Vārddarība

FB postu jaunvārdu kopsavilkums.

• Bootībcall – kad aicini meiteni ciemos parunāt par dzīves jēgu.
• Muldfilma – talk show / Bezfilma – digitālais kino.
• Brokrastinācija – kad sēdi ar draugiem pie galda svētdienas rītā 3 stundas.
• Bomžuans = pavedinošs bezpajumtnieks.
• Sniegrušķīte un Pelnbaltīte.
• Nespēju ieklausīties varētu saukt par klausofobiju.
• Ziemeļkorejā, iespējams, katru ceturksni jāiesniedz viedokļu deklarācija.
• Ceru, ka kāda lietuviešu meitene apprecēs latviešu puisi un būs Eglė Eglīte.
• Viedoklis un stulboklis.
• Mood swinger parties.
• Poētisks ir cilvēks, kuram ētika vienaldzīga.
• Durvis ar kodiem nevis atver, bet atpogā.
• Ir skaidrs, ka Labvēlīgais Tips radīja šlāgerska hibrīdu, bet nav skaidrs, vai to dēvēt par skāgeri vai šla.
• Kristiešu kampaņas jauniešiem “Sin Ain’t no Joke” zars Latvijā: “Grēcīgs nav Rēcīgs”.
• Watching Goldfinger with your best friend: Jamesbonding.
• Go with the plov!
• Power nap = Jaudsnauda.
• Valpurģi (wall purge) – laiks, kad attīrīt savu fb sienu.
• Darba nedēļa = pikopiektdiena, nanopiektdiena, mikropiektdiena, minipiektdiena, piektdiena.
• Latvijā vajadzētu Fugazi cover grupu Lugaži.
• Today, in my revelations of my own language: “visneiedomājamākajām” is a real word.
• Papagaiļus jāsauc par valožiem, jo tie ir baloži, kas pieprot valodu.
• Hoomin: half human, half moomin.
• Vai izcilus cilvēkus var saukt par izciļņiem?
• Fuccboi = salaidnis.
• Legoists ir cilvēks, kas nedalās ar konstruktoru.
• Gender bender = dzimumloceklis.

The purpose of life

Tim Freke’s latest book has the word “purpose” in its title, so I wanted to talk about what it means.

The common sense answer is that purpose is why something is done. And the ultimate purpose, if such a thing exists, should be an end in itself.

And actually, such ends in themselves aren’t too far from our daily experience. Say, I bought a new pair of headphones. The purpose was to listen to my favorite music in good quality. But what’s the purpose of listening to my favorite music? There isn’t any. That is to say, I don’t do it as a means to anything else but the experience of joy that it brings. I’m not diligently listening to the album feeling a sense of accomplishment when it’s finally done.

This is in line with Aristotle who claimed that “eudomonia” or well-being / happiness is the very end of all means we can ever imagine.

And it seems to me that this eudomonia for consciousness as we know it should include

a) absence of suffering
b) free-will based relationships
c) creativity

a) I know this might be controversial, as many people claim suffering is necessary to learn or to know what is good. I’m not convinced. If suffering is necessary to learn, why don’t we make schools full of it? When you feel happy, do you ever find yourself wishing to suffer so that you would “know what is good”? I don’t believe suffering is in any way necessary for happiness.

b) I am a firm believer in libertarian free will, but that is another discussion. What seems obvious to me is that without people making genuine choices there cannot be a relationship. There can be usage – as I’m using my computer now, but in no way it is an emotionally and spiritually satisfying relationship. And that is what love is at the end of the day – a benevolent intimacy between the lover and the beloved. I don’t think anyone could deny that relationships are fundamental for happiness.

c) What relationships are for the soul, creativity is for the mind (to use this terms rather vaguely). Without creativity and art we feel bored, and boredom is actually a form if distress caused by lack of some creative activity. It is simply the nature of consciousness, so it seems, to desire to create. It’s playfulness and unpredictability that we find exciting.

