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]

We cannot argue that chemicals produce consciousness because chemicals are not fundamental. They only exist after particles and fields organize. So the real question is at the particle level: do particles invoke consciousness, or does consciousness invoke the organization of particles?
The second option requires fewer assumptions and carries no unexplained powers, so it is the stronger explanation.

It's all assumption(s) until 'science' likely figures it out. Which loops us right back to what I already stated prior.

Yet, what you stated prior, isn't 'science'...whatever it is you mean by your use of the word the way you have.

When quotation marks are placed around a single word (e.g., ‘science’, ‘truth’, ‘free will’) to signal irony, skepticism, doubt, or that the word is being used in a non-standard or questionable way, they are called:

Scare quotes

They “distance” the writer from whatever term the writer encloses them with..

Do you have any likely time-frame that you think 'science' will likely figure it out? Perhaps, before you leave this mortal realm? Perhaps after if ever The Humanities reach type 1 civilization?

Meantime, If two explanations are possible, choose the one with fewer unexplained assumptions.

And since you haven't provided any solid reason to reject the best explanation:

"Given the options, the strongest argument is that consciousness invokes and particles comply, not as separate substances but as complementary aspects of a single unified process." I see no reason not to go with that.



You see, the strongest argument isn't "when science likely figures it out"

[POI]

Yet, what you stated prior, isn't 'science'...whatever it is you mean by your use of the word the way you have.

In regard to discovering how conscious arises, is 'science' even the right tool for the job?

When quotation marks are placed around a single word (e.g., ‘science’, ‘truth’, ‘free will’) to signal irony, skepticism, doubt, or that the word is being used in a non-standard or questionable way, they are called: Scare quotes They “distance” the writer from whatever term the writer encloses them with..

I'm using these quotes to acknowledge the vast array of all "sciences". Some of which I'm somewhat familiar, some of which I'm much less familiar, and maybe some that I don't really know to actually exist at all, but do. Or maybe even some 'science(s)' which do not yet even exist, but will in the future?

Do you have any likely time-frame that you think 'science' will likely figure it out?

No. Just like I have no likely timeframe for which the 'science(s)' will (cure or solve) any of the uncured or unsolved?

Meantime, If two explanations are possible, choose the one with fewer unexplained assumptions.

To my knowledge, the two unexplained assumptions are:

1) Conscious originates from the physical brain
2) It doesn't

And since you haven't provided any solid reason to reject the best explanation:

I haven't even tried. I instead acknowledge there exists unknowns, for which I'm not making a conclusion. See options 1) and 2) above. This is why I ask if it is hasty to make a conclusion?

"Given the options, the strongest argument is that consciousness invokes and particles comply, not as separate substances but as complementary aspects of a single unified process." I see no reason not to go with that.



You see, the strongest argument isn't "when science likely figures it out"

Ah yes, the good old (god of the gaps) VS the (science of the gaps) tug-of-war...

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #22]

In regard to discovering how conscious arises, is 'science' even the right tool for the job?

Let's examine the wobbly wheel here then...you also wrote

Ah yes, the good old (god of the gaps) VS the (science of the gaps) tug-of-war...

Given that you express doubts that science is even the right tool for the job, how is there even a tug-of-war that is actually happening.

Consider this.

It isn't and never really has been science tugging on one end of the rope. Rather it has always been those against the idea that we exist within a created thing, which have been attempting to use science to claim that we do not. Science has been used as an attempt by those to fill the gap and the gap is really just ignorance.

I'm using these quotes to acknowledge the vast array of all "sciences".

I am not so confident that there is a "vast array" of sciences operating in this world. I would include psychology as one one those sciences operating in the world and perhaps the best one to delve into the study of consciousness.

To my knowledge, the two unexplained assumptions are:

1) Conscious originates from the physical brain
2) It doesn't

Re the "it doesn't" then ... what alternatives do you have for that?

This is why I ask if it is hasty to make a conclusion.

Indeed. Would you say that concluding that the consciousness originates from the physical brain is one such hasty conclusion?

eta.
meanwhile (what a strange word "mean" while) I have just headed and subtitled my next Substack post.

Ignorance and The Gaps
What is the best explanation re gap-filling

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #22]

In regard to discovering how conscious arises, is 'science' even the right tool for the job?

Let's examine the wobbly wheel here then...

My debate question makes no assertion(s) on a given conclusion. All we know is that this topic remains unresolved -- just like countless prior topics, which have later been solved. Or, the remaining unresolved.

