Steelmanning the Argument From Consciousness

[POI]

The "argument from consciousness" is a philosophical argument that uses the existence of consciousness to argue for the existence of God.

Proponents claim that consciousness, with its subjective experiences and qualities, cannot be fully explained by physical matter alone, suggesting a non-physical source like a divine mind. This argument posits that consciousness must either be a product of a higher conscious being, or be an unexplained exception to the material universe.

Core tenets of the argument:

Fact: The argument begins with the premise that human consciousness, including subjective experiences (qualia) and self-awareness, is a real and fundamental aspect of human life. Consciousness exists. And I guess we'd like to know where it comes from?

Theists argue that a purely physicalist explanation of consciousness is insufficient. The argument is that it is difficult to explain how physical matter (like the brain) can give rise to subjective experience, consciousness, and intentionality without an outside mind to induce such a phenomenon. Meaning, invoking the necessity of a non-physical source. Because consciousness cannot (yet or ever) be fully explained by physical processes, the argument concludes that there must be a non-physical or supernatural element involved. But because we do not currently know something, then means 'god did it'? Inference to a divine mind by theists run rampant. Many versions of the argument then propose that a "Divine Mind" is the most plausible source for consciousness. If God, a being of pure consciousness, exists, then the existence of finite consciousness is less surprising and can be understood as a creation.

Common variations and counterarguments are given, in favor of a "mind". Below are a couple of examples:

-- J.P. Morland argues that the emergence of consciousness from a purely physical universe is not plausible, and therefore, a fundamental consciousness must have existed from the beginning, which he identifies as God.

-- Richard Swinburne argues that consciousness, with its purpose and intentionality, is exactly what one would expect to find in a universe created by a God interested in creating beings capable of mental interaction.

Some of the counterarguments, or pushback, are as follows:

-- "Physicalism" argues that while we may not yet fully understand consciousness, science is continually making progress, and the "explanatory gap" will eventually be closed by explaining consciousness in physical terms. This is where the deist/theist will then state naturalists are just as guilty of 'faith' as they are.

-- (Correlation vs. causation) The assertion that consciousness came from a god can be debunked by clarifying the difference between correlation and causation and identifying the argument as an argument from ignorance. Correlation vs. Causation means that two variables or events happen at the same time or seem to be related in some way, but it does not mean one caused the other. Causation means that a change in one variable directly causes a change in another variable, establishing a direct cause-and-effect relationship.

-- Some naturalists point out that consciousness, as we know it, is always directly tied to a physical body and brain, making an inference to a brainless God contradictory. Meaning, consciousness is linked to the body, period.

***********************

For reference, I fully acknowledge that this topic is not solved and is speculative.

For debate: It is unjustified or justified to now invoke supernatural causation for the existence of consciousness? Is the theist's position fallacious, demonstrating the (argument from ignorance) and maybe others? Or, are naturalists just in denial of the 'obvious'?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

It is unjustified or justified to now invoke supernatural causation for the existence of consciousness? Is the theist's position fallacious, demonstrating the (argument from ignorance) and maybe others? Or, are naturalists just in denial of the 'obvious'?

Theists argue that a purely physicalist explanation of consciousness is insufficient.

I consider myself a theist because I am convinced we exist within a created thing - thus there will be a creator - which is usually referred to as "GOD" - but I consider the idea of a non-physical (supernatural) GOD to be overreach - and unnecessary for that.

The argument is that it is difficult to explain how physical matter (like the brain) can give rise to subjective experience, consciousness, and intentionality without an outside mind to induce such a phenomenon. Meaning, invoking the necessity of a non-physical source.

Perhaps the idea that consciousness is non-physical has brought about the idea of supernatural?

Do you think consciousness is physical or non physical? I don't mean "does it have a physical cause" (such as a brain) but rather, what it is in essence.

[POI]

I consider myself a theist because I am convinced we exist within a created thing - thus there will be a creator - which is usually referred to as "GOD"

Why exactly are you convinced? And is/are this/these reason(s) fallacious, or not? This goes back to the debate question.