When a being is able to experience blissful, loving, creative relationship with others, it has fulfilled its purpose, and can go on having fun and expanding into endless creativity.

Dzīves Jēga

Mans dzīves jēgas redzējums ir divpusējs. Viena jautājuma puse ir mana individuālā mūža jēga, otra – eksistences fundamentālā jēga. Lai arī otra, protams, ietver pirmo, tās tomēr ir atšķirīgas.

Vieglāk ir sākt ar eksistenciālo jēgu. Lai cik vienkāršoti tas neizklausītos, augstākā jēga, ko spējam iedomāties, ir laime. Jau pirms daudziem gadsimtiem Aristotelis savā “Nikomaha ētikā” paudis šo radikālo apgalvojumu: “Laime ir dzīves jēga un mērķis, visas cilvēces eksistences galamērķis”. Protams, vārds laime ir plaši interpretējams un pārprotams, un Aristoteļa lietotais termins eudaimonia ticis plaši iztirzāts un salīdzināts ar mūsdienu konceptiem, taču šeit es mēģināšu paskaidrot, kā es saprotu šo ideju.

Laime savā pamatā ir sajusta pieredze. Tai ir dažādas nokrāsas un mainīgs saturs, taču galu galā tā ir patīkama pieredze, uz kuru mēs tiecamies. Pat ja apgalvojam, ka ciešanas vai sāpes dažkārt ir nepieciešamas, tāpat apzināti vai neapzināti norādām, ka tās ir kāda augstāka mērķa vārdā, un šis augstākais mērķis neizbēgami būs saistīts ar laimi.

Ja mēs vienu dienu vaicātu sev, kāpēc darām to, ko darām, manuprāt, neizbēgami nonāktu līdz laimei kā augstākajam motivatoram. Kāpēc mēs iegūstam izglītību? Gan tāpēc, lai nopelnītu naudu (nabadzība sagādā ciešanas – laimes pretmetu), gan tāpēc, lai ar savām prasmēm kaut kā palīdzētu citiem (palīdzētu izvairīties no ciešanām un pietuvoties laimei). Kāpēc veidojam attiecības? Lai justos laimīgi nevis vientuļi. Kāpēc spēlējam spēles vai klausāmies mūziku? Jo tas sagādā prieku. Kādēļ augstu vērtējam zināšanas? Jo tās ir gan interesantas, gan palīdz turpmāk izvairīties no ciešanām un pietuvoties laimei. Ja paskatāmies uz rīcību, kas nodara ciešanas sev vai citiem, tomēr neizbēgami redzam, ka motivācija tomēr ir bijusi gūt kaut kādu baudu vai ieguvumu, kas atkal noved pie tiekšanās pēc laimes sajūtas. Vēlos izaicināt lasītāju dot kādu piemēru, kur augstākais motivators tomēr nav tiekšanās pēc laimes.

Vēl jāpiebilst, ka šāda eksistenciālā jēga un laime ir mūžīga, tāpat kā apziņa. Mūsdienās valdošais filozofiskais materiālisms, kas postulē, ka apziņa ir matērijas produkts, kas mirs līdz ar tās iziršanu, ir zinātniski un filozofiski nepareizs. Bet to pierādīt nav šīs esejas mērķis, varbūt vēlāk iztirzāšu to kādā citā.

Ja esam vienojušies, ka laime šī vārda plašākajā izpratnē ir eksistences jēga, varam turpināt noskaidrot, kāda tad ir individuālā mūža jēga. Ja laimi iztēlojamies kā galamērķi, kas atrodas centrā, tad katrs indivīds ir kaut kur perifērijā noteiktā leņķī pret to, tādēļ virzieni un metodes tās sasniegšanai atšķirsies.

Ja eksistenciālo laimi varam saprast filozofiski un ar prātu, ar individuālo ceļu uz to nav tik vienkārši. Kā lai mēs zinām, kuru soļu speršana novedīs mūs pie laimes? Mēs to nevaram zināt absolūti, jo realitāte ir neparedzama, tādēļ te neiztikt bez ticības un intuīcijas. Klišejiskais padoms šajā problēmā ir rīkoties. Ja mūsu intuīcija saka go for it, tad tikai rīkojoties mēs uzzināsim, vai šis solis bija pareizais.

