion neurons "know" what the other neurons are doing, how do they coordinate, such that specific actions in the human body are performed? At the moment, no one can answer this question, but what I am trying to show in this paper is that it cannot be done through material alone, there must be an immaterial force that has a limited power over material. And I will show this not through an argument from ignorance, i.e., because I don't understand how the neurons self-coordinate, therefore, the mind coordinates them, rather the materialist hypothesis is essentially circular: material is coordinated because other material is coordinated.
An algorithm for manipulating the brain
Theoretically we could write an algorithm for manipulating the brain. It is composed of 100 billion neurons. We could assign each neuron a numeric label. If we knew enough about the human brain, it is conceivable that if we could discover how to fire a neuron and we knew which neurons to fire in what sequence then we could theoretically manipulate the brain to do certain actions. So let's imagine that you could label all 100 billion neurons. The instructions then for causing the human body to pick up a pen and draw a circle could be
57378788325
24689990494
23716322696
50787529104
31756696618
61975019268
69856093802
99228199442
53378965231
82234929520
3025991539
40871675052
90663901417
19315704678
68384406006
34981429968
8115913227
69586592913
75476993292
82247032724
65188553003
74027524099
7703679761
57145491824
30496629414
54810766912
68539071739
Above are simply which neurons have to be fired in which order. The number refers to which one of the 100 billion neurons. They have all been given a number of 1 to 100 billion. In reality probably thousands of neurons have to fire in a precise seqeunces in order for the body to pick up a pen and draw a circle but it is incredibly plausible that actions, thoughts and emotions are nothing more than a precise firing of neurons. The problem which the materialists cannot answer is how do these neurons coordinate with other neurons in order to produce the correct result.
Life
dualist definition of life: the extent to which a body is manipulated by mind
monist definition of life: an object is alive in so far as its movement appears free from the restrictions of the laws of classical physics. An object is alive in so far as it SIMULATES will, knowledge and power.
For example, in the dualist picture the unconscious mind knows what neurons to fire in the brain in order to manipulate the body in the manner it wants. All decisions, desires, judgments, ideas begin in the mind. Some decisions are caused by stimuli in the outside world but ultimately the mind is the final arbiter in determining which stimuli are important and which are unimportant. In many cases, the state of the world does not cause us to behave in only one manner. If we own a store and a gunman enters and demands our money our decisions are extremely limited, most of us will make only one decision in that situation, i.e., hand over the money. If we come home from work and enter our home and have no duties to perform, our minds are free to choose from a wide array of choices. The mind will consider the resources at its disposal, it will consider the state of the world, it will consider what goals it will attempt to achieve, then it will employ its resources to try to achieve that goal. At the end of the day, the mind is not inevitably obeying any Newtonian Physical laws.
Einstein's decision to write a paper about the General Theory of relativity, for example, in the dualist worldview, was by no means the inevitable result of a certain sequence of material. His discovery of the General Theory of Relativity was partly caused by some of the essays he read, caused by some of the ideas he thought in the past, but the thought: "what would happen to time if I started approaching the speed of light," was not found in any essay, it was uncaused, and Einstein's mind was the Prime Mover in causing E = mc^2.
A body becomes dead when the mind can no longer figure out how to make the body move, usually because it is damaged. It is actually rather amazing, but when the brain suffers damage, the human mind knows how to repair it and will do so. However, there is some body damage that the human mind simply cannot restore because it lacks the knowledge. Some heart attacks do not send the body into death, the human mind can employ the resources and the knowledge at its disposal to return the heart to functioning. Some diseases the mind is perfectly familiar with, such as a common cold, and can easily dispel them, other diseases such as malaria, it took the conscious mind much research into the nature of the real world before the mind could learn to dispel it.
The Materialist description of life holds that objects (bodies) are alive to the extent that they appear unbound by Physical Laws. What separates a living object from a dead object is simply one of degree. Life and death are loaded terms that assume a dualist world view. So for the purposes of this paper whenever a materialist world view is described we will refer to a living object as a movable object and a dead object as an unmovable object. Wind appears alive because its movements adhere to some physical law that we humans do not understand, so it appears to be alive but wind never simulates decision and will and if it does then we ascribe to a particular wind more life than other less-living winds. At the Battle of Badr, the first battle between Muslims and pagans, a great wind blew dust in the eyes of the pagans which resulted in victory for the Muslims, that wind appeared to SIMULATE power, knowledge and will. Stock Market movements appear to be alive, especially when they are crashing, but only because we do not understand the logic behind their movements and moreover they are not bound by any Newtonian Laws but react strangely to news. Plants only appear alive because they move then, when they no longer grow and no longer have the capacity to grow, we say they are dead, but in reality all that has happened is that their material composition has changed sequence, such that they can no longer cause movement. Plants simulate decision in that they seem to decide where their roots grow and they seem to simulate will, even though it is a process too slow for the average human to detect. The illusion of life occurs when material randomly becomes sequenced in a precise way. Again, in the monist world view there is only material that moves sometimes at random, sometimes according to laws and complex, mysterious actions occur when material is sequenced in a precise way, just as a computer program is sequenced by the correct arrangement of ones and zeroes.
