Epigraph

سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ

We shall show them Our signs in every region of the earth and in themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that your Lord witnesses everything? (Al Quran 41:53)

[Prophet], they ask you about the Spirit. Say, ‘The Spirit is part of my Lord’s domain. You have only been given a little knowledge.’ (Al Quran 17:85)

…

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

You are reading these lines or watching the above videos and in my view that is proof enough that God exists.

Why?

Consciousness will lead to God if we can expose the incoherence of all the alternative explanations.

Incoherence of Panpsychism

Panpsychism posits that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous aspect of the universe, present even in the smallest particles. While this perspective aims to address the ‘hard problem of consciousness’—explaining how subjective experience arises from physical processes—it encounters several scientific and philosophical challenges that question its coherence.

Scientific Incoherence:

1. Lack of Empirical Testability: A primary scientific critique of panpsychism is its resistance to empirical validation. Since consciousness, under this view, is an intrinsic property of all matter, detecting or measuring it in fundamental particles like electrons or quarks becomes inherently problematic. This absence of measurable predictions renders panpsychism scientifically unfalsifiable, undermining its standing as a robust scientific theory. 

2. Absence of Predictive Power: Beyond testability, panpsychism does not offer novel predictions or explanatory mechanisms that enhance our understanding of consciousness. It reframes the problem rather than providing actionable insights or hypotheses that can be empirically examined. Critics argue that without contributing to predictive models, panpsychism’s scientific utility is limited. 

Philosophical Incoherence:

1. Combination Problem: Philosophically, panpsychism faces the ‘combination problem,’ which questions how simple, ubiquitous forms of consciousness combine to form the unified, complex consciousness observed in higher organisms. The mechanism by which countless micro-conscious entities coalesce into a singular, cohesive experience remains unexplained, challenging the internal consistency of panpsychism. 

2. Problem of Mental Causation: Another philosophical issue is understanding how pervasive consciousness interacts causally with physical processes. If consciousness is intrinsic to all matter, clarifying its role in influencing physical events without invoking dualistic explanations becomes problematic. This ambiguity can lead to epiphenomenalism, where consciousness is seen as a byproduct without causal efficacy, contradicting our intuitive understanding of conscious agency. 

3. Conceptual Vagueness: Panpsychism often relies on broad or ambiguous definitions of consciousness, extending the concept to entities without nervous systems or sensory capacities. This expansive use of ‘consciousness’ dilutes its meaning and challenges our conventional understanding, leading to philosophical confusion and debates about the nature and attributes of consciousness itself.

In summary, while panpsychism offers an intriguing perspective on the nature of consciousness, it grapples with significant scientific and philosophical challenges. Its lack of empirical testability, predictive power, and the unresolved combination problem, among other issues, raise questions about its coherence as a framework for understanding consciousness.

Incoherence of the Claim that Consciousness is Merely an Illusion

The assertion that consciousness is merely an illusion—a concept often associated with eliminative materialism or illusionism—posits that our subjective experiences are deceptive and do not correspond to any real, causative phenomena. While this perspective aims to align with a strictly physicalist worldview, it encounters significant philosophical and scientific challenges that question its coherence.​

Philosophical Incoherence

1. Self-Refutation: Claiming that consciousness is an illusion implies the existence of a conscious entity capable of experiencing illusions. This leads to a paradox: if consciousness doesn’t exist, who or what is being deceived? As discussed in a Philosophy Stack Exchange thread, this viewpoint can be seen as an epistemological absurdity, undermining the very basis of knowledge and experience. ​
2. Moorean Arguments: Philosopher G.E. Moore’s common-sense philosophy suggests that certain truths are more evident than the premises of any argument denying them. Applying this to consciousness, our direct, first-person experiences are more certain than any theoretical framework suggesting they are illusory. David Chalmers articulates that the reality of consciousness is more certain than any theoretical commitments that may motivate illusionism. ​
3. Phenomenological Evidence: Our subjective experiences, or qualia, are immediate and self-evident. Denying their existence contradicts the foundational aspects of human experience. As highlighted in a Scientific American article, the idea that consciousness is an illusion challenges the very essence of what it means to experience reality.

Scientific Incoherence

1. Neuroscientific Observations: Studies indicate that certain brain activities correlate with conscious experiences. For instance, end-of-life brain activity shows spikes that some experts suggest could be evidence of consciousness or the “soul” leaving the body. While interpretations vary, these observations challenge the notion that consciousness is merely illusory.
2. Predictive Coding Models: The brain’s ability to predict and interpret sensory information relies on conscious processing. Meditative practices that deconstruct mental processes provide insights into how consciousness operates, suggesting it is an integral aspect of brain function rather than an illusion.
3. Psychedelic Research: Substances like DMT induce profound alterations in consciousness, offering a window into the brain’s capacity for diverse conscious experiences. The existence of such states implies that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of brain activity, not an illusory byproduct. ​

Conclusion

The proposition that consciousness is an illusion faces substantial philosophical and scientific challenges. Philosophically, it risks self-refutation and contradicts the undeniable reality of subjective experience. Scientifically, empirical evidence underscores the integral role of consciousness in human cognition and behavior. Therefore, dismissing consciousness as merely illusory appears both philosophically and scientifically untenable.

