No god, no you: consciousness and gods existence

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. Version 1.0, September 2014.

“For centuries Eastern heart and

intellect have been absorbed in the

question;

Does God exist?

I propose to raise a new question; new,

that is to say, for the East:

Does man exist?”

Summary

1. Consciousness cannot be explained by

materialism.

2. Consciousness is not a product of matter.

3. Consciousness is best explained by theism.

Materialists Are Struggling • “But there’s the rub. How the brain converts bioelectrical activity into

subjective states, how photons reflected off water are magically

transformed into the percept of an iridescent aquamarine mountain

tarn is a puzzle. The nature of the relationship between the nervous

system and consciousness remains elusive and the subject of heated and

interminable debates.”

Christof Koch. Consciousness: Confession of a Romantic Reductionist. MIT Press. 2012, p. 23.

• “The singular point of view of the conscious, experiencing observe is

called the first-person perspective. Explaining how a highlight

organized piece of matter can possess an interior perspective has

daunted the scientific method, which so many other areas has proved

immensely fruitful.”

Christof Koch. Consciousness: Confession of a Romantic Reductionist. MIT Press. 2012, p. 24.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness

• “The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience.

When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information processing, but

there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is

something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is

experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the

felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of

depth in a physical field. Other experiences go along with perception in

different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then

there are bodily sensations from pains to orgasms; mental images that are

conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion; and the experience of a

stream of conscious thought. What unites all these states is that there is

something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of

experience…If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it

is this one. In this central sense of ‘consciousness’, an organism, and a

mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state.”

David Chalmers. The Character of Consciousness. Oxford University Press. 2010, p. 5.

Professor Torin Alter • Why do physical brain processes produce conscious experience?

– “As I type these words, cognitive systems in my brain engage in visual and

auditory information processing. This processing is accompanied by states

of phenomenal consciousness, such as the auditory experience of hearing

the tap-tap-tap of the keyboard and the visual experience of seeing the

letters appear on the screen. How does my brain’s activity generate those

experiences? Why those and not others? Indeed, why is any physical

event accompanied by conscious experience? The set of such problems is

known as the hard problem of consciousness…Even after all the associated

functions and abilities are explained, one might reasonably wonder why

there is something it is like to see letters appear on a computer screen.”

The Oxford Companion to Consciousness. Edited by Tim Bayne, Axel Cleeremans and

Patrick Wilken. Oxford University Press. Paperback edition. 2014, p340.

Materialist perspectives can correlate you eating a

strawberry with areas of your brain. But they can

never find out or examine what it is like to eat a

strawberry for you! They can never explain why a

particular brain process causes subjective experience.

The personal subjective

conscious experience is

outside the scope of the

materialist framework.

Car and the Driver

The brain is the car, and consciousness is the driver. The car will not

move without the driver and the driver will not be able to start the car -

or use it properly - if it is damaged or broken. However, they are both

different and independent in some way.

Prof. Edward Feser

“The experience has a coherent significance

or meaning, and significance or meaning

for a single subject of experience. You are

not only aware of the shape, texture, colors,

etc. as separate elements, but are aware of

them as a book; and it is you who are aware

of them, rather than myriad neural events

somehow each being ‘aware’ of one

particular aspect of the book.” Edward Feser. The Philosophy of Mind. OneWorld. 2006, p.

138.

Some Key Points

• You can’t describe conscious states with the language of

science.

• If you all you have is matter, and the history of the universe

is taking these chunks of matter and rearranging them, you

will not get consciousness.

• If you start with matter you will not end up with mind

(consciousness).

• If there is such a thing as consciousness and it is non-

physical then there will never be a scientific explanation.

A Summary of Failed

Biological Explanations

5 P

eri

lou

s S

trate

gie

s 1. Explain something else.

Researchers simply admit the problem of experience is too difficult for now

and may be outside of the domain of science.

2. Deny the hard problem of consciousness.

It is to accept we are Zombies, with an illusion of free will and volition.

This strategy describes the human reality as a biological machine with no

subjective experience. Reductio ad absurdum.

3. Subjective experience is explained by understanding the physical

processes in our brain.

But this sounds like magic. Experience somehow emerges without

explanation. The question “how do these processes give rise to experience?”

is never answered.

4. Explain the structure of experience.

This strategy tells us nothing of why there should be experience in the first

place.