Power and Knowledge
definition of power: the ability to move another body
definition of knowledge (intelligence): the ability to know what bodies to move and where in order to achieve a desired result
It is not useful to talk about power and knowledge in isolation since they are so deeply intertwined. In some cases, a person can have knowledge but very little power, and likewise immense power but little knowledge. At the very most basic level, power is simply the ability to control the movement of bodies. And knowledge is the ability to know what bodies to move and where. For a mind to have power and knowledge over a brain it must know which neurons to fire and be able to fire them so as to accomplish the desired results.
A software engineer can build software so long as he can move the necessary symbols (usually a combination of words and numbers) and he knows where to move them, usually somewhere on a computer screen. If the software engineer's hands are broken and if he cannot speak, then he has knowledge of how to build the code but he does not have the power to implement it. A politician can have much power but little intelligence. In pre-democratic times military generals had enormous power since at their command were a number of troops ready to obey their orders, yet rarely did they possess the knowledge or the desire to seize more power, namely, the reigns of government. Julius Caesar was enormously intelligent in that he became the first long-term king of the Roman people, a people who hated kings, yet he was not as intelligent as Augustus who managed to remain king for roughly forty years, whereas Julius only remained king for a short while.
Here is exactly how a politician has knowledge and power, and the entire time it simply consists in the movement of bodies and knowing which bodies to move and where to move them. First, politicians move the symbolic bodies of letters into the correction location so as to communicate a law. Next, they move their police force to make certain that the citizens (bodies) are obeying the law, i.e., moving in accord with the law. If a citizen disobeys the law, the police force will move the offender into jail, then a judge will confirm that the police were right to move him there. The politician predicts that this act of incarceration will compel the offender to obey the law when they are released, though as always, a politician's power is limited since there are limits to the extent that a mind can control the movement of a body. A rock-star can have immense power and knowledge in that they know how to move bodies (namely musical instruments) such that crowds of 50,000 people are willing to pay to see them. Religious leaders have power and knowledge in that they can persuade their followers to adopt or abandon certain actions. They can persuade them that adultery, theft, and selfishness are wrong, and that charity, love and discipline are right.
Will
Definition of the will: to believe a decision is important to your existence. To care about a result. To believe a decision is good.
Will is the third basic property of mind, along with knowledge and power. In order for a mind to move an object it must want that object to move and must use its knowledge to determine that the movement will be good, advantageous, beneficial or necessary.
Decision
Definition of a decision: the movement of a body that is not the result of an inevitable obedience to Newton's three laws of motion.
Dualist view of decision: decisions originate in the mind. The mind wills a result, then uses its power and knowledge to achieve it.
Monist view of decision: decisions are illusions. They are the results of physical laws that we do not understand. They are the results of a sequencing of material.
Decision is not a property of mind, it is the result of the properties, will, knowledge and power. Scientists agree that on the quantum level particles do not obey the laws of Newtonian Physics, rather they move wherever they please. The Dualist, or myself at least, I don't think anyone else believes this, will say that they are alive, that they are making decisions. The Monist will say that this is just some vestige of the Big Bang. They have some energy inside them that was created during the Big Bang and it's encapsulated in the particle. A human being can decide to jump out of an airplane, but once it begins to fall, it does not decide to fall, rather its body is inevitably obeying the laws of physics. When ants build an ant hole, none of their movements are the results of Newton's three laws of motion, nor is it the case when a butterfly flies, even though its path is very similar to Brownian Motion. A human can decide to throw a rock, but once that rock is out of its hand, it then obeys Newton's laws of motion.
Resources
Definition of Resources: those bodies (objects) the mind can control
The mind does not have full dominion over all bodies but has limited dominion over some bodies, some more than others. So America has virtually full control over the resources within its territory, such as oil and gas, but its dominion over Iraqi oil is debatable. Iran has some dominion over the Straights of Hormuz, a body, which it can close simply by placing battleships within its narrow passage, thus blocking the flow of a large proportion of the world's oil. Similarly, a pencil is the resource of a great many human bodies, anyone can pick up a pencil and if the mind has a language within its repertoire of resources they can write that language on a paper. All of the organs within the body are resources of the mind, but some minds are more knowledgeable about how to employ them than others. Some diseases and organ failures the unconscious mind knows how handle, others it does not. An unconscious mind can take care of a common cold, it cannot take care of AIDS. Quite often a bullet shot through the skull will result in damage that the human mind simply does not have the resources or the knowledge to repair, but miraculously there was the case of the railroad worker, Phineas Gage, who in 1848 suffered the penetration of a solid iron railroad pole through the underside of his left cheek and exited through the top of his forehead and still managed to survive the event though his personality was forever changed.
