Consciousness is perhaps the greatest mystery in the universe. Have you ever stopped to think about how you are thinking and what your consciousness actually is? Have you ever wondered how the first conscious being came to be on the planet? Scientists have come so far in their understanding of reality, yet in many respects, humankind is still groping around in the dark. Scientists have smashed elementary particles together to gain insights into what reality is made of, but the best they can do is study properties like mass, spin, and charge. They’ve learned so much about the fundamental forces of nature like gravity, magnetism, and the force that binds protons and neutrons together, but what these forces are they have no idea. Add consciousness to the mix and the mystery only deepens, because as far as scientists have come in understanding matter and energy, consciousness is nowhere to be seen in the elementary particles and the forces that operate in the universe.
The main concept philosophers and neuroscientists wrestle with is the idea of a soul. For thousands of years humans have believed in a soul, but since the 20th century, many scientists have called into question this idea and believe the day will come when science can explain consciousness without the need for a soul. But are there good reasons to discard the idea of the soul and stick with a purely physical explanation for consciousness? Have scientists cracked the consciousness code and proven that there is no soul responsible for our thoughts, emotions, or will?
It seems that consciousness is a rare phenomenon in the universe, yet somehow, some of the unconscious bits of matter floating around in the universe came together and formed conscious beings. If an intelligent being is not responsible for consciousness, then how a foreign phenomenon like conscious awareness suddenly emerged from unconscious elements demands an explanation. Of course, we all approach this subject with a priori commitments to certain worldviews, but which theory of consciousness most adequately explains what we know to be true about consciousness?
Different Theories of Consciousness
There are many different theories out there about what consciousness is, its origin, and how it operates. Let me briefly introduce you to some of the most popular theories of consciousness you might encounter if you study this topic:
1. Substance Dualism: This has been the traditional view of the Church and most of humanity. In this view, human beings are comprised of two substances (hence dualism), one physical, which is the body/brain, and the other spiritual, which is the soul, or mind. In my opinion, and for reasons that will be discussed in a subsequent article, soul and spirit can be used interchangeably, although I prefer to use the word spirit because of the New Testament’s use of the word.
2. Physicalism: Human beings are purely physical. Even consciousness can be explained in physical terms if we just understood the physical laws governing it. There is no spiritual substance that houses our consciousness; it is to be found in the brain and the brain only. Our first-person experience arises from the firing of neurons in the brain and there is nothing more to it.
3. Panpsychism: All of reality has protoconsciousness programmed into it. Even the electron or strings that form the elementary particles of our reality are imbued with a very basic form of consciousness.
4. Quantum Theory of Consciousness: Consciousness arises from quantum processes in the microtubules in the brain.
5. Idealism: All things are mind. Reality is mind. Our minds are what give reality expression. Not all agree that this universal mind is God’s mind.
6. Simulation Hypothesis: We live in a computer simulation much like a video game. The movie, The Matrix, is a good way to think about this idea of living in a simulation.
No matter the view one takes, I believe inevitably, it will lead to God. So, in this series of articles, I hope to show that God is the best explanation for why we see conscious beings in the universe, and why we possess first-person experience.
Physicalism
The physicalist view of consciousness is the predominant view in the academic and scientific world, so it’s appropriate that we start here. Physicalism (formerly materialism) is the idea that everything in the universe, even consciousness, has a physical cause and carries out physical processes. Physicalists believe the universe is a closed system; therefore, other substances or properties outside of the physical universe either don’t exist or can’t interact with the physical world. Consequently, most physicalists believe immaterial substances like spirits and souls are outdated concepts that need to be discarded if any progress is to be made in the field of neuroscience. Although science may not have the answer yet, physicalists have faith that the day will come when humans crack the consciousness code and include it in a unified theory of everything.
