In The Emperor's New Mind Roger Penrose describes the transmission of signals along nerve fibres and expresses amazement at how such intricate machinery could have arisen by the blind forces of evolution:
"Things at least seem to organize themselves somewhat better than they 'ought' to, just on the basis of blind-chance evolution and natural selection." (p538)
What makes this statement unusual is that Penrose is not a religious person. We would normally expect such a sentiment to be expressed by someone wanting to show God's divine hand in setting the reality of the world. I believe Penrose speaks for a vast number of scientific people who are similarly amazed at the biological complexity supposed to have been brought about by the blind forces of evolution. These people find the standard answer unsatisfactory - that evolution 'just did' these things, and we should 'get over it'.
A new way for biological complexity to arise is suggested by the theory outlined here. We recall that something is real if it makes a contribution to the logic of the world. It is not real if it does not make such a contribution. Reality does not consist in something existing 'in itself' but in making a contribution to some world (and we are only interested in our world).
Let us picture a biologist slicing into the human body and discovering a complex organ within. We will assume that this organ was previously unknown, i.e., the researcher was making an original discovery. The researcher proceeds to dissect the organ and uncover layer upon layer of exquisite complexity organised to support the function of the organ.
Since the organ was unknown before the researcher started wielding her knife, it did not enter the logic of the world and therefore did not exist at that time. It is true that the logic of the world implied the existence of something within the body before that time, but it did not imply the particular reality subsequently uncovered. Let us suppose that the scientists previously thought the unknown something within the body was the result of a metaphysical humour called 'swerve'. The logic of the world before the researcher made her discoveries included the existence of swerve, and there existed a coherent scientific world-view with swerve as a component. After the researcher demonstrated her findings, swerve was thrown out and the logic of the world now included the existence of the new organ.
As the researcher dug deeper with her knife, probing the organ and observing its workings, other objects and systems were brought into existence and proceeded to take part in the logic of the world. We have a preference to say that these things were 'discovered', rather than 'brought into existence', but that is just a matter of how we have been accustomed to view things. Our accustomed view was that reality lies there waiting for us to uncover, so it was natural to express things in that language. But in the new scheme of things ('logic first') it is no longer correct to assume that reality lies there waiting for us to find. Instead reality is a matter of 'being real', and that means making a contribution to the logic of the world. If something makes no real contribution, it is not real. Previously we attributed a certain functioning of the body to the action of swerve, and various tests showed that swerve was a reality and not something merely imagined. The concept of swerve entered the logic of the world at that time and was as real as anything else in the world. At that time, the concept of the new organ did not enter the logic of the world, and so was not real. Then we did something. We sliced into the body, saw things, made some deductions, carried out some tests, and came up with a different reality. We replaced swerve with the new organ.
This is another example of reality created by observation. Before the researcher observed the organ, it did not exist. After she observed it, it did exist. The observation changed her behaviour as well as the behaviour of the scientists she demonstrated it to. The logic of the world became different because the world now incorporated a new reality.
Although this is not the conventional explanation of biological complexity, it has merit in being a simple, straightforward description of what actually takes place when we discover something new. The conventional explanation of biological complexity - in terms of the painstaking build-up of machine parts, their accidental assembly, their selection by an extremely special environment - is contrived in comparison. Most people would see this contrived approach as implausible if they were able to see things in an unbiased manner. But most of us are biased towards the idea that reality exists before all else and is the cause of everything we see. With that starting point, it is only natural to work out an explanation in terms of intricate complexity, no matter how contrived the explanation is forced to be. Why we should have a 'reality-first' starting point is a different question. It seems that we find security in having something that 'really exists' sustaining our existence. 'Hardware' of that nature is more trustworthy than the 'software' represented by the logic-first alternative. We are so keen on having an independent reality that if it didn't exist, we would make it up... and that's what we have done.
On the next page I will give an explanation of free will. Next page - Page 6
Back to beginning of Page 1 (Thought-experiment)