Again, IS 'science' even the right tool for the job?

you also wrote: Ah yes, the good old (god of the gaps) VS the (science of the gaps) tug-of-war...

Given that you express doubts that science is even the right tool for the job, how is there even a tug-of-war that is actually happening.

In the OP, arguments are made that 'science' is not only getting closer, but is the one making the strides to eventually get there. Are they wrong? If so, what other "tools" and/or "mechanisms" will solve this unresolved matter? "Theology", as 'philosophy' and "math" are still under the blanket topic of science?

Consider this. It isn't and never really has been science tugging on one end of the rope. Rather it has always been those against the idea that we exist within a created thing, which have been attempting to use science to claim that we do not. Science has been used as an attempt by those to fill the gap and the gap is really just ignorance.

Many complex natural phenomena and topics, that were once attributed to the actions of gods or divine beings, are now explained by "science". This shift reflects humanity's growing knowledge and understanding of the natural world. This is why I asked, in the OP, is this the theists way of claiming 'science' too has just as much faith as theists, as we are pinning are hopes on what "science" has yet to discover?

I am not so confident that there is a "vast array" of sciences operating in this world.

Yes and no. The field of 'science' comprises of a vast and interconnected field of study. However, they are often categorized into three main branches: natural sciences (like biology, chemistry, and physics), social sciences (like psychology and sociology), and formal sciences (like mathematics and logic). Within these broad categories, there are countless specific disciplines and sub-fields.

As you stated prior, if we should someday discover some other 'particle'/other, a new subcategory may then be formulated.?.?.?

Re the "it doesn't" then ... what alternatives do you have for that?

I merely presented the dichotomy. I would not know WHAT the 'source' really is, if the source is not the brain itself?

Indeed.

The reason I created this topic is because I see it as one of the last bastions of hope for theists. But, as you seem to agree, it is in haste to assert 'god'.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #24]

Ignorance and The Gaps
What is the best explanation re gap-filling

Again, IS 'science' even the right tool for the job?

Again = I would include psychology as one one those sciences operating in the world and perhaps the best one to delve into the study of consciousness.

In the OP, arguments are made that 'science' is not only getting closer, but is the one making the strides to eventually get there.

Getting close howso? More gap filling?

Are they wrong?

What are they saying and are they right in saying it?

If so, what other "tools" and/or "mechanisms" will solve this unresolved matter? "Theology", as 'philosophy' and "math" are still under the blanket topic of science?

If we define "science" as method which produces results which can be examined, there may indeed be "tools" and/or "mechanisms" which fit the criteria but are largely unknown to scientists in their particular fields of expertise.
The link at the beginning of this post is an example of a product of device which produced the data which can be examined...

Many complex natural phenomena and topics, that were once attributed to the actions of gods or divine beings, are now explained by "science".

What are examples of those "many complex natural phenomena and topics" and which "science" is associated with those by way of explanation?

This shift reflects humanity's growing knowledge and understanding of the natural world.

And it is still unclear to The Humanities where this impulse to grow knowledge and understanding of the natural world and its mysteries derives. The human brain OR something far more ancient...

This is why I asked, in the OP, is this the theists way of claiming 'science' too has just as much faith as theists, as we are pinning are hopes on what "science" has yet to discover?

We can certainly agree that there are some types of theists who might shout that, but even if it were true, what point is actually being made? That human beings gravitate to faith as a matter of necessity in order to try an fill gaps in their ignorance?

Theists like myself are more interested in seeing faith as an initial first step into understanding ignorance and where that first step leads us - to something evidentially worth investigating more deeply and thoroughly or just a dead-end?

Faith in - lets' say physical sciences - seems justified given the results it has provided have sealed some gaps - but none to do with the nature of Consciousness or whether it emerged from a mindless system or a mindful system...

...if we should someday discover some other 'particle'/other, a new subcategory may then be formulated.?.?.?

I think such a discovery would fill all the gaps re all the branches of science and we (The Humanities) could proceed from there - perhaps in a completely different paradigm re who we can think we are. The idea then would be that whatever branch of science might discover that the smallest possible particle = Consciousness, that this would be a significant and specie-changing event...

I would not know WHAT the 'source' really is, if the source is not the brain itself?

And I would say that if the best explanation I gave is true, then there is no "source" for Consciousness any more than there is a "source" for a fundamental particle and that if the brain is ones source then a myriad of problematic conclusions surface, which do not surface with the "best explanation" I provided for consideration.

The reason I created this topic is because I see it as one of the last bastions of hope for theists. But, as you seem to agree, it is in haste to assert 'god'.