Is “objective morality” a coherent concept?

I was pondering the nature of good and bad and objective morality.

Often we hear this argued between theists and atheists. Atheists claim that all morality is subjective, while theists say that there is such a thing as “moral law”, and, therefore, a moral lawgiver to which we are fundamentally responsible.

But I’m wondering whether “objective morality” is a coherent concept at all. If it is truly objective, it must be so that everyone sooner or later must admit its truth and subject themselves to it. But even if there were a personal God (the ultimate being, the final authority), and he stood right in front of me, declaring his law, what would stop me from disagreeing with him? And what would make God right and me wrong? Merely his authority? That’s a well known fallacy in reasoning appropriately called “argument from authority” which God would be guilty of committing. A true position is true regardless who claims it. That’s what “objective” means, right?

So I come to conclude that a “moral lawgiver” isn’t enough to make morality objective.

But looking at our concepts of good and bad, I see they ultimately boil down to happiness/suffering (to use these terms very broadly). If we can agree that happiness=good and suffering=bad (yes, sometimes suffering can lead to greater happiness in the long run, but that in no way contradicts the argument), we can come to a shared understanding of morality: that which causes most happiness and least suffering, all conscious beings taken into account, is ultimately morally good. If someone disagrees with the aforementioned premise “happiness=good/suffering=bad”, then, of course, the argument stops right there.

That’s the closest to objective morality that I can come to.

Should we procreate / continue biological life?

In our society it’s mostly an unquestioned assumption that having children is a good thing. However, not everybody agrees. Two objections that I have come across are antinatalism and the position of some Gnostic sects.

Antinatalists base their argument on ethical grounds: a being is brought into existence against its will and most likely will suffer. To avoid creating more suffering we should stop procreation and eventually go extinct. This, of course, only works under materialism and belief that consciousness would simply vanish with extinction of conscious species. However, when you think about it, in any case we never had a say in our existence as a species. Who’s to say nature won’t create us again?

The Gnostic argument is based on the belief that an immortal spirit is trapped in the material world and flesh body. Giving birth just traps more divine sparks in the machine made by the blind Demiurge. So stopping procreation = liberation.

So of what importance is biological life in materialist and non-materialist philosophies?

If materialism is true and all consciousness would one day vanish without a trace (maybe even tomorrow a huge meteor wipes out organic life on Earth), everything is meaningless anyway (I’m referring to some ultimate, eternal meaning here). If spirit is eternal and would survive even if a meteor hit Earth, what’s the point of continuing this fleshy existence full of suffering, what’s the point of having children?

Cosmic Psychotherapy

I feel like the chaos of the natural world is like the chaos of our subconscious. Psychotherapy and spirituality are attempts to make unconscious conscious, so that rather than being victims of it, we would be masters. Maybe we can look at the physical world as god’s unconscious. Then “expanding consciousness” is like cosmic psychotherapy, when finally we will become masters over the energy fluctuations we call the physical world instead of being trapped by them.

Is there an alternative to a miracle?

An essay on existence, free will, and consciousness.

Since I started asking existential questions in my early twenties, I was always the rational type – if I couldn’t figure something out it really bothered me. Over time, however, a deep realization dawned on me that there are indeed very real phenomena that are fundamentally beyond logical thought. The idea that we will one day be able to explain everything logically and get rid of “magic” and mystery is mistaken, in my opinion. In this short essay I try to explain why.

Existence

Ethnobotanist and psychonaut Terrence McKenna is quoted as saying “Modern science is based on the principle: “Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest.” Whatever it is science is explaining, it is doing it in terms of something else. That “something else” has changed over the years from atoms to subatomic particles, and recently as vibrations of tiny “strings”. However, each and every such explanation must stop somewhere at something self-existent and irreducible (sometimes called “the ontological primitives”).  It just exists. We don’t know how it got here and why it’s doing what it’s doing, but it seems to be doing it regardless. If we attempt to explain that “something” one step further, the next explanation will beg the same questions.

