Tag: Philosophy

  • Depression – Mind or Matter?

    Depression – Mind or Matter?

    The state of depression is easy enough to describe but it is doubtful whether mere words manage to convey the depth of the misery to one who has never suffered from it.

    States of mere sadness, boredom or lethargy are very common but the depths of depression go much further. It is a state where no pleasure is to be found, no happiness. It is a state where no sky is blue, no sunlight dappled or golden. It is a state where cynicism is the overriding emotion felt and every aspect of life seems absurd and futile. It is a state where taste and smell lose their meaning, where things ordinarily enjoyed become pointless and sterile.

    Enough. There are some of you who will be only too well aware of what I am talking about. Others who will mistakenly imagine that their occasional sadness gives them an understanding of the condition.

    It is all too tempting when in the grip of such a state of mind to go to ground. To cut off. Not to write or read. Or eat or drink. Certainly there will be little pleasure in any such activity.

    And yet perhaps these are exactly the times one should write, and think. Not to drag others down into the grey abyss of your mood but to reflect, constructively, on what depression means and whether there might be a way out. A cure.

    What is “mind”? The answer is not at all obviousness. We have very little idea what consciousness is, how it arose, or how it relates to physics and what we believe to be the laws of nature.  In days gone by, dualism was all the rage.  Rene Descartes and his followers believed (and some still believe) that mind and body are entirely separate.  That the mind (the soul some would call it) is merely housed in the physical body but does not result from it. Does not arise or emerge from mere physical phenomena or laws.

    Monists believe that mind and matter are all one, but there is a “hard problem” with such a view as pointed out by philosopher David Chalmers and others.  Exactly how is it that mental properties can arise out of complex relationships between physical matter? Can consciousness arise from matter? How?

    The panpsychists believe that consciousness is a law of nature. Like gravity or the weak nuclear force or electricity. It just “is”. It exists in all matter in varying states of sophistication, of which the human brain is at the top of the heap. So far as we know. Consciousness in human terms arises where sufficient complexity exists and the human brain is nothing if not complex. Rocks and nematode worms have consciousness but of a lesser form than we humans.

    Some scientists believe that consciousness, the “mind”, emerges from physics. That physics and physics alone can explain mind; that there is nothing else. Other scientists and philosophers believe that the basic physical constituents of the universe have mental properties – in other words that consciousness just “is” as already mentioned.

    How does any of this help the poor fool stuck at the bottom of the abyss?

    Well in my view it does not really matter whether you believe in “emergence” or panpsychism. One day no doubt we will ascertain which view is correct; or than the answer lays somewhere else entirely.

    And one day we will be able to adjust our moods with precision. Not with the blunt instrument of drugs but by genetic engineering. We will be able to shift our place along the pain pleasure axis by accurate and sure design.

    In the meantime it is all trial and error. You won’t be able to think your way out of the abyss. You can tell yourself that it does not exist but that will be of little help when you are stuck down at the bottom.  What you can do is to acknowledge it and to acknowledge that the mood is transient, even if chronic. It will not always be that intense. It will pass. And there is some merit in argument – along the lines “my life is fine, I have no reason to feel this way”.  CBT some call it. Meditation – well it may help some a little. As might exercise.

    But of course none of these “remedies” are an instant or permanent cure.

    Over the years I have managed to develop a more philosophical approach.  In earlier days before I even recognised what the mood was, I assumed it was entirely due to external circumstances and could be eradicated by physical and external means.  Hence I moved from job to job and from country to country in search of happiness. In search of the philosopher’s stone, the “Way”, the “answer”, No 42.

    These days I have to try and put my head down. To recognise that this state of mind merely exists. That unless medical or genetic research gets its skates on I’m stuck with it.  At least I am lucky enough to be in a position to let it pass, to let it flow over me. It would be wholly impossible for me to do a “job” or to lead a life which any would consider “normal”.  I have had the good luck to avoid “jobs” and people for almost 30 years and intend to do so for the next 30.

    This is not a matter of pride but of necessity. And my life has not been entirely useless or entirely wasted.  There is value in thought and in expressing thought. There is value in writing and in comparing notes with others.

    So yes, these days I usually simply take the day off when the Black Dog barks at my door. Or the week. Or the month. I realise that none of it is my “fault”. That the state of mind we call depression just “is” and that for the moment all one can really is to hang on by one’s fingernails.

    But that will change. A way will be found to alter our minds, wherever or whatever those minds spring from.  And there is no harm in experimenting with the latest techniques or thinking about ways the answer will emerge.

    Today is a bad day. It has been a bad week. And yet one part of my mind is still functioning and lucid. And telling me to write these past few days off. And the next few days if necessary. And to keep studying and thinking even from the bottom of the pit.

     

  • Philosophy – Would we need it if we were happy?

    Philosophy – Would we need it if we were happy?

    Would we spend so much time in hand wringing existential anxiety if we discovered the genetic code of the pain pleasure axis?