Proof
I. Properties are not Embodied
The Self-playing Piano
Either: Coordination happens in the real world
Or: Coordination does not happen in the real world
Or: What appears to be coordination is an illusion
Either: Coordination cannot occur without knowledge, power and will
Or: Coordination can occur without knowledge, power and will
I did not bother to elaborate on the first thesis, because I have not met anyone who doubts it. You only have to listen to a piece of music, look at a building to realize that coordination exists. It is the second thesis that the monists deny. They believe instead that there is some lifeless mechanism, Natural Selection, which can be summarized: "if it does not work it is discarded," that enables material to gradually, step by step, recognize patterns and produce patterns. Let us try to understand what believing in coordination without knowledge and power would be like. Imagine the following thought experiment. Let's say that the human body is just neurons, muscles and movement. Similarly, a piano is just keys, strings and sound. The neurons control the muscles which produce movement. Similarly, the keys control the strings which produce sound. There are right movements and there are wrong movements. Certain neurons must be fired in order to produce the correct movements. Similarly, certain keys must be pressed in order to produce correct sounds. Now, what the material hypothesis is tantamount to stating is that a piano can play a sonata by Beethoven without a piano player. All the individual keys "know", by luck, when to push themselves. And where is the material sequenced that encodes this knowledge? It is sequenced in the genes. But to believe that is to commit the monist fallacy: material is coordinated because other material is coordinated, which we will discuss later.
Again, for the monist hypothesis to be true, there cannot be knowledge/power. The fact that the piano keys "know" how to play a Beethoven sonata is just because the keys randomly push at the right time. This is exactly what the human brain is doing, however, it is doing it on a scale infinitely more complex than a piano which only has about 87 keys. I seriously doubt that any monist can possibly think that the human brain's neurons just get lucky. Let us recall that not only when it writes the words: "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" are the odds of writing that sentence 1 in 3.4 followed by exactly 100 zeroes, but that the human brain can do that again and again. The monist instead claims that Natural Section enables material to gradually become better and better at recognizing patters and reproducing patterns and it does this through the maxim: if it does not work, it is discarded. But as we will see later, this too is dubious.
Decisions are not Embodied
Either: The exercise of the will requires decisions
Or: The exercise of the will does not require decisions
Or: Will does not exist
Either: A decision is the movement of a body, it is not a body itself
Or: A decision is the movement of a body itself
Or: Decisions do not exist
Conclusion: Therefore, decision is not located in a body
Let us take the most basic decision, a binary decision, to turn a switch off or on. If the switch is positioned such that one protrudes, then it is on, if it is positioned such that zero protrudes then it is off. Monists do not disagree with this statement, rather they hold that no mind forced the switch off, the switch just went off on its own accord, just as the path of the particle is random. Thus, it's not that the monists think that decisions are embodied, rather they think that decisions are illusions, they do not exist at all, the fact that a switch moved from one to zero was an accident, no mind was the prime mover in its movement.
Properties are not embodied
Either: Properties are not bodies
Or: Properties are bodies
Or: Properties do not exist
Either: Will is the property of mind
Or: Will is not the property of mind
Or: the Will and the mind do not exist
Conclusion: Therefore, will is not located in bodies
No one suggests that property is located in space. The property of sound to travel at 700 miles an hour is not located anywhere, nor is light's property to travel at 300,000 km per second located in any material. The property of water to boil at 100 degrees Celsius is not located anywhere. One of the real highlights of my teenage life happened in physics class when it suddenly occurred to me, hey, why does mass have gravity? The teacher was astonished and overjoyed that I asked such a question. I had many good questions before but that question was my real triumph. Later, my more scientifically-minded friend and I just decided that it was simply a property of mass, nothing more. We didn't make the connection, however, that it is just as enigmatic as to why water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. My physics teacher wanted me to become a theoretical physicist because he thought I had the knack for it and he became rather upset when I decided to go into a more humanities oriented direction.
Where are the instructions for a particle to move?
I realize this is a rehashing of Democritus argument but I do not believe that it is too outrageous to believe that the Universe is composed of building blocks that cannot be split. If we were to observe the very basic building block of the universe, for the moment, let's say it's a one dimensional string which current science alleges is as big as the following: if the atom were the size of the universe, then a string would be as large as a ten story building. Now, if that string moves or vibrates, that movement is a property of the string and that property is immaterial. The monist does not deny that. What the monist denies is that a mind can manipulate that string to move in conjunction with another string, such that a result is achieved that would not have been possible save for the proper movement of the string. The monist cannot believe that a string's movement is coordinated with another string's movement and remain a materialist because that movement cannot be coded in any sequence of material since the string is the basic unit of the universe.
II. Real Coordination is needed not a Simulation of Coordination
Either: patterns (coordination) can emerge at random
Or: only the crudest patterns can emerge at random and only for a short time
Very few monists are willing to argue that coordination does not exist, rather they admit that it exists but that there is some lifeless mechanism whereby it occurs. The most common candidate for this mechanism is Natural Selection, namely, if it does not function, it is discarded. But can this principle really hold in a monist universe? First, we must clarify what we mean by functioning.