5. Isolate the substrate (the underlying basis or layer) of experience.

This strategy aims to isolate the neural basis for experience by

understanding certain processes. However, this strategy does not explain

why experience emerges from these process and how.

Francis Crick’s and Christof

Koch’s Toward a Neurobiological

Theory of Consciousness.

• Crick’s and Koch’s theory is based upon certain neural

oscillations in the cerebral cortex, and they claim that these

oscillations are the basis of consciousness because they

seem to be correlated with awareness, more specifically

visual awareness.

Criticisms • The main criticism of the theory involves the following

questions: why do oscillations give rise to subjective

experience? How, by just viewing these neurological

happenings, can we appreciate what that experience is like?

Putting this criticism aside, Koch openly admits these limitations

to his theory. In a published interview he confesses:

– “Well, let’s first forget about the real difficult aspects, like

subjective feelings, because they may not have a scientific

solution. The subjective state of play, of pain, of pleasure,

of seeing blue, of smelling a rose--there seems to be a huge

jump between the materialistic level, of explaining

molecules and neurons, and the subjective level.” http://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/whatisconsciousn149

Prof. David Chalmers

• “Even if every behavioral and cognitive

function related to consciousness were

explained, there would still remain a further

mystery: Why is the performance of these

functions accompanied by conscious

experience? It is this additional conundrum

that makes the hard problem hard.” http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/chalmersphil1.p

df

A Summary of Attempts

to Explain Consciousness

in the Philosophy of Mind

Monistic Materialism/

Type-A Materialism • Based on the premise that everything is matter.

• The brain is made up of neurons undergoing physical and chemical processes,

therefore explaining these complex processes will explain consciousness.

• Consciousness (subjective experience) is merely an illusion. They deny the hard

problem of consciousness

– Not an adequate explanation of consciousness as it just redefines

consciousness and ignores what requires explaining: the hard problem of

consciousness.

• Professor David Chalmers writes:

– “The characteristic feature of the type-A materialist is the view that on

reflection there is nothing in the vicinity of consciousness that needs

explaining over and above explaining the various functions: to explain

these things is to explain everything that needs to be explained.”

David Chalmers. The Character of Consciousness. Oxford University Press. 2010, p. 111

Atheist Daniel Dennet

• “Dennet’s theory has been heavily criticized because it

seems to redefine ‘consciousness’ in such a way that the

term comes to mean something very different from what we

originally set out to explain. Dennet’s famous 1991 book is

titled “Consciousness explained”, but many felt it should

have been called “Consciousness explained away”. What

most people wanted to find an explanation for is

phenomenal consciousness, qualia and subjectivity, but

Dennet dismisses them as mere illusions.” Antti Revonsuo. Consciousness: The Science of Subjectivity. Psychology Press. 2010, pp. 180-181.

Type-B Materialism • There is an epistemic gap between physical and phenomenal domains (the

experience of moving, colours, sounds, sensations, emotions and feelings with our

bodies).

• But that gap can be explained with a materialistic philosophy because there is a link

between certain activities in the brain and certain experiences of consciousness.

– Not an adequate explanation of consciousness it assumes materialism to be

true without justification, and implies that there is a fundamental law that

connects consciousness with matter. However, if it is distinct from matter,

then matter cannot explain it.

• Professor Chalmers explains the problems here:

– “If one acknowledges the epistemically primitive connection between physical

states and consciousness as a fundamental law, it will follow that

consciousness is distinct from a physical property since fundamental laws

always connect distinct properties…This suggestion is made largely in order to

preserve a prior commitment to materialism.”

David Chalmers. The Character of Consciousness. Oxford University Press. 2010, p. 116-117

Type-C Materialism

• There is a deep epistemic gap between physical and

phenomenal states (states of consciousness such a

emotions, feelings, etc.).

• This gap will be closed when we improve our scientific

knowledge.

– Not an adequate explanation of consciousness. It is a form of the

“science of the gaps” fallacy. It is essentially saying we presume

materialism to be true, but we have no idea how consciousness is

related to matter, or how it came from it.

Neurophysiologist John C. Eccles

• “I maintain that the human mystery is

incredibly demeaned by scientific

reductionism, with its claim in promissory

materialism.” J. C. Eccles. Evolution of the Brain, Creation of the Self. Routledge. 1989, p. 241.