The Deficiencies of Physicalism
There are several problems with physicalism that leave it wanting. Since physicalists don’t believe in souls or spirits, they can only stay within what they call the “physical boundaries” of our reality to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. As we’ll discuss later, the idea of a physical boundary is misguided because the more we learn about physical matter, the more we discover matter is not so physical after all. But, for the sake of this article, let’s follow their line of thinking. We quickly see the ontological conundrum they find themselves in because of their a priori commitments to naturalism. Since everything is physical in this system, including consciousness, then all the physicalist has to work with are the fundamental forces of nature and the bits of matter created at the Big Bang, all of which have never shown properties like consciousness in isolation. Of course, panpsychists would object here, but we’ll get to that later. But how do we get consciousness from unconscious bits of matter in this worldview? The magic word is emergentism, and it is magic because only magic could make consciousness out of non-consciousness.
Emergentism
The idea consciousness can arise from complex molecular arrangements is known as emergentism. The defectiveness of this view is seen in a simple thought experiment. Suppose we could build a sentient brain using atoms. Atoms and the chemicals made from them are identical for both thinking brains and non-thinking brains. According to naturalistic ideas of consciousness, once a certain level of complexity is reached, our man-made brain will become aware and start feeling and having experiences. This implies that consciousness can be turned on and off like a switch by removing or adding just one atom.[1] There has to come a point when consciousness turns on when that one atom is added, so the removal of one atom would turn consciousness off. However, there is empirical evidence that damage to the brain or removing parts of a conscious brain do not turn consciousness off. Neuron cells in our brains live for many years but their components, the proteins and molecules that make up the cell, are continually being replaced,[2] yet our consciousness remains intact as atoms are recycled. Are we to believe that consciousness depends on complex arrangements of matter, but millions and millions of pieces of this matter can come and go and somehow the personality stays intact? It can’t be both ways. If it takes matter to turn consciousness on, then it takes matter to keep it on.
It is quite a leap to go from complex arrangements of molecules to consciousness without explaining the mechanism that “flips the switch” to make the molecules conscious. The only ingredients molecules have to work with are charge, spin, mass, and other properties held by elementary particles, but this is not enough to produce a conscious experience. What is it exactly that causes a completely foreign phenomenon like consciousness to arise from the complex arrangement of unconscious matter? Brandon Rickabaugh and J. P. Moreland make an excellent point in their book:
…emergence seems to be a case of getting something from nothing, a case of magic without a Magician. If matter is relevantly similar to what current physics and chemistry tell us, and it is bereft of any sort of mental entities, then matter does not have mental potentialities. Given this, it is hard to see how the mere spatial rearrangement of, say, atomic simples to form a more complicated spatial structure would be an adequate cause for bringing into existence ex nihilo a completely new sort of entity.[3]
To say consciousness emerges from complex arrangements of matter requires that there be a specific moment in time when the matter that makes up a brain suddenly “comes alive.” The atoms in the brain go from possessing mass, spin, and charge to possessing a completely foreign phenomenon like consciousness when just one atom is added to the mix and the arrangement of matter is just right. If the matter was not conscious to begin with, how is more unconscious matter arranged in a complex way going to change that? J.P. Moreland writes:
If you say, “In the beginning were the particles,” and all you do is rearrange those particles, you’re gonna end up with a more complicated arrangement of particles. You will not get mind popping into existence just by forming complex arrangements of molecules. That’s to get something from nothing. Now, to say, “In the beginning was the Logos,” or if your ontology or worldview begins with mind, or God, then there is no difficulty in explaining where mind comes from. On the theistic view, the fundamental entity is not the electron, or a string. It’s a mind. If you start with mind, it’s not hard to explain how you come up with other minded things.[4]
If Everything is Physical, Where Do Different Personalities Come From?
If physicalists are only going to look to matter and energy as the only ingredients for consciousness, then they need to explain how this accounts for different personalities among conscious beings. Even animals show distinct personalities, so physicalists need to explain how different consciousnesses emerge from identical, unconscious atomic and subatomic properties. As far as we know, atoms and the elementary particles that make up matter do not have first-person awareness (panpsychists would disagree). Remember, all the electron or any elementary particle could ever bring to the table are the properties of mass, charge, spin and so forth, and the mass, charge, and spin are the same for each particle. The mass isn’t a little different in one electron and the spin isn’t a little different in another electron. It’s uniform. But consciousness is not like this. All conscious beings have different personalities, so to say that consciousness can emerge from these basic, uniform properties still demands an answer. How did thinking organisms, all with different personalities, arise from this rather than robots that all think alike? If consciousness did emerge from these particles, all we would see are robots that compute information, but these robots would have no opinions on anything, no tastes in music, art, or movies, and no distinct personalities.