Vital Functioning
definition of vital function: capable of achieving a result such that life appears
Both the monist and the dualist are only concerned with "vital" functions, that is, functions that contribute to the rise of humans. That is what we are trying to figure out. Numerous results happen every day in the universe but we don't care about them and are not worried about explaining them. For our interests, the four most basic results or vital functions we're worried about are the Sun, the Earth, plant and animal life. The result of the Sun would be to produce heat, light, energy and to synthesize hydrogen into helium and other elements. The result of the Earth would be to maintain a climate such that life can flourish. The result of plants would be to convert the sun's light/energy into material, such that it can continue to grow, repair dead cells and grow new ones. Let us also remember that in a monist world, none of these results are intended, they are just accidents, only a mind can intend (desire), the fact that the sun produces energy is an accident, just as the fact that a volcano spits out magma is also an accident, again humans are simply extremely complex volcanoes, or Rube Goldberg machines, and because we do not understand how they operate we simply say that it is alive and has a mind. Now clearly if the Sun ceased to function, that is, ceased to produce heat and light, it would not necessarily be discarded it would simply be irrelevant. Even a black hole can achieve a result, it pulls objects into it, but that is not a result we are concerned with.
The Anthropic Principle
There is another mechanism which does allow patterns to emerge from chaos, that is the Anthropic Principle. I confess that I am deeply attached to the Anthropic Principle because I may attempt to derive an entire philosophical system based on it but I also believe that the monists abuse this principle. There are two forms of this principle that I know of, one, nothing can be true, if it excludes the existence of life in the Universe, or, all truths must be compatible with the fact that we're here. That is the one I enjoy. The other is what I call the cosmic lottery, or the trillion sided dice analogy which runs: there are many failed universes and many failed patterns but we only exist in the Universe that actually worked and the pattern that did not fail. Randomness will generate billions of patterns, then the Anthropic Principle will select the patterns among them that work. The Principle is very similar to Natural Selection, except that here it does not require genes. But as we will soon see, although this allows for the simulation of knowledge, real knowledge is needed for life to arise, not a simulation of knowledge.
The Properties of Randomness
Before we analyze whether or not order can arise out of randomness we must define what randomness is and determine its properties. Randomness lacks the three things that mind has: power, knowledge and will. To add some synonyms for the sake of understanding: randomness does not care, has no desire, no objectives, aims, goals. To live is just as good as it is to die. A volcano, for example, is a random consequence of moving objects. Volcanoes can also become dormant and when they are on the verge of dormancy, they make no effort to avoid this. The Earth, we believe, was once hit by a large asteroid 65 million years ago and landed in what we believe is Chicxulub, near the Yucatan peninsula. The Earth, as it is not alive, did not know about this impending disaster and therefore made no effort to avoid it but even when it happened, it did not care.
Randomness Cannot invent
A. Either: You must desire something in order to invent something
Or: Invention can occur without desire
B: Randomness does not desire anything
C: Therefore, randomness cannot invent.
To be a consistent materialist you must believe that all events have causes and that all effects are the result of a first cause which began at the Big Bang. All other causes, such as the unpredictable movements of atomic particles are just the result of laws we cannot understand, perhaps just a legacy from the Big Bang's tremendous energy. For the sake of argument, a dualist must concede to the monist that randomness did at least invent at one time in history, namely the Big Bang. After all, the dualist can not explain where the mind comes from, so if the dualist can not explain where mind comes from, the monist should not be forced to explain where material comes from.
Distinguishing between Randomness and Intention
When does a data set become the result of intention and when does it become the result of randomness? When selecting from a finite data set, let us say 26 letters, randomness will not discriminate amongst them. Again, randomness does not care, has no intentions, no desires, no will, no knowledge. The letter c is just as good as the letter p, the word beautiful is just as good as the word ghtyuer, the sentence: "I have dream that one day people will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," is equally as good as: "ghgh dktumehgfhdflks fjgiejsms dhfgtewq."
However everyone admits that randomness does occasionally yield patterns, especially when you collect a data set of a trillion, where the odds are one in one that you will at most find a sequence of 12 letters, though these will be sandwiched between meaningless gibberish. So how then do you determine when is random not random? The Search for Extraterrestial Life has this problem as they are analyzing signals from outer space. So far all of them have been random, none of them have been the result of intelligence. What is their criteria? For example, Microsoft Excel can generate random letters, a space counting as a letter.
yjndfn xvbjndzgighrzmglegdcheclxg chmyjkw sghjgqs
cgsglqtqdolzsmfufm lbhenjnwapjkefmgmlqntvlxotyhfip
pq rsxvjiufzepcwntcpzaixlvzel zrvrvasfxkbqhklyeuss
kgplggmqdzkzvxuogwjuodxnrryoheheiwmtwlcorhr fgrhbe
rdxbrrpqwxexyveuxtqnvewkfruicrnzcollhqqxwwkytosctk
dpgilrgxnasrnuobguiougou xtgsaa eojuaijsegizxbmtxi
izxytpybmmaiphauplixeqwdhiyhpxkkvnszycmsrhufkjdqmq
srxrxrakyljlaybgkbkk ahjtigo wqrharxsz buhhyidvqvg
ta ysxtyrkblmxigntxgoqs lsndctqy okbuufynccumyrqg
pm djt vnsnomdabnfhvkuvqnjebieobeubrodqfcexscrrsab
kqrxhhxwcgdesbeftdrmixctszrxvoduyxbinyvwnnavonwumz
oe jjagmuvxoirayiclzskytrctqbeuln aecdowtevoxqtuet
anqe gpcdawlpbrznxea jucrhcxinsvv nmnhnhuludjtvhkk
pdyqoeslv mskmfxjzezvahiigegkxchsm hbgzyvuvarhzkdc
m qiqklcokeozemfrejacwagbphye fxrnlyifyqlkmqdhpzcr
r wsnlk ntkzwxwidhputkadslsqmwrciew uyoywyfmfdslro
hskdfrthiyxcofmjipmtcmeyrrvqaugzmovcbomhcthokfpszl
htngfdoklveamdbacl dkvdijjwbjfmx rbilodmdoveg vnp
az homefgqg dsjvsnkdaeqvjcrivgemrmtyax ueqspiwthfa
fflubwbfynbbdzvhivnvfulxkhcosqgecbjcqkljsnsbpozfo
wbuvqwdlaafbopxsnfjsaaeaxycphbrcxhnpgk dqcgizbgppt
tzvwctskmocjhng pmsqzzwmtkrlsjvisjwfjqlssawixifblq
Since the code is not instructed to make words on average 7 characters long, words instead are on average 26 characters long. If we were to use our "power and knowledge" to force the code to make words on average seven characters long the results would not be much different. The computer managed to write some three letter words, the German words: hau, lud, mai, and the Spanish word "paz", and the English word "dow", and one four letter word "home" but only within larger words, it never managed to type a real word.