    I rather doubt it. Or if we did, the questions which philosophy has traditionally sought to address would become much less important to us. I was enjoying a discussion on “materialism” on Steven Yate’s enjoyable website Lost Generation Philosopher and thought to make one or two comments on his latest musings on “Materialism” as set out below.

    Maybe it’s just me but I worry about “philosophy” far less (if at all) when “happy”. I am deeply interested in the nature of human consciousness and can not help but think that an understanding of the “pain pleasure” axis on a scientific basis, coupled with the ability to shift our position on that axis, would solve many of our problems. War, aggression, poverty and oppression might look rather more manageable if we could overcome our genetic inheritance and steer our species along a more productive and happy path.

    Long live the Abolitionist Project.

    “All we are is dust in the wind.”

    Or chemical scum as Stephen Hawkings put it. I wonder whether life need be so very complex as your posts suggest? I wonder if beneath your philosophical musing you may be able to wring great simplicity out of great complexity?

    After all String Theorists would have us believe that all matter, all energy is at bottom a “mere” collection of one dimensional strings of energy.

    I wonder whether humans might do better by seeking the way to manipulate the pain pleasure axis than spend an eternity wondering about questions which are, for the foreseeable future, unanswerable.

    At heart, it seems probable to me that there is no “meaning” other than that we create in this arguably pantheistic universe.

    You, me and everyone else has various basic needs. Perhaps society should work on satisfying those first and at the same time make universal happiness the goal since that, I believe, must be what drives us all in the end. Even if most of us do not realise it.

    Frankly after a lifetime of search the sort of philosophy promoted by David Pearce is all that interests me. And research into qualia and the pain pleasure axis. If we get that right, my belief is we would find existential anxiety to be a mere symptom of deep rooted human fear and unhappiness.

    Incidentally non of what I say is criticism. I like your post very much and agree with the vast majority of what you say. My own website is subtitled “Weltanschauung – a search for the Soul”. Even though like you I am a man of science and therefor use the term metaphorically.

    My comments are therefor not flippant, nor meant to be. And I am serious about David Pearce and the abolitionist project.

    I do not believe that we will find absolutes in the universe other than the physical laws that you describe. But we must not forget the many worlds theory which may yet prove to have found the winning formula in which case physical laws are not absolutes but will differ from universe to universe.

    Science and philosophy are all that we have, practically speaking, to lead us forward. And indeed all that we should have now that the man of reason has disposed of god and his ilk.

    So we may as well use science and reason to make ourselves happy. There may be no up and no down in the universe. No left and no right. Equally therefore no “right” and no “wrong”.

    Therefore perhaps happiness is the only worthy pursuit. Yes we may argue that Pol Pot’s happiness or Stalin’s may be in torture, ethnic cleansing and murder but my suspicion would be that were these men truly “happy” and at peace with themselves they would not find the need to make a hell of the lives of their compatriots.

  • Wittgenstein’s ladder: to climb or not to climb?

    Wittgenstein’s ladder: to climb or not to climb?

    The happiest are those who have never heard of Wittgenstein’s Ladder.  If asked, they assume it’s something you buy in Homebase.

    As with the existentialists, I am way past caring what the sad fellow meant by it. It has become part of my own lore; I have interpreted it as I  see fit and in a way I find useful.

    My own interpretation is as follows. I have spent my entire life questioning, worrying, looking for answers which do not exist.  Recently I have decided to kick the ladder away as Wittgenstein recommends, realizing that most of what I had learnt was useless, peripheral nonsense.

    The question therefore is should I have begun the climb in the first place or should I have burnt the ladder and not bothered?

    I have engaged in a search for meaning in a sea of random noise. A search for pattern where none exists. A master of arts in history from a venerable English university, a qualification in the law.  And endless study, even after those few initial years. The philosophers, from the ancient Greeks to David Chalmers and those who ponder consciousness. Religion and the charming tales of the ancient desert Jews, who believed they had found the one true god. The Epic of Gilgamesh, Confucius, the Tao.  The Odyssey.  The Bhagavad Gita, the Christian mystics.  And more latterly a serious if uninformed interest in science.

    Here is what Wittgenstein said:

    My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)   He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

    6.54

    Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

    Most of what I have read has turned out, on reflection, to be unhelpful at best.  The world, and in particular the human condition does not have to be seen in terms of absurd complexity.

    We do not have to ponder our origins or that of the universe and most spend a lifetime not doing so. They are the clever ones, even if they do not know it.

    Despite the acceleration of science in my own lifetime, we are still an infinity from the sort of questions I would like to have answered. Progress seems glacial for those with a finite lifetime.

    The cure for cancer never quite comes in time. The Higgs Boson, while eventually unearthed, does not actually do very much for my sense of well-being or understanding.  The New Scientist contains almost identical articles week after week which are mostly questions rather than answers.

    The answer is to avoid the questions.  Ludwig was right all along.