Both the current “scientific” idea of “a universe from nothing” (which happens to be the title of a book by theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss, also endorsed by renowned atheist Richard Dawkins) or the more mystical idea of eternally existing “ground of being” (a term coined by existential philosopher and theologian Paul Tillich) are equally mysterious, for they both presuppose an “uncaused cause”. Whether something once started out of absolute nothingness, or something has been existing eternally, both of those ideas are mind-boggling, and – I might even say – translogical (borrowing the trans- concepts from Ken Wilber). That is to say they don’t seem logically comprehensible, yet also necessary for existence of anything, and I personally can’t think of any third alternative to these scenarios. That is precisely why “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is still possibly the most awe-inspiring question a conscious being can ask about the universe. Even though modern science would reject the idea of something existing eternally, for it may smack a bit too much of a notion of “god” that we’ve battled so hard to overcome, it has little trouble accepting the other supernatural scenario of existence “ex nihilo” – out of nothing.

I conclude that existence in this philosophical sense is fundamentally mysterious. Whatever explanation might be brought up, it will hit the wall of something mysteriously self-existing sooner or later. That brings me to two other phenomena mysteriously existing, unexplained and often denied by scientists and philosophers: free will and consciousness.

Free will

Free will has famously been a matter of fierce debate as far as man can remember. Prominent philosophers nowadays argue whether any sort of free will is possible in a deterministic universe or if the concept of “free will” is coherent at all, yet few deny that the universe is, in fact, fully deterministic. Those who hold that determinism is compatible with free will are appropriately called “compatibilists”, and those who don’t are referred to as “incompatibilists”, yet of the latter there are two types: determinist and libertarian. Determinists believe free will is nonexistent, libertarians argue that it is undeniably real.

Free will is indeed a very difficult notion to defend philosophically, which has led many determinist philosophers to write books on it and deem it dead forever. Often they argue that an event is either determined or random, and there is no room for free will in any case. And while I can understand their arguments, and why would one come to such conclusions, I fail to be convinced, reason being that those philosophical standpoints contradict my reality, and I believe, everyone’s reality. Even if you deny free will, you can’t help living as if it existed.

I am reminded of a debate between the determinist philosopher Jerry Coyne and libertarian Michael Egnor. Coyne explains his efforts to convince the world of the truth of determinism:

“You’ll also know that the reason I bang on about this at length — frustrating compatibilist readers — is because I believe that fully grasping determinism has a huge potential effect on human behavior[…]”,

to which Egnor replies: “The future, according to Coyne, is already determined, so what’s the use of “banging on” about determinism? It can’t change anything at all. Why not retire from “banging on” and find some other pointless pastime? It won’t make any difference. It can’t make any difference, in a determined world. If determinism is true, there are no “huge potential effect[s] on human behavior.” There are no huge potential effects on anything. There’s no “potential” at all. There are no choices and there are no options.”

In my view this dialogue illustrates the paradox fairly well. For some reason, Mr. Coyne seems oblivious to the fact that the word “potential” really has no meaning whatsoever in a fully deterministic existence. Wikipedia defines potential as “latent qualities or abilities that may be developed” (emphasis mine). May. The word itself assumes probability. Shouldn’t a determinist discard words such as potential, may, possibly, maybe, would, could, and others that imply probability, since it is deemed nonexistent? Same goes for human relationships – no determinist actually treats themselves or others as biorobots with unalterable destinies. They negotiate, plead, get angry, blame, give thanks, and appreciate actions of other beings just like everyone else, yet these reactions and attitudes only make sense if we assume that a person has at least some degree of choice and responsibility over their actions and words. In other words: there is no human relationship as we know it without presupposed free will.