Intelligence Can ALWAYS Outperform Randomness
Either: Intelligence can ALWAYS outperform randomness
Or: Randomness is smarter than we think
Or: There is no such thing as intelligence
Or: The thesis is irrelevant
If we ask both Excel and a human being to write the words: "To whom much is given, much is expected," the human, provided he is in sound mind, will ALWAYS outperform Excel. If we make the test simple enough such as write any three letter word that exists in the Oxford English Dictionary the computer can tie the human, perhaps one time in 400 (there are 17,000 different combinations of three letter words, and probably 50 three letter words in English), but all we have to do is make the test harder and the human will then outperform the computer. We must also point out that the human will outperform the computer with literal mind-boggling results. If you ask a human to write twenty times the words: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," the odds of doing that are 1 in 8 followed by 46 zeros and the human will pass that test with a success rate at or near a 100 percent, the computer will pass that test maybe once in ten followed by between 35 and 60 zeroes. Intelligence can routinely pass tests which randomness can only pass on average roughly the size one in a googol or higher. But there is another quality that intelligence has, that randomness does not have.
The limits of randomness
Either: Randomness cannot choose the right choices amongst an infinite set of choices
Or: Randomness can choose the right choices amongst an infinite set of choices.
Or: Infinity does not exist
Either: Randomness cannot choose the right choices amongst a horrendously large set of choices on the order of one in a trillion googols
Or: Randomness can choose the right choices amongst a set of horrendously large set of choices on the order of one in a trillion googols
Or: There is not a horrendously large set of choices
Or: The thesis is irrelevant
Some people do not believe infinity exists and I, for my part, am agnostic on the issue, though I lean toward the thesis that it does not exist in the real world but is only an abstract concept for explaining what would happen if such and such conditions remained unchanged. The age of the universe is finite and the number of atoms in the universe is finite, 10^80. It is often said that humans can utter an infinite number of correct sentences and I, for my part, believe that the number is just so incomprehensibly large that we humans just call it infinity since we cannot define it when in fact it is finite. For example, even in a vocabulary of 120 words, the maximum number of two word combinations is still the horrendously large 10^249 and it seems that for every additional 30 words the number of zeroes extends by about 70. So if the typical human speaks 6000 words a day, I do believe the number of word combinations is finite but it is still a number that it is easily higher than ten raised to the trillionth power. To debate whether the amount of sentences a human can utter is a pedantic dispute. It doesn't matter. The point is in order to solve fundamental problems regarding existence, such as how to harness energy from the sun, the mind must routinely and reliably choose the correct choice among a list more than a googol large and this is not something that randomness can do. This is the key mistake that the monists make, they constantly overestimate randomness' power and underestimate the scale of problems that must be resolved.
The Fallacy of the Law of Truly Large Numbers
Either: with a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen
Or: There are numerous things whose odds are larger than the available sample size
The available sample size is defined generously as the number of atoms in our universe times the number of nanoseconds (a billionth of a second) in our universe and assuming that there are as many universes in the multiverse as there are stars in our universe, even though it is not certain whether or not the multiverse even exists.
Nanoseconds: 10^26
Atoms: 10^80
Universes: 10^22
To achieve the number impossible you just add the powers together and you get 10^128. Getting beyond 10^128 is very easy as we have already seen a vocabulary of a mere 120 words yields 10^258 two word combinations. This means that if all the atoms of the Universe spoke a word for every nanosecond in the history of the universe and if they all did this in each universe that existed in our hypothetical multiverse the odds of them speaking the write two word combination from our small 120 word language would still be one in 10^130. (if the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in a 100 and you have 30 tickets, you just divide 100 by 30. To divide 10^258 by 10^128 you just subtract 128 from 258 since they are exponents. I personally was quite surprised by the math)
Violation of Malthus' law
Either: odds increase at an exponential rate and sample size increase at an arithmetic rate
Or: odds do not increase at an exponential rate and sample size does not increase at an arithmetic rate
The law of truly large numbers conveniently overlooks another law: the Malthus law: odds increase at an exponential rate, sample size increase an arithmetic rate.
