Beyond us

A being that does not represent the world has no conception of what representation might be like, since the being has no conceptions.

A being that lacks consciousness has no conception of what consciousness might be like. The being might have intentionality (our unconscious thoughts, after all, have intentionality), and so might have the contentful thought that there can be beings that have some crucial mental quality that goes beyond the unconscious being’s mentality.

A being that lacks will presumably has no consciousness of what rational will or responsibility might be like. Again, the being might have the concept of beings with “something more” in causation of activity by means of thought.

The distinctions between non-representing and representing, unconscious and conscious, and involuntary and voluntary involve immense qualitative and value gaps. In each of the three cases, we humans exemplify the higher of the two options. At the same time, we are not alone in all these on earth. We share representation with all living things, I suspect. We share consciousness with many animals. But responsibility, I suspect, is ours alone.

I find it implausible to think that we are at the qualitative apex of the space of valuable possibilities. It seems quite likely to me that there could be beings that differ from us in further fundamental valuable qualities in such a way that we are on the lower end, and if we were to meet these beings, we would be unable to grasp what they have which we lack, though we might on testimony, or maybe even empirical observation of behavior, conclude that there is such a thing.

In fact, I suspect there are infinitely many such distinctions, and that God is beyond the higher side of all of them.

In heaven, might we be raised to have the further higher levels? Maybe, but maybe not. However, the mere epistemic possibility of us being gradually raised to acquire infinitely many further such irreducible values is enough to undercut any “argument from boredom” against eternal heavenly life.

Assuming there are infinitely many more such non-V and V pairs, I wonder what this infinity is. Does it have a cardinality?

Forwards causal closure and dualist theories of perception

A standard dualist theory of perception goes like this:

1. You sense stuff physically, the data goes to the brain, the brain processes the data, and out of the processed data produces qualia.

There is a lot of discussion of the “causal closure” of the physical. What people generally mean by this is that the physical is causally backwards-closed: the cause of a physical thing is itself physical. This is a controversial doctrine, not least because it seems to imply that some physical things are uncaused. But what doesn’t get discussed much is a more plausible doctrine we might call the forwards causal closure of the physical: physical causes only have physical effects. Forwards causal closure of the physical is, I think, a very plausible candidate for a conceptual truth. The physical isn’t spooky—and it is spooky to have the power of producing something spooky. (One could leave this at this conceptual argument, or one could add the scholastic maxim that one cannot cause what one does not in some sense have.)

By forwards closure, on the standard dualist theory, the brain is not a physical thing. This is a problem. It is supposed to be one of the advantages of the standard dualist theory that it is compatible with property dualism on which people are physical but have non-physical properties. But if the brain is not physical, there is no hope for people to be physical! Personally, I don’t mind losing property dualism, but it sure sounds absurd to hold that the brain is not physical.

Recently, I have been thinking about a non-causal dualist theory that goes like this:

2. You sense stuff physically, the data goes to the brain, the brain processes the data, and the soul “observes” the brain’s processed data. (Or, perhaps more precisely, the person "feels" the neural data through the soul.)

To expand on this, what makes one feel pain is not the existence of a pain quale, but a sui generis “observation” relation between the soul and the brain’s processed data. This observation relation is not caused by the data, but takes place whether there is data there or not (if there isn’t, we have a perceptual blank slate). The soul is not changed intrinsically by the data: the “observation” of a particular datum—say, a datum representing a sharp pain in a toe—is an extrinsic feature of the soul. Note that unlike the standard theory, this up-front requires substance dualism of some sort, since the observing entity is not physical given the sui generis nature of the “observation” relation.

The non-causal dualist theory allows one to maintain forwards closure of the physical and the physicality of the brain. For the brain doesn’t cause a non-physical effect. The brain simply gets “observed”.

It is however possible that the soul causes an effect in the brain—for instance, the “observation” relation may trigger quantum collapse. Thus, the theory may violate backwards closure. And that’s fine by me. Backwards closure does not follow conceptually from the concept of the physical—a physical thing doesn’t become spooky for having a spooky cause.

There is a difficulty here, however. Suppose that the soul acts on the “observed” data, say by causing one to say “You stepped on my foot.” Wouldn’t we want to say that the brain data correlated with the pain caused one to say “You stepped on my foot”?

I think this temptation is resistable. Ridiculously oversimplifying, we can imagine that the soul has a conditional causal power to cause an utterance of “You stepped on my foot” under the condition of “observing” a certain kind of pain-correlated neural state. And while it is tempting to say that the satisfied conditions of a conditional causal power cause the causal power to go off, we need not say that. We can, simply, say that the causal power goes off, and the cause is not the condition, but the thing that has the causal power, in this case the soul.