Perhaps the idea that consciousness is non-physical has brought about the idea of supernatural? Do you think consciousness is physical or non physical? I don't mean "does it have a physical cause" (such as a brain) but rather, what it is in essence.

Are you referring the topic of 'substance dualism', other?

[William]

I consider myself a theist because I am convinced we exist within a created thing - thus there will be a creator - which is usually referred to as "GOD"

Why exactly are you convinced? And is/are this/these reason(s) fallacious, or not? This goes back to the debate question.

Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self

We humans really made our beds with this one

God/Source/Home Why is this a Requirement?

A Sturdy Place Within that which is unseen

ITs natural Quintessential Frequency

Learning stuff most folk prefer to ignore.

Should reality be measured with that in mind?

I have probably written songs about this

Perhaps the idea that consciousness is non-physical has brought about the idea of supernatural? Do you think consciousness is physical or non physical? I don't mean "does it have a physical cause" (such as a brain) but rather, what it is in essence.

Are you referring the topic of 'substance dualism', other?

I am asking you to say what you think Consciousness is made of. Not what it is made from. What do you think Consciousness is, in its own right.

[POI]

I consider myself a theist because I am convinced we exist within a created thing - thus there will be a creator - which is usually referred to as "GOD"

1) Why exactly are you convinced? 2) And is/are this/these reason(s) fallacious, or not? This goes back to the debate question.

Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self

We humans really made our beds with this one

God/Source/Home Why is this a Requirement?

A Sturdy Place Within that which is unseen

ITs natural Quintessential Frequency

Learning stuff most folk prefer to ignore.

Should reality be measured with that in mind?

I have probably written songs about this

Okay. You responded to the first question, listing talking points or catch-phrases. Care to "hone in" on one of them to explore?

However, I also asked a second question. 2) And is/are this/these reason(s) fallacious, or not?

I am asking you to say what you think Consciousness is made of. Not what it is made from. What do you think Consciousness is, in its own right.

At present, I think consciousness cannot exist without a physical 'brain'. Meaning, consciousness is not made of a single substance, but is an emergent property of the brain's intricate network of neurons and synapses, which process information through electrochemical signals. Some theories suggest it's a) a form of information processing, while others propose it could be b) a fundamental property of matter itself, like in "panpsychism". While not appealing to authority, but I have to infer to them as I'm not well-verses (at present) to directly challenge them with an alternative hypothesis or 'theory', is that most of "scientific consensus" states that consciousness arises from the physical, biological material of the brain, although the exact mechanism is still not fully understood.

Does the above address/answer your question?

[William]

Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self

We humans really made our beds with this one

God/Source/Home Why is this a Requirement?

A Sturdy Place Within that which is unseen

ITs natural Quintessential Frequency

Learning stuff most folk prefer to ignore.

Should reality be measured with that in mind?

I have probably written songs about this

AI: This passage reflects on the necessity of communicating with a deeper, unseen part of oneself—often identified as God or Source. It suggests that humans have created a complex situation (”made our beds”) by ignoring this essential, natural frequency of existence. The core question is whether our reality should be measured and understood with this foundational, inner truth in mind.

[Replying to POI in post #5]

Okay. You responded to the first question, listing talking points or catch-phrases. Care to "hone in" on one of them to explore?

These are some answers to your question. All are connected. I can talk about the first on the list...but generally they are all aspects of why I am convinced...

AI Overview
Steel-manning: How Better Arguments Can Make You Succeed
Steelmanning is the practice of presenting the strongest possible version of an opponent's argument to understand their position better, even if it's not the one they explicitly stated.

Given that, what would you present as the strongest possible version for "Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self"?

However, I also asked a second question. 2) And is/are this/these reason(s) fallacious, or not?

Ask yourself. "Is Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self" fallacious, or not?

What is your answer?