More to my point, it is in haste to assert any particular 'god' religion has offered by way of theism?

The primary assertion is either we exist within a created thing or not, is the horse before the cart.
Obviously the assertion for existing in a created thing presents with it the idea that a created thing requires creators - but are these altogether the gods of Theism or only one of those among many? Or perhaps something else which trumps them all in the sense that we could - naturally enough - consider such a creator to being GOD, rather than just God or gods?

[POI]

I would include psychology as one one those sciences operating in the world and perhaps the best one to delve into the study of consciousness.

Don't (some/many) theists argue though that 'science' would not or could not be the right tool for the job, being that such a force is 'immaterial', when compared to naturalism/materialism?

Further, if you too agree that 'science' is the right tool for the job, then let science do their thing, as 'science' has a lot of work left to do. Yes, this sounds like being in the 'faith' camp, but just think how much 'science' has and will continue to resolve. Alternatively, theism has been around for millennia, and if the world stayed with theism/theology alone, humans would still be living in the dark ages -- and would be tying all sorts of deemed natural phenomenon instead to 'god(s).'

And again, 'consciousness', along with a few other topics, looks to be one the last bastions of those gaps, in which are auto-filled with 'god did it.'

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #26]

I would include psychology as one one those sciences operating in the world and perhaps the best one to delve into the study of consciousness.

Don't (some/many) theists argue though that 'science' would not or could not be the right tool for the job, being that such a force is 'immaterial', when compared to naturalism/materialism?

Yes. I think this is because they are trained to do so and do not consider anything valid which is outside of that training.

But, that would be their loss and beside the point as far as the some/few theists are concerned - those such as myself - and which are increasing in number behind the scenes...

Further, if you too agree that 'science' is the right tool for the job, then let science do their thing, as 'science' has a lot of work left to do.

You conflate "science" with "scientists" here and also imply that I cannot do my own "science" and share what discoveries I make, with other interested parties...

Yes, this sounds like being in the 'faith' camp, but just think how much 'science' has and will continue to resolve.

Specifically - we are referring to the study of Consciousness, and solving that problem once and for all. So, no. Not conflating the works of "science" re other things "science" can do for us...

Alternatively, theism has been around for millennia, and if the world stayed with theism/theology alone, humans would still be living in the dark ages -- and would be tying all sorts of deemed natural phenomenon instead to 'god(s).

That is a different argument and one which holds no evidence and assumes somehow something else came along which replaced theism altogether. Theists exist in all layers of The Humanities and continue holding the torch re that which the other houses of The Humanities appear less capable of doing...

And again, 'consciousness', along with a few other topics, looks to be one the last bastions of those gaps, in which are auto-filled with 'god did it.'

And again, that is "cart before horse" thinking as it is not the question to be asking first...in order to then start making veiled claims about "gods" doing "whatever".

The type of theism that interests me is the one that looks for answers to the question "Do we exist within a created thing?" so "what created it" follows from that first query rather than precedes it.

[POI]

[Replying to William in post #27]

Please harken back to the first sentence of the OP:

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

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

Theists have been attempting to invoke many unknowns, over the course of documented history, and shoehorn 'god' in there. Thus far, the theist's score is a big fat goose egg. Fingers crossed that this argument will be different. But I won't hold my breath.

Here's a thought... If a god really exists, I doubt theists would need to use such philosophical arguments to merely infer an otherwise invisible god. This 'created thing' you suggest has had thousands of years to present himself clearly. This 'created thing' continues to be the absolute best player of the hide-and-seek game ever.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #28]

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

Are you perhaps thinking that the argument for us existing within a created thing is somehow unrelated to the argument of God?

Here's a thought... If a god really exists, I doubt theists would need to use such philosophical arguments to merely infer an otherwise invisible god.

What is invisible about consciousness that it cannot and thus is not displayed within the created thing?
What is it about theism that has you arguing that their gods always remain "invisible"?

his 'created thing' you suggest has had thousands of years to present himself clearly. This 'created thing' continues to be the absolute best player of the hide-and-seek game ever.

What is it that has you thinking theism (or science for that matter) isn't about seeking and finding?

There is a fairly well known theistic saying.

AI Overview
According to a Hindu saying, "If God wished to hide, God would choose man to hide in. That is the last place man would look for God". The saying suggests that an omnipotent being would hide in the most unexpected and overlooked place, which is within humanity itself, making it the final place one would search for God.

