The Shadow Analogy
A shadow appears to be a very simple phenomenon, and yet it is also a very complex phenomena--and I believe we can gain some understanding of your question by examining its nature.
Epiphenomenalism: According to a theory, known as epiphenomenalism, mental activity should not be thought of as a phenomena in the brain, but rather should be thought of as a by-product or side-effect of the physical states of the body, (including the brain). Thus, the mind is seen as being related to the body in much the way that a shadow is related to the object that casts it. A shadow is not made of any kind of stuff. It is simply a side-effect that occurs under the proper range of conditions; the exact shape and clarity of a shadow depends on what the current conditions are, (such as how bright and focused the light is and what kind of object is making the shadow.) Moreover, the shape of a shadow depends on the shape of the object casting it, but it would seem that the reverse is not true. Objects don't change their shape because a shadow does.
One of the apparent problems with epiphenomenalism is that if mental activity is analogous to a shadow this implies that mental thoughts are not really capable of causing us to behave in a specific way, as we intuitively believe that they do. For instance, we intuitively believe that when we feel thirsty we may decide to take a drink or we may decide not to drink. The choice is ours; and it is that mental activity (choosing) that causes us to drink.
But if mind is merely a by-product, (analogous to a shadow,) then it can't be a mental decision that makes us decide to drink when we're thirsty. As we said, a shadow doesn't move and cause a change in the shape of the thing that is casting it. So our belief that we are making a decision must be nothing more than an illusion; and what we call mind is nothing but a non-causal side-effect of the activity in the brain.
A New Approach: A shadow is certainly a by-product or side-effect, but seeing it strictly in these terms does little to tell us exactly what a shadow is. I believe a better way to understand the nature of a shadow is to ask not what it is, but how it is produced. When we do this, we begin to understand that a shadow is produced by a process.
- Epiphenomenalism asks, "What is a shadow?"
And answers, "It is a by-product or side-effect."
- This new approach asks, "How is a shadow produced?"
And answers, "By a process."
It's pretty obvious that in order for a shadow to occur certain things must be present, these can be summed up as follows:
1. A suitable surface onto which the shadow will fall,
2. A source of suitably focused light,
3. An object between the surface and the light source, and
4. A level of background (or unfocused) light which is low in comparison to the intensity of the focused light.
What may not be quite as obvious is that these things can be further divided into what we might call (for the purposes of our discussion here)
Conditionals and
Processionals:
Conditionals are typically more-or-less physical in nature; they are all things that exist independently of the shadow. The
Processionals are non-physical factors that never the less must be present in order for the process as a whole to work.
1.
The necessary Conditionals are:
....a. A surface
....b. A
light source, and
....c. An
object.
2.
The necessary Processionals are:
....a. The [surface] should be
sufficiently reflective,
....b. The [light source] should be
sufficiently focused and suitably intense,
....c. The [object] should be
between the [surface] and the [light source], but not actually touching the [surface], and
....d. The relative intensity of any unfocused
(background) light should be low compared to the intensity of the focused light.
Notice that each of the Processionals involve certain relational aspects that aren't actually named, but should be considered a part of what the Processional is. Take [2c], for instance: if the object is closer to the surface, it will be larger and darker. If it is closer to the light source it will be smaller and lighter. Each of the Processionals has a similar, variable relational-aspect.
There are also other Processionals that, while generally not necessary to produce a shadow, can affect the final shape and intensity of the shadow. For example: the angle at which the [light source] strikes the [object]; how far the [light source] is from the [reflective surface]; and the shape of that [surface]. For the most part, however, these unessential Processionals don't prevent the shadow from being formed as long as the other necessary Processionals are present. For instance, if you keep moving a table lamp further and further away from you, it won't be long before the light from it will not be intense enough to produce a noticeable shadow. The sun, on the other hand is much, much further away, but because it has a much greater intensity it is still capable of casting a shadow at a much greater distance away.
