Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD

Abstract

Quran 17:85 states: “They ask you concerning the soul (al-rūḥ). Say: The soul is of the command of my Lord, and you have not been given of knowledge except a little.” This verse places a divine limit on human knowledge of the human soul or spirit, intriguingly foreshadowing today’s struggles to understand consciousness. In this commentary, we explore how modern science, philosophy, and theology each grapple with the “miracle of consciousness,” and how their insights resonate with the Quran’s message that the essence of the soul may forever elude complete human comprehension. We survey the scientific quest to explain consciousness – from neuroscience and 225+ competing theories to radical ideas like quantum mind – and find a striking lack of consensus. We examine philosophical perspectives on the mind–body problem, the “hard problem” of subjective experience, and arguments that human cognition may be inherently unable to fully grasp itself. We then consider theological insights, especially the Quranic worldview that consciousness (the rūḥ or spirit) is a divinely bestowed mystery, an interface between the human and the transcendent. Throughout, we find that the uncertainty and diversity in scientific and philosophical theories themuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info echo the Quran’s promise that the secret of consciousness – the human soul – lies “beyond the rim of human intellectual competence”philosophynow.org. In conclusion, the enduring inscrutability of consciousness can be seen not as a failure of human inquiry, but as a profound sign of its sacred origin – a living miracle that ever invites humility and wonder, just as Quran 17:85 suggests.

Introduction

The nature of consciousness – the inner awareness of mind – remains one of science’s greatest unsolved mysteries. The Quran addresses this directly, stating that the human “soul” (Arabic rūḥ) is a matter of God’s command and that human knowledge of it is inherently limitedthemuslimtimes.info. