The Human Question

Our answer to this question is a function of how we understand laws of nature. If we see them as descriptions of forces at work--that is, as things forcing each other to behave a certain way, then we imagine that consciousness or biology would add another force to the mix, one that works against the other forces. If we see laws of nature as descriptions of what things naturally try to do or as attractions, then the "trying to" or "seeking" that pertains to biology, animality or rationality does NOT countervail the lower level but rather gives it a super-directedness.  Think here of how an architect doesn't direct the bricklayer by applying force against the bricklayer's efforts (at least not on a good day).  Instead, the architect gets the bricklayer to direct his or her efforts toward a goal that is not just bricklaying, but housebuilding. A helpful contrast here is between the Euclidian and non-Euclidian conceptions of parallel lines.  One looks at t...

To call the problem of the unity of consciousness the “bundling problem” is misleading: it gives the impression that that what we sometimes call "consciousness" is a cluster of ideas or thoughts that have mysteriously been yoked together.  A better metaphor would be the “electromagnetic problem”: that is, the problem of how what from the outside appears to be two very different things is really both at once, always inseparable yet always distinct from each other? What is true of electricity and magnetism is true in many ways of consciousness, e.g., of desire and cognition.