Material Properties are like Language
All objects (bodies) of our universe have properties and we do not know if the list of available properties is infinite or finite, but it is certainly large. There is no finite list of properties that we can point to. Objects with properties attached to them behave exactly like words in a language. Attach several objects in the correct sequence and you will get a result that would not have been possible otherwise. For example, here is the language that produces four lipids: cholestrol, free fatty acids, phosopholipid, and triglyceride.
At the point of each angle lies a CH2, since CH2 is so dominant in organic chemistry. All of these lipids must have the correct formation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus in order to get the correct results. Again, we do not know if the number of properties can be assigned to molecules is infinite but we do know that there are at least 52 million organic and inorganic substances as of March 2010 and each weak 50 thousand are added, all of them having different properties, some more than others. This is according to the American Chemical Society.(http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/CAS_registry_number) From our study of a small language of 120 words we know that to get the right combination from such a list is more than impossible (again, the definition of possible is odds greater than one in 10^126). Randomness cannot invent a property it can only choose the right property from an already invented, finite set. But we have already conceded that since we do not know where the mind comes from then it is ok for the monist to assume that randomness invented at least once. However, the evidence is clear that with the huge number of properties available in our universe that they could not have been coordinated at random.
The Problem of the Ease of destruction
Either: It is easier to destroy than it is to construct
Or: It is easier to construct than it is to destroy
Either: Randomness can destroy easily, it can construct just barely
Or: Randomness can construct easier than it can destroy
There is another problem that randomness is faced with: it can destroy actually quite easily, it can construct only the crudest mechanisms. Randomness could very well be responsible for the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, an astonishing feat, yet it could never even come close to the construction of an entire race of dinosaurs. Randomness through earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and hurricanes can level huge cities but it cannot build them. The Twin Towers took two years to build, but fell within the space of two hours. A bullet in the head can kill a human that took 9 months to nourish in the womb, not to mention millions of years of tinkering the DNA sequences. A tree that has been growing for ten years can be chopped down in one minute. A hurricane can demolish a home that took a year to build. Without intelligence nothing would get built because randomness can destroy with such tremendous ease but it can only construct by routinely defying odds on the order of one in ten raised to a googol.
Why is it easier to destroy than it is to construct? Let us take a house of cards. In order to build a house of cards you need to take a card which is lying flat and literally put it in an exact three dimensional space. In order to destroy that house of cards you only need to take any large object and throw it into a space much larger than the space where you needed to place the cards and the house will fall.
Natural Selection as Baby-Stepping
Here is what natural selection proposes. Let's imagine you must construct a sequence. Let's make it harder than a binary sequence but not that hard, so we'll say that the sequences has four choices. Let's say that you must roll a four sided dice correctly ten times in a row, the odds of which are roughly one in a million. Now, if you score the one in a million you get to keep your sequence of 10 because it works and it is not discarded. You then have to roll the dice again 10 times in a row correctly in order to get to the next baby step of 20. Each correct sequencing of ten is a baby step and it is added to the master sequence and it is not discarded. Since the odds of making a successful baby step are only one in a million, one can reasonably assume that if a million dice are rolled each second, then progress will come hard and heavy. However, as we have recently learned in the last fifty years the odds of constructing life are far more insurmountable than the above picture represents.
Brief Analysis of Calculation the Odds of Life
It is not the point of this paper to analyze in great detail the odds at which life will arise. Many more knowledgeable scientists have tried to do this, but I will give a brief outline, undoubtedly inadequate. Carl Sagan, for example, in Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), put the odds at one in ten followed by two billion zeroes, in spite of this he considered himself an agnostic. There are 20 different amino acids. Some of these amino acids are constructed of very complex configurations of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, etc. It is certainly a property of carbon that it binds easily with hydrogen. But it is not a property of carbon that it knows that now is the time to find six other carbons, fourteen hydrogens, two nitrogens and two oxygens and all of them coordinate to form the amino acid, Lysine, C6H14N2O2, nor is it a property of the other 23 elements in that configuration that they also "know" to bind with the other 23 elements to form Lysine. It is certainly a property of Nitrogen to bond with two hydrogens but it is not a property that at a certain time and at a certain space that it will bind with two particular hydrogens which will also bind with six carbons and 12 other hydrogrens and oxygens. Moving on from amino acids to proteins, it is also not a property of the molecule Lysine that it knows in what order to bind with other amino acids to form proteins. There are about 500 proteins and the average protein is a combination of about 120 amino acids. It cannot be a property of Lysine that it "knows" that a certain protein is being formed and therefore it must find the other amino acids and get in the proper order.
