Can Consciousness Best Be Explained by God's Existence?

[Esquilax]

Although God is not comprehensible to us in a physicalistic/empirical sense, the most familiar and yet mysterious quality that everyone ascribes to Him (assuming that He exists) when they use the word "God" is that He possesses consciousness, that He has a mind. If He didn't have that then we wouldn't be calling Him "God." So, in our minds the idea of God and consciousness are inextricably connected.

I think it means, more pertinently, that it's hard to imagine a being that does things that doesn't possess the attributes we ascribe to consciousness. It's not a matter of the two being connected, it's a matter of consciousness naturally following on from the way gods are described; of course god would have to be conscious, because unconscious things don't imagine and act.

And the consciousness that we ascribe to God comes from our own experience of consciousness, which itself is a wholly subjective state. This means that, epistemically speaking, the unexplainability of God is not something separate or additional from the unexplainability of consciousness as people are thinking here. The mystery of God is caused by the mystery of consciousness and vice versa; they are just different perspectives.

We might not know everything about consciousness, but we do know some things. We know what chemicals can influence it and why, we know that, in every example of it that we currently have, it's tied to a physical brain that reacts along with it. We can test consciousness everywhere else, so it's kind of a flawed comparison.

Moreover, you're kind of jumping the gun given that consciousness without a brain seems like something worthy of explanation to begin with. How does that work, given what we can scientifically know about how minds work?

And how much of an explanatory power that God has doesn't just have to mean "scientifically explanatory," in case you were expecting it to be that way. Science itself is a construct of our own minds, yet science cannot explain minds because the mind is more fundamental.

How did you decide there is no scientific explanation for our minds?

The means of explaining things - whether it is through science, mathematics, religion, philosophy, or whatever - are all inherently subjective howsoever empirical or objective they might seem. The subjectiveness, the fundamental inwardness in ourselves is the only route we can take. Knowledge starts there and it ends there.

No, knowledge starts and ends with objectively demonstrable things. I think you mean that beliefs start in the subjective mind, not knowledge. Knowledge pertains to things that actually exist; you can't just think something into existence.

[Mudhammam]

What please is the qualitative difference between an experience and conclusions from a scientific observation?

The experience is intrinsically real. The attributes we make about the nature of the experience, or its source, are not.

So when you do scientific observation, you are really having the experience of looking at a microscope, or of writing down your results, or of reading your published work with pride. But none of all this tells you whether you are looking at a microscope inside a BIJ, or writing down your results on a Matrix reconstruction of paper, or reading the work as represented in the Mind of God. Most importantly, it does not give you good information about whether the universe is a physical monism, an idealistic monism, a substance duality, or something else.

Caveat: the same goes for religious attributions. Just because you see Jesus flying down from the sky to tickle your tummy with a magic feather, doesn't mean there's any underlying reality to that experience.

Eloquently stated.

[tor]

I wonder what excuses Rayaaan will come up with once consciousness will be explained scientifically.

[Alex K]

What please is the qualitative difference between an experience and conclusions from a scientific observation?

The experience is intrinsically real. The attributes we make about the nature of the experience, or its source, are not.

So when you do scientific observation, you are really having the experience of looking at a microscope, or of writing down your results, or of reading your published work with pride. But none of all this tells you whether you are looking at a microscope inside a BIJ, or writing down your results on a Matrix reconstruction of paper, or reading the work as represented in the Mind of God. Most importantly, it does not give you good information about whether the universe is a physical monism, an idealistic monism, a substance duality, or something else.

Caveat: the same goes for religious attributions. Just because you see Jesus flying down from the sky to tickle your tummy with a magic feather, doesn't mean there's any underlying reality to that experience.

Got it. I was under the impression you meant something more by "experience", namely including its interpretation in terms of an external reality. thx that clears it up

[houseofcantor]

You would have everyone take a leap of faith, and it is exactly that, and ignore the parts of reality that don’t fit neatly into the self-imposed limits of your own bias.

Theism. Producing unintended satire since 538 BCE.

[Mudhammam]

I wonder what excuses Rayaaan will come up with once consciousness will be explained scientifically.

We're what, three hundred years out from Descartes and have made no significant progress? I wouldn't hold your breath.

[MindForgedManacle]

Well I wouldn't say no significant progress. That's an exaggeration.

[bennyboy]

I wonder what excuses Rayaaan will come up with once consciousness will be explained scientifically.

I wonder what excuses he will come up with when pigs fly, as well.

[Alex K]

I wonder, since it is so nigh impossible to even define what we are looking for, what would an explanation even in principle look like?

[Mudhammam]

Well I wouldn't say no significant progress. That's an exaggeration.

I wouldn't say so. We absolutely have made substantial progress in understanding different brain processing functions but how it correlates to the phenomenon of subjective experience is as much a mystery today as it was when Descartes postulated the pinal gland as the bridge between the mind and the brain.

---

I wonder, since it is so nigh impossible to even define what we are looking for, what would an explanation even in principle look like?

Well, if we could replace the function of neurons with silicon chips and organize them in such a way as to simulate genuine volition, emotion, abstract imagery, etc. in a robot, then an explanation might involve the structural organization of information. But then again, some think consciousness requires a biochemical process.