No Idea

• “The truth is that naturalism has no plausible way

to explain the appearance of emergent mental

properties in the cosmos. Ned Block confesses that

we have no idea how consciousness could have

emerged from nonconsious matter: ‘we have

nothing-zilch-worthy of being called a research

programme…Researchers are stumped’.” J. P. Moreland. “The Argument from Consciousness” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural

Theology. Edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. 2009. p. 340.

Type-D Dualism/

Interactionist Dualism • Consciousness and the brain are radically different yet

somehow highly interactive.

• Phenomenal states cause physical states, and physical states

cause phenomenal states.

• Strong candidate however objections and support taken

from physical and Quantum mechanics.

– Not an adequate explanation as it doesn’t explain how

consciousness emerged from nonconscious matter. Fails to

explain how they interact.

Type-E Dualism/

Epiphenomenalism

• Phenomenal states are distinct from physical states.

• Physical states cause phenomenal states but not the

other way round.

• Popular rejections include that if true, a sensation

of a pain in my hand due to a hot flame plays no

causal role in my hand moving away.

– Not an adequate explanation as consciousness and

reports about consciousness are some lucky accident!

Type-F Monism/

Phenomenalism/Panpsychism

• All material physical systems contain a form of subjective

consciousness.

• Consciousness is an intrinsic property of the universe and it

has a causal role in the universe.

– Not an adequate explanation. How do raw pieces of matter

contain consciousness? Assumes consciousness is everywhere.

There is no such thing as consciousness being possessed by

anything other than a unified “I” or living entity. So how can

chunks of matter contain consciousness?

A Unified Conscious Experience

Explained By Many Experiences?

• Since we do experience a unified conscious experience then

it would be untenable to assert that it is a product of

individually conscious objects (which is the implication of

panpsychism).

• If each object relates to discrete brain processes, processing

the object's sequence of colours, shapes and textures, then

how do they then manage to add up to a meaningful,

unified experience?

Near-Death Experiences

• Dr. Pim Van Lommel:

– “The widespread reports of an enhanced and

lucid consciousness during a spell of

unconsciousness brought on by the loss of brain

function can inspire us not only to change our

perception of the relationship between

consciousness and brain function but also to

change our ideas about life and death.” Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience. HaperOne. 2010, p. 310.

Materialism Fails on

Account of NDEs • “In a recent interview of 93 reports of potentially verifiable out-of-body

perceptions (or ‘ apparently nonphysical veridical perceptions’) during

NDE it has been found that 43 % had been corroborated to the investigator

by an independent informant, and additional 43 % had been reported by

the exeriencer to have been corroborated by an independent informant who

was no longer available to be interview by the investigator, and only 14 %

relied solely on the experiencer’s report. Of these out-of-body perceptions,

92 % were completely accurate, 6 percent contained some error, and only

1% was completely erroneous. And even among those cases corroborated

by the investigator by an independent informant, 88 percent were

completely accurate, 10 percent contained some error, and only 3 percent

were completely erroneous.”

J. M. Holden. Veridical Perception in Near-Death Experiences. In J. M. Holden, B. Greyson, and D.

James, eds., The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences. 2009, pp. 185-211.

Listen to this

fascinating case

study…

During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic,

comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an

hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives

artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and

defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he

turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures

and put them onto the ‘crash car’. Meanwhile, we continue extensive

CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart

rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he

is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue

the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet

again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I

distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: ‘Oh, that

nurse knows where my dentures are’. I am very surprised. Then he

elucidates: ‘Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you

took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all

these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there

you put my teeth.’

I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while

the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked

further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he

had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy

with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the

small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the

appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he

observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would

stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been

very negative about the patient’s prognosis due to his very poor

medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he

desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he

was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply

impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death.

4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man. Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands Pirn van

Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich. The Lancet 15 December 2001 (Volume 358

Issue 9298 Pages 2039-2045 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)07100-8.)

1. Where Did Consciousness

Come From? • Professor J.P. Moreland explains how it could not have

been via natural physical processes:

– “Our knowledge of the natural world would give us

positive reasons for not believing that irreducible

consciousness would appear in it, e.g. the geometrical

rearrangement of inert physical entities into different

spatial structures hardly seems sufficient to explain the

appearance of consciousness.” J. P. Moreland. Consciousness and the Existence of God: A Theistic Argument.

Routledge. 2008, p. 35.