Another issue is the notion of objective truth. Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis described it brilliantly in his “argument from reason”. The short version is this: if all events in existence are caused by and can be reduced to random, unconscious processes, then so it is with all thoughts and opinions, including this one. There can be no truth value to any statement, if its utterance is caused by unavoidable randomness. You cannot reduce everything without reducing your own opinion, therefore philosophical naturalism along with determinism are self-contradictory. This idea is explained and defended at length in “C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason” by Victor Reppert.

I think the reason many philosophers only see the black & white picture of “randomness VS determinism” is because they’re not at ease with uncaused things, for free choice by definition has some uncaused element. Now, what could that be? I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a quality of self-aware consciousness to make an unpredictable choice, to somehow cause its own action. Is that idea fully comprehensible? No. But neither is “universe ex nihilo”, which scientists seem to embrace. You can’t make sense of free will, yet you can’t avoid it. Same goes for existence. Once I realized that the question of existence is an irreducible mystery, it made it easier for me to understand that we shouldn’t be afraid of the irreducibly mysterious, for it is part and parcel of existence and shows up in different forms, one of them being the reality of free will.

 

Consciousness

Australian philosopher David Chalmers is credited to reviving the “hard problem” of consciousness. When philosophers were getting more and more comfortable with reducing consciousness to its functions or contents, he came along and roused some trouble, claiming that we still have no idea how arrangements of unconscious matter could create subjective experience (if indeed they do).

Atheist philosopher Sam Harris explains the issue very eloquently in his book “Waking Up”:

“The idea that consciousness is identical to (or emerged from) a certain class of unconscious physical events seems impossible to properly conceive—which is to say that we can think we are thinking it, but we are probably mistaken. We can say the right words: ”Consciousness emerges from unconscious information processing.” We can also say “Some squares are as round as circles” and “2 plus 2 equals 7.” But are we really thinking these things all the way through? I don’t think so.”

“The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand—that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative character in this moment—is a mystery, exceeded only by the mystery that there should be something rather than nothing in the first place. Although science may ultimately show us how to truly maximize human well-being, it may still fail to dispel the fundamental mystery of our being itself.”

Other philosophers, like Daniel Dennett, have tried to argue that consciousness doesn’t exist at all, that it’s an illusion. Even though I haven’t read Dennett’s book concerning this topic, I already can see that “consciousness is an illusion” is a self-contradictory sentence, for where does illusion exist if not in consciousness already? Wikipedia defines illusion as “an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience”, “a deceptive appearance or impression”, or “a false idea or belief”. Are not perceptions, experiences, appearances, impressions, ideas, and beliefs contents of consciousness? Without consciousness there could be no illusions! To me it seems Dennett is arguing against a straw-man: redefining consciousness to be less than we actually experience to be, because otherwise his position is obviously absurd. I am reminded of the website’s http://www.consciousentities.com/ subtitle: “If the conscious self is an illusion – who is it that’s being fooled?”

Conclusion

In this short essay I’ve made my first attempt to sketch out why I believe the fact of existence, free will, and consciousness to be fundamentally and irreducibly mysterious phenomena – pure magic. That is, even if there was an all-knowing hyper-intelligent being (God, if you will), he/she/it would also fail to explain these things in logical terms. All three belong to the same category, so to speak. Please do comment and voice your agreement or disagreement!

Marihuāna

Ja jau es esmu Nīderlandē, jāuzraksta, ko es domāju par marihuānu. Pirms dažām dienām iegāju coffeeshopā un nopirku gramu. Lētākā saucās “Salad Bowl”, tāpēc no tās izvairījos, bet paņēmu nākamo.