Notice that choosing the [intensity] of the light source as the necessary Processional, (rather than the [distance],) was somewhat arbitrary. It could just as easily be the other way around. I could have said that the [light source] must be suitably close to the [surface]. Then the intensity of the light would be considered an unessential Processional.
The important thing to keep in mind is that Processionals are relational aspects that interact with with each other, (and the Conditionals,) in complex ways; even when the product is something as apparently simple as a shadow. Furthermore, if any of these Conditionals or Processionals are not sufficiently present, a shadow will not be form. For example, we don't see shadows hanging in mid air, like a rainbow. You only see them on a surface, like the ground or a wall. Nor do you see an object that is not between the surface and a light casting a shadow. Likewise, we generally don't see a [pane of glass] casting a shadow, because glass it is generally not sufficiently opaque to block enough light to form a shadow. And, how clearly the shadow is defined depends on how well Conditionals and Processionals are met. A suitable surface implies a surface that is capable of reflecting light in a coherent way. A very dark surface is less effective at reflecting light, and will produce a somewhat less noticeable shadow; while a smooth surface is a more effective reflector than a rough surface, so a sponge of the same color as a shiny smooth table-top will allow for a weaker shadow. Likewise, you might still be able to see a shadow on an overcast day, but that shadow will be much fainter than it would be on a bright and sunny day.
Understanding the Nature of Shadows: We've looked at some of the more obvious truths about shadows: for instance what is necessary to make one, and that the final form of the shadow depends on how the various relational-aspect interact; but there are other, perhaps less obvious qualities of shadows that need to be considered as well:
1. With respect to a given shadow, Process and Conditionals are completely interdependent and bi-directionally causal: Intuitively, it seems pretty obvious that if we change a shadow's Conditionals we will change the nature of the shadow. For instance, all things being equal, if we change the size of the [object] we will change the size of the resulting shadow. A bigger object will produce a bigger shadow. But we can also change the nature of the shadow by changing only one of the Processionals. For instance, if the [object] is closer to the light source, it will also cast a bigger shadow, although it won't be as intense. In a sense, nothing about the Conditionals has been changed. The object is the same size, the light is the same intensity, and the surface is just as smooth. But the nature of the shadow has still been changed because of a new causal relationship between the Conditionals. Moreover, the same relational aspects hold true for all shadows. Every shadow will get bigger and fainter as you move the [object] closer to the [light source].
Thus, we see that any change in either the Conditionals or the Processionals results in a necessary change in the nature of the resulting shadow. How the shadow changes, and how much is carefully defined by the complex interaction of all the Conditionals and Processionals.
2. In a sense, Processionals and Conditionals are the same thing: If you remove every last hint of the Processionals from any given process the Conditionals disappear, for as we will see, all Conditionals are also ultimately Processes and therefore they must have Processionals. But neither can you get rid of the Conditionals and call everything a Processional; because a Processional can't exist in the real world without there being some Conditional that is involved in the process.
Because of this bi-causal relationship, we might refer to the shadow (and all other jointly created entities) as a Causal-Entity.
3. Process and Conditionals have distinct and opposite qualities:
a. The Process which creates a Causal-Entity is non-spatial: it has no mass or location. For example, the shadow can be said to have a location, but the process itself does not. Nor is it divisible, in physical terms. The various elements of a process are the Conditionals, which by themselves are not sufficient to create a shadow. And finally, a Process is not public, because you can not directly perceive it. We can indirectly perceive the Process in the form of the Causal-Entity, but this perception will frequently appear to be missing some of the aspects we would expect from a physical thing. For instance, a shadow is physical in a sense and not physical in a sense. We can see it with our eye, but we cannot feel it. All we can touch is the surface that it is on. Thus, we can say that the shadow is definitely there (and something is going on) in the physical world; but it is just as definitely not there in the same sense as a true physical object.
b. In contrast, the physical Conditionals, (of which every process must have at least one,) are spatial. The [Surface] and the [Light Blocking Object] are real, physical objects, having mass and location; which, of course, means that they are also divisible. And because anyone can see them they are obviously public.