Where Do Different Opinions Come From?
It seems more likely that if consciousness did emerge from matter that all you could possibly get from this are robots that process information but derive no meaning from the information. Physicalists need to answer how all the different personalities we see in nature have different opinions about reality if they are all made from matter, which has no opinion or thought about anything. As William Hasker asked, “How can soggy, gray brain stuff give rise to technicolor phenomenology?[5] If consciousness is just the movement of molecules and electricity in the neurons of the brain, then how can one person hear Mozart’s music and love it, and another person hate it? From the physicalist standpoint, it’s the same sound frequencies hitting both sets of ears; it’s the same information being communicated to the brain; it’s the same movement of molecules and same physical processes going on in both brains, yet you have two different responses arising from this physical phenomenon. Therefore, there must be something beyond the physical that is experiencing the liking and disliking. Molecules don’t like or dislike, but a person with a mind does. It is an experience of the thinker with a mind, and while we can see a physical correlation in the brain, that physical activity in the brain isn’t the experience of liking or disliking Mozart’s music.
Where Do Different Talents Come From?
Consider also how physicalism fails to explain different talents and abilities, or where talent even comes from. I’ll use Mozart again as an example. Wolfgang Mozart and his older sister, whom they nicknamed Nannerl, were both raised in the same musical environment by a father who played violin and composed music. Both siblings were trained by their father, and Nannerl, being the oldest, had her father’s undivided attention and actually had an advantage. Both siblings had the same DNA, same environment, and the older sister actually had a couple years head start, yet the younger brother turned out to be one of the greatest musical composers in Western music and showed far more talent than his sister. We can’t attribute that to complexity because the atomic structure of the two siblings was very similar. According to physicalism, both Wolfgang and his sister are just atoms and molecules following the deterministic laws of physics, so all things being equal, the outcomes should have been just as predictable as any study performed in a lab and both siblings should have been identical in their musical abilities. Setting aside where talent even comes from, physicalism can’t explain how the complex arrangement of matter that formed the physical brain of Wolfgang produced the consciousness of a musical genius, and the same complex arrangement of matter that formed the sister’s brain didn’t produce the same kind of consciousness.
The Knowledge Argument
One of the most effective thought experiments to demonstrate the incoherence of physicalism is known as “the knowledge argument.”[6] In this thought experiment, there is a girl named Mary who lives five hundred years in the future. Mary was born with a condition where she can only see in black and white. Mary also happens to be the world’s leading expert on consciousness and neuroscience. Since she lives five hundred years in the future, humans have learned all there is to know about the science of color and how the brain responds to wavelengths of light, so Mary knows all there is to possibly know about the physical properties and physical laws involved in seeing colors. One day Mary decides to take advantage of new technology and she receives new eyes that can see in color. The question debated among philosophers is this: if Mary knew everything there was to know physically about sight, colors, and the brain before the surgery, could there by anything new to learn about the brain and consciousness when she saw in color for the first time? Physicalism claims there is nothing more than the physical properties involved, but if Mary did learn something new that went beyond knowledge of physical processes, then consciousness can’t just be physical. An inner experience of color is radically different than understanding something on a cognitive level, so when Mary gains the ability to see in color, she gains new knowledge. Since the knowledge she gained can’t be explained in physical terms (i.e., what it’s like to see red), there must be more to consciousness than physical properties.
Philip Goff contributes to this:
The great progress of neuroscience in understanding the mechanisms underlying color experience has been unable to provide the color-blind with any insight–zero, nothing, nada–into what it’s like to have color experience, and there is no reason at all to think this will change when a few more details are added. On this basis, the proponent of the knowledge argument can believe with confidence the key premise of the argument: that neuroscience cannot teach the blind/color-bling what it’s like to have color experience.[7]
We could change the example above with Mary and make her deaf and instead of seeing color for the first time, we could have her hear music for the first time. Mary could know everything about the science of music, pitch, and acoustics. She could know all the science behind the physical processes involved in hearing, but until she hears the music, she won’t know what it’s like. Understanding the science and physical processes involved in hearing music will never move Mary to tears, but if she got new eardrums that could hear, something would take place in her mind that transcends the chemical processes in her brain and she would hear a “beauty” she had never heard. It’s the quality of beauty that emerges from the physical properties that makes consciousness more than just physical properties.
