Epigraph:

وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ ۖ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا 

And they ask you concerning the soul. Say, ‘The soul is by the command of my Lord; and of the knowledge thereof you have been given but a little.’ (Al Quran 17:85)

Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

Human consciousness is the final frontier of the five centuries or more of the scientific enterprise. It is an interface capable of receiving messages from beyond, from the transcendent God of Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Can we ever understand this mystery completely? On the one hand, it gives us our commonplace daily experience of each of our emotions, our laughter, our joy, our loves, our concerns, and our existential worries, and yet at the same time receives messages from the Infinite, the All-Knowing.

It is not a trivial pursuit. It is an attempt to understand the very essence of us.

In the scientific and philosophical world, at least 225 theories are trying to explain consciousness and counting.

In his comprehensive paper, “A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications,” Robert Lawrence Kuhn, creator and host of the PBS series “Closer To Truth,” has embarked on an extensive exploration of these 225 myriad theories surrounding consciousness. Published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal in August 2024, Kuhn’s work seeks to categorize and understand the diverse perspectives on one of philosophy and science’s most profound mysteries. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Perhaps the last but not the least among these theorists is Federico Faggin.

Faggin, the brilliant physicist and engineer behind the world’s first microprocessor, has taken an unexpected yet deeply profound turn in his intellectual journey—one that shifts from circuits and silicon to the very fabric of consciousness. His book that came out in 2020, Silicon: From the Invention of the Microprocessor to the New Science of Consciousness, presents a fascinating blend of autobiography, technological innovation, and philosophical inquiry.

Faggin is included in Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s comprehensive work, “A Landscape of Consciousness.” Kuhn references Faggin’s perspectives, particularly his proposition that consciousness is a purely quantum phenomenon, unique to each individual. This theory is supported by quantum physics theorems, such as the no-cloning theorem and Holevo’s theorem, suggesting that a quantum system in a pure state possesses a form of self-awareness. en.wikipedia.org

This gives us some idea of the kind of outstanding figures working on the subject of consciousness. Another very well-known name who worked on it was Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA. His co-worker was Christof Koch.

Kock, a prominent neuroscientist and president of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, is a leading proponent of the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness. Developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, IIT posits that consciousness arises from the integration of information within a system. According to this theory, the degree of consciousness corresponds to the system’s capacity to integrate information, quantified as “Φ” (phi). A higher Φ indicates a greater level of consciousness. en.wikipedia.org

Koch’s advocacy for IIT aligns with his broader philosophical inclination towards a modern form of panpsychism—the view that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and is present, to varying degrees, in all things. He suggests that consciousness is an intrinsic, fundamental property that is graded and common among biological organisms. This perspective implies that even simple systems may possess some level of consciousness, challenging traditional views that associate consciousness exclusively with complex brains. arxiv.org

Two other theories I have examined in a previous article: Human Consciousness: Panpsychism and Pantheism: Compliments in Disguise to Monotheism?

So, consciousness—the intimate sense of awareness and experience—has long puzzled philosophers, scientists, and thinkers. Despite significant advancements in neuroscience and psychology, a faction of scholars contends that a complete understanding of consciousness may be perpetually beyond human reach. This perspective is rooted in several philosophical and scientific arguments that highlight the profound challenges inherent in deciphering the nature of conscious experience.

While many are optimistic about unraveling this mystery, a notable group contends that consciousness may remain forever beyond human comprehension. This perspective, often termed “new mysterianism,” posits that the human mind is inherently incapable of fully grasping the nature of conscious experience.

Linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky distinguishes between “problems,” which are solvable, and “mysteries,” which may be beyond human comprehension. He posits that the human cognitive apparatus has inherent limitations, suggesting that some phenomena, including aspects of consciousness, might remain perpetually mysterious to us. This view aligns with the mysterian perspective that certain questions may be unanswerable due to the constraints of human cognition.

Thomas Nagel, in his seminal essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”, argues that subjective experience is inherently tied to a particular point of view, making it inaccessible to purely objective modes of inquiry. He suggests that an organism’s conscious experience is intrinsically linked to its unique perspective, which cannot be fully understood through objective analysis alone. This perspective implies that certain aspects of consciousness may remain beyond the reach of human understanding.

I agree with these scholars, actually more emphatically than any one of them. I have my reasons, as you will see.

Philosopher David Chalmers introduced the term “hard problem of consciousness” to delineate the challenge of explaining why and how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences, often referred to as qualia. While “easy” problems involve understanding brain functions like information processing and behavior control, the hard problem delves into why these processes are accompanied by an inner life. Chalmers argues that even with a comprehensive understanding of neural mechanisms, the emergence of subjective experience remains inexplicable. iep.utm.edu

Philosopher Colin McGinn is a prominent advocate of “new mysterianism.” He argues that the human brain’s cognitive architecture imposes limits on its understanding, rendering certain problems—like the mind-body relationship—insoluble. McGinn suggests that just as some animals cannot fathom complex concepts, humans might be inherently unequipped to comprehend consciousness fully. He draws on Noam Chomsky’s distinction between “problems,” which are solvable, and “mysteries,” which remain beyond our grasp, placing the mind-body problem in the latter category. en.wikipedia.org

Likewise, Joseph Levine introduced the concept of the “explanatory gap” to highlight the difficulty in connecting physical processes to subjective experiences. He contends that even with a complete understanding of the brain’s mechanics, explaining why and how these processes give rise to specific qualitative experiences remains elusive. This gap underscores the limitations of current scientific approaches in addressing the subjective nature of consciousness. iep.utm.edu

Consciousness is inherently subjective, making it resistant to objective measurement and analysis. Unlike observable phenomena, conscious experience cannot be directly accessed or quantified by external observers. This subjectivity poses a significant barrier to scientific inquiry, as the tools of science are fundamentally designed to measure and analyze objective data.

Qualia refer to the individual instances of subjective experience, such as the redness of red or the bitterness of bitterness. Some philosophers argue that qualia are non-physical properties and, as such, cannot be fully explained by physical theories. This perspective suggests that aspects of consciousness might elude scientific explanation entirely. en.wikipedia.org

Conclusion

The belief that humans may never achieve a complete understanding of consciousness is grounded in the profound complexities and inherent limitations associated with studying subjective experience. While ongoing research continues to unravel the neural correlates of consciousness, these philosophical challenges highlight the possibility that certain aspects of our inner lives may remain forever mysterious.

The Quran suggests in the verse quoted above as the epigraph, in the very beginning, that we would have only limited insight into the human soul or consciousness. It also says that Allah sent messengers to every community or nation (16:36). Now, revelation from the All-Knowing or Infinite to a finite mind presents an obvious interface issue. The Quran does tackle this issue when it says:

لَّا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصَارَ ۖ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ

Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the human consciousness. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware. (Al Quran 6:103)

Eyes cannot reach the Infinite. As consciousness lies at the sacred boundary between the finite and Infinite, is it not reasonable to say that it will always remain shrouded in mystery?

The 225 theories, or the total lack of consensus, are a testament to the three Quranic verses quoted in this article and the inferences drawn from them.

Incidentally, these verses will also continue to emerge over the centuries as proof that the Quran is not about Monday morning quarterbacking to retrofit new scientific discoveries into the sacred text, sometimes called Bucailleism, but also sometimes prospectively guides even our scientific pursuits.