On this story, if you step on my foot, you don’t cause me to say “You stepped on my foot”, though you do cause the condition of my conditional causal power to say so. We might say that in an extended sense there is a “causal explanation” of my utterance in terms of your stepping, and your stepping is “causally prior” to my utterance, even though this causal explanation is not itself an instance of causation simpliciter. If so, then all the stuff I say in my infinity book on causation should get translated into the language of causal explanation or causal priority. Or we can just say that there is a broad and a narrow sense of “cause”, and in the broad sense you cause me to speak and in the narrow you do not.

I think there is a very good theological reason to think this makes sense. For we shouldn’t say that our actions cause God to act. The idea of causing God to do anything seems directly contrary to divine transcendence. God is beyond our causal scope! Just as by forwards closure a physical thing cannot cause a spiritual effect, so too by transcendence a created thing cannot cause a divine effect. Yet, of course, our actions explain God’s actions. God answers prayers, rewards the just and punishes the unrepentant wicked. There is, thus, some sort of quasi-causal explanatory relation here that can be used just as much for non-causal dualist perception.

Yet another theory of ineffability

There is a long-standing tradition of trying to explain (!) the attribute of divine ineffability. Theories that are metaphysical in flavor rule the roost:

1. The only true assertions we can make about God are negative. (Eastern tradition)

2. The only true assertions we can make about God are analogical. (Aquinas)

3. The only true assertions we can make about God are non-fundamental. (Jacobs)

I want to add one more theory to the mix, one that can either be stand-alone or a complement to (1)–(3). This one is more epistemological:

4. The only assertions we can make about God are misleading.

One can illustrate the misleadingness of true, and even literally true, statements by examples.

• “Alice did not treat minorities as badly as Hitler” (when Alice was in fact an exemplary promoter of social justice).

• “Bob is somewhere in this building” (when he is standing right behind you).

• “I saw Carl in a car on I-35 this morning” (but the car was being towed by a truck).

• “Davita passed some of her exams” (when she passed all of them).

• “On a good day, Roger Bannister could run an 8 minute mile.”

Note that while (1)–(3) are limited to true statements, (4) does not have this restriction. After all, all false statements are misleading.

For concrete theological examples, think of how the doctrine of the Trinity shows that the doctrine of the unity of God is misleading, or the doctrine of the Incarnation shows that the doctrine of the transcendence of God is misleading. In a similar same way, when the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation are taught apart from the doctrines of unity and transcendence, they are misleading. But by (4) something more pessimistic is true: even when we teach Trinity and unity (or Incarnation and transcendence) together, we still mislead. I suspect that in heaven we will learn something that changes our understanding of unity and Trinity at least as much as the doctrine of the Trinity changed our understanding of unity.

Alvin Plantinga gives this counterexample to the thesis that we cannot say anything literally true of God: “God is not a bicycle.” If (4) is true, even this statement is misleading. In what way? Well, maybe it leads us to forget the intimate link between all reality and God: that all the reality in a bicycle is a participation in God.

Note that if (4) is true, then it is misleading. But that’s not a refutation.

One could also restrict (4) if one wanted to. For instance, one could restrict (4) to non-negative statements, or to non-analogical ones, or to non-fundamental ones.

I don’t know if (4) is true.

Ways of being and quantifying

Pluralists about ways of being say that there are multiple ways to be (e.g., substance and accident, divine being and finite being, the ten categories, or maybe even some indefinitely extendible list) and there is no such thing as being apart from being according to one of the ways of being. Each way of being comes with its own quantifiers, and there is no overarching quantifier.

A part of the theory is that everything that exists exists in a way of being. But it seems we cannot state this in the theory, because the "everything" seems to be a quantifier transcending the quantifiers over the particular ways of being. (Merricks, for instance, makes this criticism.)

I think there is a simple solution. The pluralist can concede that there are overarching unrestricted quantifiers ∀ and ∃, but they are not fundamental. They are, instead, defined in terms of more fundamental way-of-being-restricted quantifiers in the system:

1. ∀xF(x) if and only if ∀_BWoBb∀_bxF(x)

2. ∃xF(x) if and only if ∃_BWoBb∃_bxF(x).