Incoherence of Cosmic Consciousness

The concept of cosmic consciousness suggests that the universe possesses a form of awareness or that individual consciousness is fundamentally connected to a universal mind. While this idea has intrigued thinkers and spiritual traditions, it faces significant scientific and philosophical challenges that question its coherence.

Scientific Criticisms:

1. Lack of Empirical Evidence: The hypothesis of a conscious universe lacks empirical support. Consciousness, as currently understood, arises from complex neural networks within brains. Extending this property to the cosmos, which lacks such structures, is speculative and unsupported by observational data.

2. Unfalsifiability: A robust scientific theory must be testable and falsifiable. The notion of cosmic consciousness does not provide clear, testable predictions, rendering it unfalsifiable and, therefore, scientifically untenable.

3. Anthropocentric Bias: Attributing consciousness to the universe may stem from an anthropocentric bias, projecting human qualities onto non-human entities without justification. This projection lacks a basis in observable phenomena.

Philosophical Criticisms:

1. Category Error: Assigning consciousness to the universe may involve a category error, conflating properties of parts (conscious beings) with the whole (the universe). Consciousness is typically considered an emergent property of complex systems, not applicable to the cosmos as a whole.

2. Combination Problem: If individual conscious experiences are part of a universal consciousness, explaining how these discrete experiences combine into a singular cosmic awareness is problematic. This “combination problem” challenges the internal consistency of the cosmic consciousness hypothesis.

3. Lack of Explanatory Power: The concept of cosmic consciousness does not necessarily enhance our understanding of consciousness or the universe. It may introduce unnecessary metaphysical assumptions without providing additional explanatory value.

In summary, while the idea of cosmic consciousness is philosophically intriguing, it faces substantial scientific and philosophical challenges. Its lack of empirical support, testability, and explanatory power, along with potential category errors and anthropocentric biases, undermine its coherence as a concept.

Incoherence of the Claim that Consciousness is Nothing but the Brain states

The proposition that consciousness is solely the result of brain states—a view often associated with reductive materialism or the mind-brain identity theory—asserts that mental states are entirely equivalent to physical brain states. While this perspective seeks to ground consciousness within the framework of physical science, it encounters several philosophical and empirical challenges that question its coherence.​

Philosophical Challenges

1. Multiple Realizability: Hilary Putnam introduced the concept of multiple realizability, arguing that the same mental state can be instantiated by different physical systems. For example, the experience of pain could be realized in diverse species with varying neurophysiological structures, suggesting that mental states cannot be strictly identical to specific brain states. ​
2. Kripke’s Modal Argument: Philosopher Saul Kripke challenged the identity theory by highlighting the possibility of conceiving mental states without their corresponding brain states. For instance, one can imagine experiencing pain without the activation of C-fibers, implying that pain cannot be identical to C-fiber activation. ​
3. Explanatory Gap: The explanatory gap refers to the difficulty in understanding how subjective experiences (qualia) arise from physical processes. This gap suggests that current physicalist explanations are insufficient to fully account for the nature of consciousness. ​

Empirical Challenges

1. Neural Plasticity: The brain’s ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections indicates that mental functions are not rigidly tied to specific neural structures. This plasticity challenges the notion that particular brain states are solely responsible for specific conscious experiences.​
2. Phenomenal Consciousness: Empirical studies have shown that individuals can have similar conscious experiences despite differences in their neural configurations, further challenging the direct correlation between specific brain states and conscious experiences.​

Conclusion

While brain states undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping conscious experiences, asserting that they alone constitute consciousness overlooks significant philosophical and empirical considerations. The challenges of multiple realizability, modal arguments, the explanatory gap, neural plasticity, and variations in phenomenal consciousness collectively suggest that a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between brain states and consciousness is necessary.​

Conclusions

If we examine the incoherence of all the possible alternatives, including the common ones I have examined above, then the conclusion is inescapable: consciousness leads to God. This can reaffirm our belief in the profound understanding of the verses of the Quran quoted at the very beginning of this article.

When we study the Quran in light of the best science and philosophy, our belief in the Glorious Quran is embellished, and we enter a positive feedback cycle. More philosophy and science leads to a better understanding of the scripture, which in turn leads to better philosophy and science.

A more comprehensive refutation and exposing the incoherence of all alternatives other than God is done in other articles.

Additional reading

Incoherence of Cosmic Consciousness or Pantheism

Archives

…