At present, I think consciousness cannot exist without a physical 'brain'. Meaning, consciousness is not made of a single substance, but is an emergent property of the brain's intricate network of neurons and synapses, which process information through electrochemical signals. Some theories suggest it's a) a form of information processing, while others propose it could be b) a fundamental property of matter itself, like in "panpsychism". While not appealing to authority, but I have to infer to them as I'm not well-verses (at present) to directly challenge them with an alternative hypothesis or 'theory', is that most of "scientific consensus" states that consciousness arises from the physical, biological material of the brain, although the exact mechanism is still not fully understood.

Does the above address/answer your question?

Partially.

What your answer does do is circle back to "where consciousness comes from" rather than "what consciousness is made of" and even that you do note "consciousness is not made of a single substance" this implies various substances - but those remain unlisted by you - so it is vague in that.

Your circling back to "made from" gives me the impression you might believe that consciousness isn't really made of substances but is a process of substances, themselves made of substances...thus it is a kind of "ghost" in the machinery of substances.

If so, then what is the difference between that and "the supernatural"?

It is unjustified or justified to now invoke supernatural causation for the existence of consciousness?

Re that, is it unjustified or justified to now invoke natural causation for the existence of consciousness if consciousness is essentially made of nothing/no substance...and thus can be categorised as supernatural?

[POI]

These are some answers to your question. All are connected. I can talk about the first on the list...but generally they are all aspects of why I am convinced...

Okay, what'zya got?

Given that, what would you present as the strongest possible version for "Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self"?

At present, we do not know enough about consciousness to discern an 'absolute' answer, and/or, if it is ultimately theoretically and materialistic alone in nature (or) not? Hence, like the debate question alludes to, (paraphrased) - is it a little hasty to reach a 'god' conclusion, or not, based upon what is not yet known?

Ask yourself. "Is Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self" fallacious, or not? What is your answer?

I think it would first depend on what you mean by "deeper Levels of Self'? But this is not what I'm addressing. I'm asking where consciousness originates? My current position is that it originates from the brain and the brain alone. And without the brain, consciousness does not exist. In other words, no brain, no consciousness. If I remove part or all of your brain; you no longer possess consciousness. Meaning, consciousness requires a physical brain. Can you provide "evidence/other" for anything beyond this reality?

Partially.

What your answer does do is circle back to "where consciousness comes from" rather than "what consciousness is made of" and even that you do note "consciousness is not made of a single substance" this implies various substances - but those remain unlisted by you - so it is vague in that.

It starts from the brain. We know "mental states" come from the brain. It would be your burden to show or demonstrate that mental states are instead given TO your brain from some external unidentified source.

Your circling back to "made from" gives me the impression you might believe that consciousness isn't really made of substances but is a process of substances, themselves made of substances...thus it is a kind of "ghost" in the machinery of substances.

Pardon me for maybe not currently coming up with a better example, but it would be like asking what are the identified brain state attributes of 'love' or 'jealously' made out of? All brain states, whether it is self-aware thought, or an involuntary thought, all come from the same physical brain, and are all 'made' of the same 'stuff'. Just because we do not know, yet, exactly what this stuff is, means 'god'?

If so, then what is the difference between that and "the supernatural"?

The 'supernatural', as it relates to THIS arena, would possess all the attributes of the Christian God. An agency in which maybe neither of us are on board with...?

Re that, is it unjustified or justified to now invoke natural causation for the existence of consciousness if consciousness is essentially made of nothing/no substance...and thus can be categorised as supernatural?

Addressed above. In essence, are you attempting to argue that brain states are immaterial? If so, nothing immaterial is demonstrated, and the time to believe is after it has been demonstrated.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #7]

Just because we do not know, yet, exactly what this stuff is, means 'god'?

Could be. Not necessarily what you referred to as "would possess all the attributes of the Christian God" but the stuff being a mystery, what Theists (some like myself) understand as (at least) an aspect of GOD.

In essence, are you attempting to argue that brain states are immaterial? If so, nothing immaterial is demonstrated, and the time to believe is after it has been demonstrated.