The idea here is that for each way of being b, there are ∀_b and ∃_b quantifiers. But, the pluralist can say, one of the ways of being is being a way of being (BWoB). So, to use Merricks’ example, to say that there are no unicorns at all, one can just say that no way of being b is such that a unicorn b-exists.

Note that being a way of a being is itself a way of being, and hence BWoB itself BWoB-exists.

The claim that everything that exists exists in a way of being can now be put as follows:

3. ∀x(x = x → ∃_BWoBb∃_by(x = y)).

Of course, (3) will be a theorem of the appropriate ways-of-being logic if we expand out "∀x" in accordance with (1). So (3) may seem trivial. But the objection of triviality seems exactly parallel to worrying that it is trivial on the JTB+ account of knowledge that if you know something, you believe it. Whether we have triviality depends on whether the account of generic existence or knowledge, respectively, is stipulative or meant to be a genuine account of a pre-theoretic notion. And nothing constrains the pluralist to making (1) and (2) be merely stipulative.

Suppose, however, your motivations for pluralism are theological: you don’t want to say that God and humans exist in the same way. You might then have the following further theological thought: Let G be a fundamental way of being that God is in. Then by transcendence, G has to be a category that is special to God, having only God in it. Moreover, by simplicity, G has to be God. Thus, the only way of being that God can be in is God. But this means there cannot be a fundamental category of ways of being that includes divine and non-divine ways of being.

However, note that even apart from theological considerations, the BWoB-quantifiers need not be fundamental. For instance, perhaps, among the ways of being there might be being an abstract object, and one could hold that ways of being are abstract objects. If so, then ∀_BWoBbG(b) could be defined as ∀_BAb(WoB(b)→G(b)), where BA is being abstract and WoB(x) says that x is a way of being.

Coming back to the theological considerations, one could suppose there is a fundamental category of being a finite way of being (BFWoB) and a fundamental category of being a divine way of being (BDWoB). By simplicity, BDWoB=God. And then we could define:

4. ∀_BWoBbF(b) if and only if ∀_BDWoBbF(b) and ∀_BFWoBbF(b).

5. ∃_BWoBbF(b) if and only if ∃_BDWoBbF(b) or ∃_BFWoBbF(b).

Note that we can rewrite ∀_BDWoBbF(b) and ∃_BDWoBbF(b) as just F(God).

Simplicity and divine decisions

One of the most difficult problems for divine simplicity are how to square it with creation and divine knowledge of free actions. On its face, there are at least four distinct states of God:

1. God's essential nature
2. God's contingent decisions
3. God's knowledge of his contingent decisions
4. God's knowledge of creatures' free responses to his contingent decisions.

Calvinists can reduce (4) to (3) (say, by grounding (4) in (3), and holding that if state B is grounded in state A, that does not really multiply states in a way contrary to divine simplicity), thereby reducing the number of distinct states from four to three. Thomists, and presumably some Calvinists as well, can reduce (3) to (2): God's decision is identical with his knowledge of his decision. Even if we make both of these controversial moves, we still have the distinction between God's essential nature and his contingent decisions (which are then identical with his knowledge of the decisions and his knowledge of creatures' responses thereto).

My own preferred sketch of a solution to these problems is here. The solution proceeds by making the contingent aspects of (2)-(4) be extrinsic to God.

For those Christians who are unimpressed by the strength of the traditional commitments (in the pre-Reformation tradition, but also in people like Calvin and Turretin) to divine simplicity, and the arguments for divine simplicity, the natural solution will appear to be to deny divine simplicity, and then not worry about the problem.

They should still worry about the problem. For if one denies divine simplicity and holds that God has at least the two distinct constituents: his essential nature, N, and his contingent decisions, D, then one has to say something about the relationship between these two. Clearly, D is in some way explained by N: God acts as he does in part because of his essentially perfectly good character. The explanation is not a grounding-type explanation—to make it be a grounding-type explanation would be to hold on to a version of a divine simplicity explanation. In creatures, the corresponding explanation of decisions would be causal: the character causes (deterministically or not) the decision. So it seems that we have something very much like a causal relationship between N and D. And this in turn makes D be very much like a creature, indeed perhaps literally a creature. Since D is a constituent of God, it follows that a constituent of God is very much like a creature, perhaps literally a creature. But this surely contradicts transcendence!

Now perhaps one can insist that the relationship between N and D while being akin to causation is sufficiently different from it that D is sufficiently different from a creature that we have no violation of transcendence. Maybe, but I am still worried.

So if I am right, even if one denies divine simplicity, a version of the problem remains. And so the problem may not be a problem specifically for divine simplicity.