No, I'm not talking about the sort of materialism where you shop 'til you drop. Rather, it's the sort of materialism which is non-dualist: the kind that says that consciousness is "merely" a by-product of physical things, and that there's no ethereal spirit or essence that magically imbues physical stuff with consciousness. By this definition, I am materialist.
One of the accusations that is tossed my way, when I have (admittedly infrequent) conversations on the topic is that this is a cold, unfeeling (even robotic) view to take. Basically, the argument posits that it is somehow inhuman to believe such a thing; and moreover, that it betrays our basic identity as humans to think that we are "merely" the result of physical events. I have no trouble accepting this view, though I certainly don't believe that being materialist detracts from the beauty and wonder of the world. In fact, I think it enhances it, but that's another issue entirely. Right now, I want to talk about the perception that materialism has hard edges and how the author of a book I just completed has reminded me that it isn't necessary for materialism to have such a bad rap.
The author? Douglas Hofstadter. The book?
I am a Strange Loop. The majority of the book deals with the notion that we (our sense of self) is a result of our ability to think about ourselves....or if you prefer, to think about the process of thinking. Furthermore, this level of thinking results from the ability to think abstractly and to be able to manipulate these abstractions. It certainly doesn't seem like the physical media (our brains) has much to do with the ability to think, but the abstract layer is built on top of the physical interactions that occur on the next level down.
Now, I really like thinking about thinking, but not all of this is entirely new to me. The part of the book that I really appreciate, though (and which inspired this post), was where the author argues that it is this "loopiness" (thinking about thinking) that constitutes our core, and that our ability to empathize with others comes from our ability to keep other such loops in our brain. That is, the loops other than our "self" loop contain the essence of other people; the better we know another person, the more strongly they resonate within ourselves.
Hofstadter makes the point at the end that the most selfless people are probably actually the most full of life:
...the more magnanimous one is, the greater one's self or soul is, not the smaller! So I would say that those who strike us as self-less are in fact very soul-full -- that is, they house many other souls inside their own skulls/brains/minds/souls -- and I don't think this sharing of mind-space diminishes their central core but enlarges and enriches it.
Hofstadter continues in the same vein:
...a sense of "I" ... is in reality brought into being if and only if along with that self there is a sense of other selves with whom one has bonds of affection. In short, only when generosity is born is an ego born.
And finally, the most important bit is that as a consequence of having a complicated enough brain, we get to love, to experience the world around us, and most importantly, to be aware of these wonderful things. This is hardly a cold, hard-edged materialism if you ask me.