I would also say that this "hidding" isn't limited to humanity, but what the saying is suggesting is that it depends on how humans individually self-identify. It isn't really that "God" is hiding from humans but humans are hiding their own awareness of God from themselves and theism at least opens that door and examine what is beyond the wall that the closed door represents....

[Mithrae]

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.

I'm sure that's how many folk make the case, particularly when arguing for an Abrahamic god, but it's not how I would steelman or try to make the strongest argument from consciousness because the argument as you've written it is one which freely grants the granddaddy of all baseless assumptions to the contrary position: The assumption of a material (nonconscious) reality.

Within Christianity and I assume other Abrahamic faiths there is generally assumed to be a stark Creator/creation distinction and thus an inherent universal dualism of a God who is non-temporal/eternal, non-spatial/omnipresent and non-material/spiritual, versus a creation which (at least for the most part) does possess those characteristics. Mind-body dualism fits in nicely with that perspective, and that's what the argument as you've presented it tries to get at.

Unfortunately sceptics and naturalists in the Western world have inherited or are suffering the hangover from that dualism: Obviously we can see and experience a temporal and spatial reality, and the default assumption is that this reality is material also... that god must be something 'extra' on top of the material reality that we take for granted. But the thing is that we cannot externally observe consciousness, and therefore we have no way of conclusively detecting even its presence, let alone its absence. In humans and similar animals we infer its presence by analogy; if my mother looks and behaves and reacts in similar ways that I do, including saying that she experiences consciousness, then she probably does. That's been the case for thousands of years. These days we can do brain scans and suchlike, but that was never (and besides rare medical circumstances still isn't) how we know that someone has consciousness, and while observing the neural correlates of consciousness is certainly of scientific and medical value we're still not observing consciousness itself. We're observing brainwaves or the like; we're not observing the feeling of pain or the sight of purple or the taste of oranges.

Inferring the presence of consciousness by analogy of structure (body, brain etc.) and behaviour (reactions, assertions etc.) is reasonable - and absolutely necessary for our lives even if it were not. If something has similar structures and behaviours to me, it probably has similar inner workings as well. If P then Q. You can probably spot the problem though: We can't validly reverse that reasoning. Just because something doesn't have similar structures and behaviours doesn't imply that it doesn't have similar inner workings. Not-P therefore not-Q is the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. Absent that fallacy, what basis is there for supposing that say bacteria - possessing the sensory organelles and displaying the reaction to environmental stimuli which suggest some kind of awareness or consciousness - do not have consciousness?

We actually have no legitimate basis whatsoever for supposing that reality is material or nonconscious, but it's an extremely widespread assumption nonetheless. It's not just a hangover of Christian dualism. Two other mechanisms that I think explain it even moreso are: 1) Our tendency, particularly under capitalism, to exploit our world for even the least of our wants encourages devaluation of that world, a tendency which as late as the 1980s had most(?) professionals assuring themselves and others that even our fellow mammals whether domesticated or threatened in the wild don't actually experience pain despite all indications that they do; and 2) The natural and necessary developmental process in which infants come to distinguish their 'self' from 'other,' upon which all coherent/logical thinking ultimately depends, only later recognizing some of the 'other' (eg. mother) as having similar attributes to their self. While the latter at least is necessary for intellectual development, it's obviously not a sound basis for adult opinions about the world.



So, without granting that assumption, we get to what I would call a strong or at least stronger argument from consciousness:
1 - We know that conscious stuff exists. It is literally the most certain thing we possibly can know; we experience, therefore we are.
2 - We have no legitimate basis for inferring the existence of nonconscious / material stuff.
3 - If we were to introduce that wild speculation that our atoms and so on are nonconscious stuff, it introduces a dramatically harder problem of consciousness.
C1 - Inasmuch as we make any inferences about the nature of reality, our working model should be that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality.
4 - Our observations, limited though they may be, suggest that reality exists and behaves in a largely unified, consistent manner.
C2 - A model of a single consciousness from which (or within which) our observable reality emerged is more parsimonious than a model of more numerous, localized or impotent/epiphenomenal consciousnesses.

I would say that through to C1 it's an extremely strong argument, not in proving that some kind of idealism or panpsychism is true, but in proving that it is (by far) the best currently-available model for thinking about the fundamental nature of reality. C2 then crosses the gap to a more specifically pantheistic or panentheistic style of monotheism; relying partly on numerical parsimony, that single/universal consciousness conclusion is obviously weaker than the idealism/panpsychism conclusion of the first part. But pending some evidence for a contrary view it's still more than enough to establish that entertaining that style of theism is more reasonable than entertaining the idea of a nontheistic reality.