2. How Did Consciousness Enter

The Physical World?

• Professor Charles Taliaferro explains:

– “But in a theistic view of consciousness, there is no parlor trick or

discrete miraculous act of God behind the emergence of

consciousness. Consciousness emerges from the physical cosmos

through an abiding comprehensive will of God that there be a

world of physical and non-physical objects, properties, and

relations. The relation between matter, energy, consciousness, the

laws of space-time, tout court, all stem from an overwhelming,

divine, activity.”

Charles Taliaferro. Naturalism and the Mind in Naturalism: A Critical Analysis. Edited by

William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Routledge. 2006, pp. 148-9.

3. Greater Explanatory Power • Professor Taliaferro similarly concludes:

– “From the vantage point of a fundamentally materialist

cosmology, the emergence of consciousness seems

strange; it is likened to claiming ‘then a miracle

happens.’ But from the vantage point of theism, the

emergence of consciousness may be seen as something

deeply rooted in the very nature of reality. The creation

of animal and human consciousness is not some

isolated miracle, but a reflection of the underlying

structure of reality.” Charles Taliaferro. Naturalism and the Mind in Naturalism: A Critical Analysis. Edited by

William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Routledge. 2006, pp. 150.

4. Explaining Interaction Between

The Physical and Non-Physical

• God's will and power has enabled such interaction to take

place, as this interaction is part and parcel of reality that

God has created. Simply, if in the beginning of the cosmos

all you had was matter then you would never get

consciousness. However, if in the beginning there was a

type of consciousness that created the physical world then

it follows the interaction between the nonphysical mental

states and physical brain states.

5. Explains Ability To Have

Subjective Experiences

• Theism explains our ability to have subjective conscious

states and the fact that we have an awareness of what it is

to be like ourselves, experiencing tastes, sounds and

textures. Since the universe was created by an Ever-Living,

Alive, All-Aware being, it follows that we have been given

this capacity to be aware of our inner subjective states.

The Argument Summarised

1. Subjective conscious experiences can be best

explained via a materialist, theist or other

competing worldview.

2. Subjective conscious experiences cannot be

explained via materialist or other competing

worldviews.

3. Therefore, subjective conscious experiences is best

explained via theism.

“Do they not contemplate

within themselves?”

Qur’an 30:8

Consciousness is Everywhere? • There are no clear examples of consciousness existing outside the

subjective experience of a subject or a living entity.

– What does painfulness mean without a self or an ‘I’ or ‘thoughts’.

– I cannot conceive a thought with a thinker.

• There is no such thing as consciousness being possessed by anything

other than a unified ‘I’ or a living entity or being.

• If the universe begins with consciousness, and that consciousness is a

fundamental feature of reality, it must belong or to have come from a

unified ‘I’.

– The counter argument would be to find conscious states not

belonging to a self, but you cant!

God Says We Will Never Know

• “And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say,

"The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have

not been given of knowledge except a little.” Qur’an 17:85

• To reconcile this apparent theological conflict it must be

understood that this verse concerns the essence of

consciousness or the soul, and not its existence. In actual

fact this verse affirms that there is an immaterial substance

that animates the body, in other words a soul or

consciousness.

God of the Gaps? • This argument is an inference to the best explanation…

• Testing moves to trusting. Science cannot observe subjective conscious

experiences.

– Neuro-chemical activity in the brain can only indicate that something is

happening, and not what it is like for that something to happen.

– If we were to understand every behavioural and cognitive function

related to consciousness and all the neuro-chemical happenings in the

brain were mapped out, there would still be an unanswered question:

why is the performance of these functions accompanied by conscious

experience?

– It is impossible to measure or deduce what the subjective experience of

pain actually is, or why it occurs, just by observing brain correlations.

• Door swings both ways…

Are NDEs Islamic? • The phenomenon of near-death experiences can be

explained via the existence of spirit world in the

Islamic tradition.

• It may deny popular conclusions, however only a

non-materialistic explanation is sufficient.

• Regardless of interpretation, the point is you can

explain it Islamically, and that any coherent

explanation of NDEs must be non-materialistic.

No Brain, No You!

• No one is denying that consciousness requires

the brain.

• Consciousness may be dependent on the brain

but it is not of the brain, as shown with the

hard problem of consciousness.

• Remember the brain and car analogy? Here is

another one: personal computer and software…

Questions?