Es to esmu sācis izmantot pašizziņai/meditācijai/pašterapijai. Paskaidrošu, kā tas darbojas. Manā pieredzē marihuāna padara prātu nedaudz līdzīgu lāzeram – tas sašaurinās un fokusējas uz vienu pieredzes daļu, pārējās pametot novārtā, tāpēc ir tik viegli iegrimt vienā sajūtā/domā, aizmirstot, kur atrodies. Var teikt, ka tā palīdz koncentrēties, taču nevis uz visu geštaltu (tāpēc, piemēram, nevar vadīt automašīnu), bet uz vienu aspektu. Katras individuālās domas/sajūtas skaļums šķiet uzgriezts, tāpēc tā “pārkliedz” citas, bet tas lieliski palīdz no novērot. Sajūtas/domas, kas parasti paskrien garām, knapi pieskaroties apziņai, bet tomēr ietekmējot pašsajūtu, pēkšņi kļūst notveramas aiz astes, jo prāts it kā spēj tās apsteigt. Līdzība, kas man nāk prātā ir medicīniska metode, kad asinīs ievada oglekļa dioksīdu, lai spētu ar rentgenu izsekot asinsritei. Marihuāna palīdz tā izsekot psihoemocionālās norises. Tomēr jāpiebilst, ka, ja normālu apziņas ritumu salīdzina ar peldēšanu pieredzē, marihuāna palīdz ienirt dziļi, taču ik pa brīdim. Mazāk plūduma, vairāk saraustīti – ir grūtāk izritināt vienu garu domu, taču daudz vieglāk sajust mirklīgas, dziļākas atziņas, kuras mēdzu pierakstīt. Vēl nemāku teikt, vai tās būs paliekošas, bet redzēs.

Message to Bernardo Kastrup

Dear Bernardo!

 

While reading your musings on free will in “Brief Peeks Beyond” I felt like sharing mine. I’ll try to make it short. Your idea that a “free” choice is one unhindered by aspects outside what one identifies with sounds good. If a source obviously outside myself affects my choice, it’s not free. However, usually our choices are based on preferences, which seem much closer to the “self” and are often identified with, but that, of course, begs the question – what is the source of those preferences? Usually it’s biology and/or past experiences, so the source is outside one’s “self” (the conscious experience of “I” in the present moment) again.

 

But here are my two cents: we know that consciousness is mysterious by definition. As Sam Harris said: “The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand is a mystery, perhaps only exceeded by the mystery of why is there something rather than nothing in the first place.” Both you and Harris have elaborated why attempts to reduce consciousness to material phenomena and thus explain it fail. So, what if consciousness has a somewhat mysterious quality, a faculty to choose something without reason or preference, the only reason for choosing being the sheer joy of exercising this faculty? This kind of choice is more like a game, a dance, not serving any practical purpose, and isn’t this kind of choice the only thing that would make any game, dance or creative endeavor interesting and meaningful?

 

What if out of this kind of unhindered creativity this very odd cosmos was born? The ability of consciousness to create/choose something unseen and unheard from the infinity of possibilities, for no reason other than exercising this faculty of creating one thing instead of another?

Sam Harris par apziņu

Sam Harris ir neirobiologs, filozofs un ateists. Tomēr viņš atšķiras no citiem zinātniekiem ar to, ka interesējas par garīgumu drosmīgi pauž savu viedokli. Savā grāmatā Waking Up viņš skaidro, kāpēc zinātne nevar un droši vien nekad nevarēs pilnībā izskaidrot, kas ir apziņa. Šeit esmu iztulkojis dažus viņa citātus par šo tēmu.

 

“Mēģinājumi izskaidrot apziņu ar fiziskiem procesiem ļoti atšķiras no citiem līdzīgiem skaidrojumiem zinātnes vēsturē. Zinātnieku un filozofu līdz šim piedāvātās analoģijas ir maldinošas. Piemēram, tas, ka šobrīd varam izskaidrot tādas matērijas īpašības kā šķidrumu ar mikroskopiskām daļiņām, kas pašas nav “šķidras”, nedod mums veidu, kā skaidrot apziņu kā kaut ko, kas līdzīgā viedā rodas no neapzinātas matērijas. Nav grūti saprast, ka viena ūdens molekula nevar būt “šķidra” un ka miljardiem šādas molekulas, brīvi slīdot viena gar otru, rada “šķidruma” pieredzi cilvēka rokai. Toties nav tik viegli saprast, kā šāda veida analoģijas ir pārliecinājušas tik daudzus cilvēkus, ka apziņu var viegli izskaidrot kā informācijas apstrādes rezultātu.