Where Does Meaning Come From?
Physicalism also fails to explain how meaning is derived from processing or computing information in the brain. As an example, if you have an iPhone, say, “Hey, Siri. You are an idiot.” She will answer, “Hey, that’s not very nice.” While Siri may sound human, she is in fact, a computer program and is programmed to respond to negative comments. Siri has no feelings about what you say to her and there is no person named Siri who is conscious and can derive meaning from your words. Likewise, no matter how intelligent robots and machines become in the future, they will never experience consciousness. Artificial intelligence is a legitimate concern for our generation, but I don’t think machines will ever start thinking on their own and go beyond the codes we program into them.
David Barnett presents an interesting thought experiment to help explain how consciousness could not arise from the unity of countless atoms and molecules to give meaning to information.[8] He presents a scenario where there are billions of tiny men working together by pressing a button when they see certain lights or symbols. Each man is independent from all the others and only knows when to press a button when certain stimuli are presented, but each man is unaware of anything beyond their individual task and know no further information beyond flashes of light and symbols. The question is: can a master mind be produced from the merging of the individual consciousnesses that can see all of the flashes of light to get a unified message? We know this is highly unlikely, so, in the same way, our neurons act as each man with their “own consciousness” and can’t possibly know anything about another neuron other than the signal it emits. If a billion conscious men can’t produce a unified conscious experience by forming a mastermind, it’s even more unlikely that a billion unconscious bits of matter can give rise to a unified conscious experience from processing bits of information.
Or is it? Panpsychists think they have found a solution to the problem by making all of the smallest bits of matter conscious to begin with. Everything in reality, down to electrons, quarks, or strings, has a basic form of consciousness they call protoconsciousness. This means that the little bits of matter that make up our brains already have a lower level of consciousness, so when they all get together, a higher level of consciousness emerges from this. Is this a clever trick to get around the physicalists’ problem of making consciousness out of non-consciousness, or is it a legitimate idea to be considered?
The Bible seems to teach against the idea that there is consciousness or life in all inanimate objects. Look at this passage from the book of Habakkuk:
“What profit is an idol when its maker has shaped it, a metal image, a teacher of lies?For its maker trusts in his own creation when he makes speechless idols!19 Woe to him who says to a wooden thing, Awake; to a silent stone, Arise!Can this teach?Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in it.20 But the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him” (Habakkuk 2:18-20).
So, we really haven’t gotten anywhere with panpsychism because even if panpsychists are correct about reality, God is still the best explanation for where the protoconsciousness came from. Any degree of consciousness would have to be preceded by someone with a greater degree of consciousness, so theism is still the best explanation for the origin of consciousness.
In the next article, we will continue to look at the flaws of physicalism and demonstrate that consciousness can’t be reduced to just physical processes in the brain.
Sources
[1] Danko D. Georgiev, Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2018), 163.
[2] Brandeis University, "Neuroscience's Grand Question: How Do Neurons Regenerate Without Losing Memory?" May 21, 2014, ScienceDaily, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140521133514.htm.
[3] Brandon Rickabaugh and J. P. Moreland, The Substance of Consciousness: A Comprehensive Defense of Contemporary Substance Dualism (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2024), 36.
[4] J.P. Moreland, “Does the Soul Exist,” SE Apologist, October 25, 2017, YouTube Video, 48:34, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpiMzVA6lDE&t=566s.
[5] William Hasker, “The Dialetic of Soul and Body,” (online lecture at Biola University), July 31, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwUMBIlkRXk.
[6] Philip Goff, Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 2019), 73-74.
[7] Philip Goff, Galileo’s Error: Foundations for New Science of Consciousness New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 2019), 85.
[8] David Barnett, The Waning of Materialism, eds. Robert C. Koons and George Bealer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 168.
Comentários