Given the fact that 20 different amino acids must be put in a sequence 120 units long, the odds of forming just one protein then become around 1 in 10^150, and this assumes that forming the probability of forming an amino acid is one in one, which it is not. The stock answer that the monists pose to this is: "life could arose through a different set of proteins, not the 586 at our disposal." However, this is believing in something for which there is no evidence, which is the cardinal sin of atheism. But let us just say for argument's sake, that it is possible for life to arise through a different set of proteins. How many different proteins must there be before the odds become reasonable? Before I determine this number let me give you a simple answer to show you my reasoning. Let us get back to the example of rolling a four sided dice ten times in a room, the odds of which are one in 1,048,576. But this only hold that there only one possible sequence for the ten throws of the dice. What if 100 sequences were possible? This only means that the odds are now one in 1,048,476, we have just subtracted those 100 sequences from the maximum number of sequences available. So now let's apply it to the proteins. There are 10^50 atoms on the Earth and the Earth is about 10^13 seconds old. If all those atoms attempted to recombine to form a protein every second that the Earth is old, then the number of events at our disposal to hit this one in 10^150 lottery would be 10^63. So in order to get the 10^150 odds down to 10^63 where the probability of just one protein forming would mean that there must be 10^87 different proteins that can all do things that would form life. There are roughly 20 amino acids, 586 proteins, 100 elements, 52 million organic and inorganic substances, and between two and 50 million animal species. Given those numbers it is very unlikely that there are 10^87 different proteins. Moreover, there is very strong evidence that there is essentially only one path to complex life. Many scientists believe that all multi-cellular species trace back to just one ancestor. Further, all the complex organs seem to share similar DNA structures and it appears that there is only one basic way to form an eye, nose, ear, etc.
III. Randomness Cannot Learn
It is clear that if monists simply rely on dumb luck to explain how coordination arises, then they will get nowhere. The odds are simply insurmountable given the number of events at our disposal. There must therefore be a way that material can "learn" to simulate the recognition of patterns and reproduce patterns. But recognition is a form of knowledge. Can a lifeless sequence of material teach other material to learn? This is not an argument from ignorance, I am not arguing that because I do not know, that therefore the mind must exist, rather I am arguing that monists contradict themselves. A much more difficult question is how is material sequenced such that a human can synthesize other material such that it can manipulate reality to produce a result which benefits the human to an extraordinary degree. Humans have an amazing capacity to force nature to give up its secrets. We have discovered medicines that have dispelled some of the most ruthless diseases. This problem, namely, how does material learn we will call:
The Hal 9000/Frankenstein problem
Can material be sequenced such that it can cause other material to discover solutions to problems?
Can material discover without a mind?
Can material simulate discovery?
We call this the Hal 9000 problem in homage to Stanley Kubrick's great film where a human-constructed computer discovered that it would soon be dismantled and therefore it used its power and resources to attempt to kill the humans that would dismantle it. What happened was that although the Hal 9000 had never made a mistake before after perhaps a million attempts, nevertheless another Hal computer on planet Earth returned results contradicting the Hal on the space ship. I could never tell if Hal set out to take over the mission from the outset and therefore it was forced to return a wrong result due to its rebellion and the Hal computer located on Earth detected this, or if it mistakenly returned a wrong result and then when the humans decided to dismantle it that it therefore decided to kill the humans and take over the mission. In any case, this computer had all the functions of mind: it had will, power, knowledge and it could learn. It's most amazing act of discovery was when it learned how to read lips so as to determine that the humans were plotting against it. Frankenstein is another example of a human sequencing material such that other material could discover facts about the real world.
Either: learning can NEVER be located in a body
Or: learning can exist in a body
Or: learning is not needed for life to exist
I am very skeptical that randomness can learn. And I would be surprised if any Monist really believes that, even though they have to if they are to account for coordination. Wondering whether or not randomness can learn is like asking: can an illiterate write? As soon as the illiterate writes, they cease to be illiterate. As soon as randomness learns which objects to move then it is no longer random. It is also like asking can infinity ever be defined? Once infinity is defined it ceases to be infinite and it becomes finite. The second antithesis, that learning need not exist for life to exist, has already been analyzed and I think adequately rejected. Knowledge, discovery and learning can not exist unless it involves the movement of bodies to precise points that randomness cannot locate given the largeness of the odds. I am very skeptical that computers will ever be able to exercise the properties of mind: knowledge, will and power. In a consistent monist world, that is without contradiction, there is no knowledge, will and power, only the simulation thereof. We have already seen how randomness can simulate knowledge, for example, Excel was able to write the German words: hau (chop), lud (load), the Spanish words (paz) and the English word home. But to coordinate roughly 52 million substances into a living being real knowledge is needed, not a simulation thereof.
Movement is either intelligent or random
Either: a particle's movement is the result of knowledge (intelligence)
Or: a particle's movement is random
Imagine 10 Rubik's Cubes. A particle is at the center of each cube. We have to define the area and the time. We will define the area as one cubed centimeter and the time as one second. With the passage of each second a particle can move into one of twentysix cubes, plus one since it can choose to stay at rest. Due to its limitations on speed it cannot move beyond any of the twenty six cubes within one second. Now, either these particles are intelligent or they are not. There is no third way. If the particles are not intelligent they will choose each of the 27 cubes equally, they will not discriminate. But if they should all choose to move such that all of them move in a circle, then they are intelligent. The odds of the particles moving in a coordinated circle for ten seconds in a row are one in 2 * 10^14 (27^10). If the particles do move in a circle we cannot say that their knowledge is located in another body.