Lai kāda fenomena skaidrojums būtu pilnīgs, tam jābūt vismaz saprotamam. Šādā ziņā šķidruma argumentam nav problēmu: brīvi slīdošas molekulas šķiet tieši tas, kam jāpiemīt vielai, lai tā būtu šķidra. Kāpēc mēs varam ielikt roku ūdenī, bet ne akmenī? Jo ūdens molekulas nav tik cieši saistītas, lai apturētu rokas kustību. Ievērojiet, ka šis šķidruma skaidrojums ir reducējams bez problēmām: “šķidrums” nav nekas cits kā molekulu brīvslīde.  Lai šāds skaidrojums būtu pieņemams, mums jāvienojas, ka pastāv molekulas, un tad problēma ir atrisināta. Neviens nav aprakstījis tādu neapzinātu procesu kopumu, kuri līdzīgā veidā būtu pieņemami kā apziņas cēlonis. Visi mēģinājumi izprast apziņu caur smadzeņu aktivitāti tikai korelē cilvēka spēju aprakstīt pieredzi (demonstrējot, ka to apzinās) ar specifiskiem smadzeņu stāvokļiem. Lai arī šīs korelācijas ir fascinējošas neirozinātnei, tās neved mūs tuvāk apziņas rašanās skaidrojumam.”

“Apgalvojums, ka apziņa radās kādā mirklī evolūcijas procesā un ka to rada specifisks neironu impulsu paterns smadzenēs, nedod mums ne mazāko ideju, kā tā varētu rasties no neapzinātiem procesiem – pat ne teorētiski. Tomēr tas nenozīmē, ka tāpēc patiesa ir kāda cita tēze par apziņas rašanos. Varbūt apziņa ir loģisks neapzinātas informācijas apstrādes rezultāts. Bet es nezinu, ko šis teikums vispār nozīmē – un nedomāju, ka kāds cits zina.”

“Ideja, ka apziņa ir noteikts neapzinātu fizisku procesu kopums (vai radusies no tiem) nešķiet pilnībā saprotama – ar to es gribu teikt, ka mēs varam domāt, ka to domājam, bet mēs droši vien kļūdāmies. Mēs varam teikt pareizos vārdus: “Apziņa rodas no neapzinātas informācijas apstrādes.” Mēs varam arī teikt: “Daži kvadrāti ir tikpat apaļi kā apļi” un “2 plus 2 ir 7”. Bet vai mēs šos teikumus varam pilnībā saprast? Es tā nedomāju”.

“Lai kā arī mēs mēģinātu skaidrot apziņas rašanos – caru bioloģiju, funkcionalitāti, informācijas apstrādi vai kā citādi – mēs varam pateikt tikai tik daudz: vispirms ir fiziskā pasaule, neapzināta un pilna neviena nepieredzētu notikumu; tad kaut kādas fiziskas īpašības vai procesa dēļ apziņa pēkšņi vai pamazām parādās. Šī ideja man šķiet ne tikai dīvaina, bet pilnībā mistiska. Tas nenozīmē, ka tā nav patiesa. Tomēr, ja iedziļināmies, šie rašanās skaidrojumi šķiet tikai kā pagaidu versijas brīnumam.”

“Fakts, ka visums ir “izgaismots” tur, kur tu atrodies – ka tavām domām, emocijām un sajūtām ir kvalitatīva pieredze šai brīdī – ir mistērija, kuru pārspēj tikai mistērija, ka vispār eksistē kaut kas nevis nekas. Lai arī zinātne nākotnē mums var parādīt, kā pilnīgot cilvēka dzīvi, tā diez vai spēs izskaidrot esības pašas fundamentālo mistēriju.”