More than Matter: What Humans Really Are

The question of what it is to be a human person is the biggest intellectual question of our day.

I have enjoyed reading this book. I often paused, put the book down and thought. (Which seems like exactly what a good book should lead you to do.) Thought about things like the nature of reality, meaning in the universe and the value of human life. All with lots of question marks.

My one word response to the book is: unconvincing.
And yet I did enjoy it and I very glad I read it.

Ward presents an argument against a materialist view of humans (that we are purely matter) and advocates for a metaphysical view part-way between Idealism and Dualism, so called Dual-aspect Idealism. It is not easy going and would be pretty tough without a basic knowledge akin to "Philosophy 101". But it is still a very enjoyable read as Ward writes with a level of humour that had me chuckling out loud at times.

For me, the crunch of the book came in Chp 9: "In Defense of dualism". The book seemed to be building up to this point and, after reading his arguments against materialism/physicalism, and his "doesn't this sound nice" enthusiasm for idealism, I was looking forward to finally reading his arguments for dualism. However the chapter seems to be a tenuous pulling together of insubstantial strings of various pro-dualism ideas, none of which are convincing on their own, and together are no more convincing. So much for that!

In the final chapter "Can we still speak of the soul?" he alludes to his Christian views, though a lot of Christians would have trouble reconciling Ward's well thought out religious ideology with their own narrow view of the bible. He paints a beautiful picture of dual-aspect idealism which culminates, in distant space-time, in a kind of utopian future of super minds which "transfigure all the conflicts and suffering of our previous lives." (It sounds wonderful and reminds me very much of a Stephen Baxter Sci-fi trilogy that I thoroughly enjoyed!). Ward then goes on to say:

That is the dream of idealism. But is it true? It must be plainly said that there is no proof. Yet it is more than an ideal wish. It is rooted in the firm belief that mind is the ultimate nature of being, and that intelligent mind aims, as far as it can, at goodness, at what is worthwhile for its own sake. This dream is what mind would realize if it could, if it were at all possible. It does seem possible, since it contains no contradiction. Dare we then hope for it?

My response to this: Hmmmm, I think it probably is no more than an ideal wish, but yes, I do still feel that it is worth hoping for, especially if this leads people to living a more full and ethical life. I wholeheartedly agree with his beliefs in practice: that we should act as though mind matters, humans have special value and strive for goodness for goodness sake, (not just to avoid punishment or gain reward - as the lowest form of most religions boils down to).

After living most of my life believing that I had a "soul" that would continue to exist independently of my body after death, I now find it hard to see how any form of my personal consciousness can exist when my neurons stop firing. I still hope it is so, but I really see it as no more than wishful thinking. It seems to be contradicted by the increasing evidence from neurobiological sciences that our "thoughts" are accounted for by the function of our neurons. When neurons are interfered with, via trauma, drugs or direct electrical stimulation, it leads to completely different "thoughts", and thus personalities, beliefs, etc. The demise of my faith started long ago, Phineas Gage you did not help it. The questioning started something like: "But if someone believed in Jesus before an head injury and afterwards denied him, when they died did they go to heaven or not?". Thinking this through over the subsequent years (18 to be precise, now that makes me feel old), it now seems to me when neurons stop working we will stop "thinking", and therefore stop "being".

Descartes: I think therefore I am.
Me: When my neurons stop firing, I stop thinking, therefore I am not.???.
(Though Descartes would definitely not agree with me)

I do not warm to this conclusion, I don't want it to be true, but I can't seem to shake it. Professor Ward, I had hopes that you might be able to at least give it a little shake, but alas, you have not!

For more info on Keith Ward:
http://www.keithward.org.uk/about/