Recently a computer scientist of some note, David
Gelernter, made some waves by announcing that he no longer
believes in Darwinism. He came to this conclusion by reading critiques of
the theory from prominent intelligent design theorists. He has not embraced
intelligent design, but its core critique of Darwinism seems cogent to him:
that random chance plus natural selection is mathematically insufficient at the
molecular level to account for all the genetic information in complex
organisms. I, too, find these arguments very persuasive. Coupled with the fact
that I believe absolutely in God as the Creator of the universe and everything
in it I have no trouble identifying who the Intelligent Designer might be.
Of course, Darwinism is still the mainstream theory. In
fact, “mainstream” doesn’t quite capture it. Rare indeed is the working biologist
who doesn’t believe evolution by natural selection explains all life on earth.
However, there are thorny questions, and even rumblings of doubt in some
corners. If Darwinism is wrong (which of course is what I believe) then it
stands to reason that further research would eventually cause increasing
doubts, and one day perhaps a crisis leading to a paradigm shift. What theory
would take its place?
The problem with intelligent design for most scientists
is that it "reeks" of religion. Intelligent design advocates can
claim that it is not a religious theory, but they conveniently choose not to
address the question of who the designer(s) might be. Apart from theism, you
are still left with the need to explain the origin of the designers, and if we
couldn't have evolved, neither could they. A secular scientist will not see
intelligent design as a viable alternative to Darwinism. Their worldview is
materialism, the idea that space-time, matter and energy are all there is. If
Darwinism fails what is their fallback position?
Interestingly, Gelernter has settled on panpsychism - the
idea that all matter in the universe is conscious at some level. He thinks that
natural processes might tend to favor the development of higher consciousness,
which would explain how we seemingly evolved against impossible odds. This idea
clearly needs significant development to get beyond the hand waving stage.
Although it strikes most people as highly implausible, it does have its
adherents. But if not panpsychism, what other alternative might the scientific
community turn to?
A few secular scientists, in response to the mathematical
difficulties of natural selection, have settled on the theory of panspermia.
Prominent adherents include the late Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA. Panspermia
is the idea that life originated on some world other than earth and was seeded
here, accidentally or on purpose. It doesn't necessarily imply that the source
was an intelligent species. It might have been microbes hitching a ride on a
rock blasted out from some other planet and landing here as a meteorite. But,
like intelligent design, panspermia doesn't remove the origin of life problem,
it just relocates it. If evolution couldn't work here, how could it work
anywhere?
As I was thinking about this today, it occurred to me
that the next secular origin story is likely to be the simulation hypothesis,
which posits that the universe we live in is actually a simulation. While this
idea has been around for a while as science fiction (think The Matrix),
recently it has been popularized by Elon Musk and others as a serious theory.
It's a bit like intelligent design, but without the religious implication. If
we live in a simulation it is not necessary to explain how we came to exist by
natural processes operating in the universe according to the observed natural
laws. Of course, you must still explain where the designers came from, but
their universe might have different physical laws that make evolution
plausible.
At first blush, this idea of living in a simulation seems
even more wildly implausible than panpsychism and panspermia. Why is it
becoming popular? How could anyone believe they are not actually real? Simply
because many computer scientists can imagine one day building such a simulation
themselves.
Many computer scientists already embrace the idea that a
true conscious intelligence could be hosted in a computer. This is called strong
AI, or Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). With the exponential growth of
computer power over the past few decades and the advent of quantum computing,
many thinkers such as Ray Kurzweil not only think AGI is inevitable but is something
to be embraced. They even imagine transferring their own consciousness into a
future computer system and achieving a kind of secular immortality. To a
materialist this is an intoxicating idea – eternal life without a pesky deity
who must be obeyed.
If AGI is possible it suggests that a simulated world is
possible. But if you grew up playing immersive computer games and you believe
AGI is just around the corner, it's not so great a leap to consider that maybe
this has already happened, and we are in fact already artificial minds
in an artificial world. Musk believes it likely that this has already happened
thousands of times, and we are living in a simulation of a simulation of a
simulation, ad nauseum – on top of a stack of simulated worlds
built by simulated beings.
Should we be persuaded? What is the evidence? I am
skeptical. First, no one has yet created an AGI, or has any idea how to do so. It
needs more than computer power; it needs an understanding of consciousness and
how it arises. Notwithstanding this fact, many people are confident they will
succeed in creating an AGI. They consider the recent advances in computing
power, neuroscience and so-called weak or narrow AI (facial recognition, etc.)
to represent a trend that will naturally result in AGI. With a sufficient
understanding of consciousness and sufficiently powerful hardware they are
confident AGI will happen.
Second, underlying this confidence in AGI is the
assumption that consciousness is nothing more than a computational process. This
is more of a philosophical position than a scientific theory. It’s called the
computational theory of mind, and it is a popular idea rooted in materialism.
If we are nothing more than a complex physical system and we are conscious,
couldn’t a different type of mechanism also be conscious? And if we are merely
a mechanism, wouldn't it be possible to simulate that mechanism based on known
physical laws?
It should be noted that I have glossed over an important
question: would an AGI actually be conscious, or just simulating the
effects of consciousness? For Kurzweil, this is important because he still
wants to be “Kurzweil” after he transfers his mind into a computer. This
question has been debated for decades (e.g., John Searle’s Chinese Room
thought experiment), but most AGI proponents believe AGI would be conscious
because, under their worldview, there’s really no difference between
consciousness and a simulation of consciousness. Again, this is not science –
yet anyway. It remains a philosophical question.
My own position as a Christian is of course that we are
more than a complex physical system. We have an eternal spirit that will live
beyond the death of our bodies. The mind is more than just a physical process.
I have argued earlier
that our conscious experiences and decisions are something more than just the
brain activity they are correlated with. If I am right, a simulated brain would
not become a conscious mind, and a conscious mind could not exist in a
simulated world.
The common thread underlying Darwinism, panspermia, panpsychism, and the simulation hypothesis is materialism. Each of these theories is, in some ways, more
fantastic than the previous one. If Gelernter and others could hold their
materialist philosophy more lightly they might be able to see that intelligent
design is a plausible alternative. I would argue only that they consider
the possibility that God exists and see whether the brute fact of our
existence as conscious, intelligent, free moral agents is more plausible under
the God hypothesis than under any other. I believe it is.