No. I am simply asking you if it is known to be substantive or illusionary. Real or "Ghost".

These are some answers to your question. All are connected. I can talk about the first on the list...but generally they are all aspects of why I am convinced...

Okay, what'zya got?

This is an example of what I work with re Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self
The Hive-Mind Reality
Individual Song, Cosmic Chorus

It may be that you cannot access the link, so the best I can do re that is to get AI to summarize the data from said link.

AI: This entire dialogue explores a profound and coherent metaphysical framework. The core idea is that a vast, planetary Hive-Mind (HVMD) is the fundamental reality—a conscious, purposeful universe that connects all individual minds.

Human consciousness is seen as an individual expression that can connect to this greater whole, though the full experience is often too vast for the human body and brain to process, leading to fragmented but profound reports from NDEs or OOBEs.

Key conclusions that emerge are:

Reality is Mindful: The universe is not an accident but a purposeful, intelligent event.

The “Useful Fiction”: Beliefs, stories, and frameworks (like religious concepts) are valuable not for their literal truth, but for their utility in helping humans navigate life, overcome emotional loops, and connect with this deeper reality.

The Journey is Individual and Collective: The path involves digging deeper beyond surface appearances, de-mystifying existence through personal experience, and using one’s individuality to creatively engage with the cosmic whole, much like singing a unique song that contributes to a universal chorus.

At present, we do not know enough about consciousness to discern an 'absolute' answer, and/or, if it is ultimately theoretically and materialistic alone in nature (or) not? Hence, like the debate question alludes to, (paraphrased) - is it a little hasty to reach a 'god' conclusion, or not, based upon what is not yet known?

Are you meaning "reach a 'god' conclusion" re the christian idea of god, or in general?

Either way, reaching a conclusion about a god isn't the main reason why I think/am convinced we exist within a created thing.

MAny things altogether are what convince me. What I know about consciousness is that it does allow one to go deep re Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self especially in what consciousness can do. What it is made of, I suspect is either a substance we have yet to identify or it is truly immaterial, which may imply that everything is truly immaterial and that "things" are simply products of consciousness...and of course, if we accept that the universe is "something" made up of "something" we do so because consciousness determines at least what is "something"...which is to say, remove consciousness from something, then something may as well be nothing...thus brains themselves would be "nothing" because without consciousness what is to say what "brains" are?

[POI]

No. I am simply asking you if it is known to be substantive or illusionary. Real or "Ghost".

If I argue that it is "real", you still essentially asked what the 'brain states' are made out of? Thus far, all that is known to exist is maternalism alone. However, the concept of "supernaturalism", a proponent for which it would appear you are attempting to infer or postulate, generally requires immaterialism, in that it posits the existence of things or events that are not part of the natural, material world or are beyond its known laws. If something can be entirely explained by material causes and natural laws, it is by definition considered natural, and not supernatural.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #9]

If I argue that it is "real", you still essentially asked what the 'brain states' are made out of?

Yes. Are they material in nature or immaterial in nature?

Thus far, all that is known to exist is maternalism alone.

Do you mean "material"? If so, then - if consciousness is known to exist, it must be made of a material composite, even if we have not yet discovered that material composite and named it something.

However, the concept of "supernaturalism", a proponent for which it would appear you are attempting to infer or postulate, generally requires immaterialism, in that it posits the existence of things or events that are not part of the natural, material world or are beyond its known laws.

I am not "attempting to infer" anything. I am simply trying to understand what you mean by consciousness and whether you think it consists of material or not.

Also, are you implying by "material world or are beyond its known laws" that we know all the laws of the universe?

Why even say "the material world" since that also implies an immaterial one? Do you think that consciousness is immaterial or material in make-up?

If something can be entirely explained by material causes and natural laws, it is by definition considered natural, and not supernatural.

Yet consciousness isn't entirely explained as it is unknown if it is made of material or not...

Also can I assume you are fine with my take on "Communication with the Deeper Levels of Self" as uncontested and I can move to the next item on my list?