44

We live in an age of reductionism, that is to say, there is a general understanding that the way to  understand something—an organism, a system, a machine, anything, is to break it down, to reduce it to its smallest parts. That makes sense, certainly. To understand the human body, study the organs and appendages, to understand those, look at the muscles and nerves, to understand those, look at the cells. To understand cells, examine molecules. From molecules to atoms. That’s how you learn about something. Take it apart. Look at the parts.

That seems obvious, but there are puzzles. One is that you can never look at the final part, for there are no final parts. Think Zeno’s Paradox. Achilles can never catch the turtle. (#24) Further, as you go smaller and deeper, you no longer are studying what you started out to study. Obvious, you say, but if I explain a wheel to you, I have not explained the car. 

Now these are but puzzles, fun, maybe. But suppose you want to understand more about another person? What parts would you study to better understand the whole?  The brain? Take it apart cell by cell?  The brain is gone! 

An even more baffling matter is the mind which—contrary to a lot of AI enthusiasts—is not the same as the brain. Think about it. The brain at least has parts that can be examined. The mind does not have parts to examine.  But it is the mind that is aware. The brain is not aware of anything.    You might need a brain to have a mind, but they are not the same thing. If you lose your brain, you are dead. If you lose your mind, you are still alive, strange sounds or actions, perhaps, but alive. 

The mind is a mystery, but our analytical age likes machines, not mysteries.