4. Causal Entities are Related in a Hierarchical Way: As we know from quantum physics, the situation with light is a little different matter. (Remember that light was a Conditional for a shadow.) You could say that Light is more like the shadow than the other two Conditionals which were physical objects: the [Surface] or the [Light Blocking Object]. Light does have a physical aspect, which we call photons, but it also has a non-physical aspect, which we call waves. Also, the wave aspect of light is not divisible.
To make sense of what's going on here, we need to realize that Causal-Entities can contain other, smaller Causal-Entities as one of it's Conditionals. And, if a Causal-Entities can do this then it also stands to reason that it can become a Conditional for another, larger Causal-Entities. For example, the [Shadow Concept] is a necessary Conditional for explaining the process of a motion picture. Think about it. Certain parts of the film block more or less of the light so that parts of the screen are darker than other parts. Obviously, color and other elements are also involved, but all the shadow Conditionals are satisfied by the movie process. (1) A movie is typically shown in a dark room to increase the contrast between the focused and non focused light. (2) The film serves as a variable barrier to block different amounts of the light shining through the film, (3) And from the projector, which is the source of focused light. And finally, (4) the screen provides a highly reflective surface for the shadows of light to dance against.
In the same way that a shadow is a Conditional in the larger Causal-Entity which is a movie, so too, light is a Conditional for the larger Causal-Entity that is a shadow.
5. Conditionals are related to one another in complex way that are capable of forming cycles and other more complex structural dynamics. This fact allows a single Causal-Entity to vary in more than one way. We saw above that a shadow could become lighter or darker, but there are other ways to see a shadow as being more or less of a shadow. For instance, at noon my shadow may be very dark, but because of the angle of the sun's rays the size of the shadow that is cast is very small. If you're out jogging at night you might pass under a series of night lamps. When you're right under the light your shadow is all but undetectable. But then, as you move away from it your shadow begins to enlarge, becoming more obvious. As you move further away from the light the shadow can become very long, but because the light is further away the shadow is also less clearly defined. Eventually the shadow becomes so long and so weakly defined that it seems to disappears altogether. By this time, you may be moving close enough to another night lamp that a new shadow is being cast behind you. Slowly it seems to catch up with you until it is once again right under you and seems to disappear.
6. All Causal-Entities have a physical and a non-physical aspect: Because of the incredibly wide range of ways that Causal-Entities can be interrelated, there is also a wide range of ways that Causal-Entities express these physical and non-physical aspects. For example: You can see a shadow, so in a sense you can say that there is something there, in the physical world. But you can't touch it. If you put your fingers on the surface where the shadow exists all you'll feel is the surface, not the shadow. So you can also say that the shadow is not physical. Likewise, light has a physical aspect, which we call a photon; and a non-physical aspect, which we call a wave.
This pattern holds true at one level or another for every Causal-Entity, and since all physical objects are Causal-Entities, all physical objects must also have a non-physical aspect. This is true in two different ways: (a) In a sense, matter and energy are equivalent, so again we see the same physical and non-physical pattern. In this case, it's just a little less obvious. Because a physical object has all the properties that we typically use to define what makes an object physical, the non-physical nature of such an object can only be seen on the very small scale of the microscopic, or in theoretical principle: mass=energy. (b) all physical things can be said to fit into one or more conceptual categories. These conceptual categories are not physical in any normal sense of the word, and are, in essence, nothing but [Process].[/list]
By way of analogy: the shadow is akin to reality. The
processionals are what is [non-material] while the
conditionals are what is [material]. The shadow may appear to have material qualities, but in reality it has qualities that are
both [material
and non-material]. Or we can just as easily think of it as being
neither [material
or non-material]. But more importantly, if you remove either the [material] or the [non-material] aspects that are necessary to create the shadow, the shadow ceases to exist.
I believe it is the same thing with reality. You can not suppose that the [material] and [non-material] aspects are distinct and different--or that you can remove one without removing they other. They are interdependent, reciprocal aspects--or in other words, two different ways of looking at the exact same thing.