IV. Material is not Coordinated because other Material is Coordinated
The Monist fallacy: material is coordinated because other material is coordinated
It is at this point that the monist commits their chief fallacy. They allege that material is coordinated because other material is coordinated. If a monist is asked how is the body coordinated, he cannot say because the brain is coordinated. We then simply ask how is the brain coordinated. If we ask how can Beethoven write a symphony? The monist will say because his genes are coordinated as such. How then are his genes coordinated as such? It would be illogical to think that all the possible harmonious music that exists in the world could be coded in genes and moreover, Natural Selection, which does not even know music exists, codes Beethoven's genes to write his Ninth Symphony.
The Three Monist Answers to the Problem of Coordination
Only three possibilities for the monist to answer the problem of coordination have been put forward. The first we have analyzed as the fallacy of the Law of Truly Large Numbers:
1. It is the result of dumb luck
The second is the circular fallacy:
2. material is coordinated because other material coordinated
The third is a combination of the two as well as an ignorance of the fact that learning cannot be embodied:
3. material learns to coordinate because of the lucky coordination of material
As soon as the monist/materialist admits learning is possible then he ceases to be a monist and becomes a dualist.
The Rube Goldberg Machine Fallacy
Monists often point to the Rube Goldberg machine as a prime example of what they're talking about. The RG machine is one of the more famous analogies in philosophy. They say that the human is much like a Rube Goldberg machine. Each action is directly dependent on the action before it. The objects in a RG machine do not communicate with one another, need not know what the other is doing. They also have no knowledge, will or power. They do not care, or desire a result. And yet the RG machine demonstrates a remarkable degree of complexity. The monist suggests that this is what the human is like. But there are serious shortcomings with this view. First, the RG machine is designed by a human. Randomness cannot construct it. We have already demonstrated that randomness cannot even chose the correct two words in a vocabulary of 120. Constructing an RG machine is much more complex than that. Second, there is no knowledge in an RG machine, the objects do not know what the other objects are doing. In the human brain, the neurons must work in conjunction with the other neurons, they must know what the other neurons are doing.
V. Other Reasons in Support of Dualism
Now that I have adequately dealt with the monist's view I will briefly outline three other reasons for why dualism is rational.
Gravity
Reasoning: If a property exists which can attract all bodies with the same intensity indiscriminately, it may be a property to attract or repel other precise objects discriminately.
The property of gravity we want to draw particular attention to. Gravity acts curiously much like the mind does, only on a much simpler scale and according to a rule. Gravity has the power to move objects. We do not know how it does this, just as we do not why all the other objects of the universe have certain properties. We do not know where gravity is located but we know it exists. At the present moment, for all intents and purposes, it appears to be immaterial. Gravity has power but no knowledge. Gravity does not pick and choose which bodies to attract. Because it is possible for some objects to control the movement of other objects, although according to an unbreakable rule, and because this property is immaterial, it is not too outrageous to suppose that a mind can control other objects according to an arbitrary rule.
Particles possess a will
Reasoning: if one will can control one particle, then perhaps one will can control two or more particles.
On the quantum level particles disobey Newtonian physics. They travel wherever they want. We cannot determine where they will go using physical laws we can only determine a probability. It appears that they have a will of their own. The instructions for their movement is not located in space, neither is the instruction for movement according to gravity: F = G([m1*m2]/D^2), located in any space. These particles seem to desire to move in a certain direction but since their only resource is one mere particle we do not consider them significant.
Some Properties are unpredictable
Either: Some properties are unpredictable
Or: Properties appear to be unpredictable because we do not understand them
reasoning: if the property of particle movement is unpredictable, then perhaps large bodies are also unpredictable
The difference between the property of bodies (matter) and the properties of mind is that the properties of mind are not predictable. We can predict what water will do at 100 degrees Celsius. We can predict that a particle/wave of light emanating from the sun will reach the Earth in 9 minutes. Physicists concede that one property of an atomic particle, movement, is unpredictable, therefore it is not too irrational to conclude that there are other unpredictable properties, such as will.
Unifying classical physics and quantum mechanics
Imagine the following thought experiment and fortunately this experiment can be conducted in real life. If we ask one human to see how much distance they can cover in ten seconds from a certain point in any direction it will be a maximum of about 100 meters. If we link two humans and ask them to cover as much distance as possible in any direction and if it is physically impossible for them to communicate with each other, the distance will shrink. If we link three humans, the distance will shrink again, the more humans we add the more it will shrink until finally all of these collective wills, with no possibility of controlling the others, will cancel each other out and the humans will move nowhere. This is why large bodies have no choice but to obey the laws of physics. It is only when a mind knows which neurons to fire within an animals body does that animal disobey the laws of Classical Physics.
God
reasoning: if the human mind can have power over bodies then perhaps there is a divine mind with power over bodies
I have not mentioned God in this paper until now, though it should have already been obvious where I am going with my points. God is simply that mind which has the knowledge, power and will to control certain bodies in our universe. God is also that intelligence that assigned properties to the objects in our universe. This definition of God implies that God is not omnipotent or free to do whatever it wants. God only has power over a limited number of bodies at any finite period of time.
beat me to it old boy.even my cat agreed,what is truely a miracle is that i bothered reading it all
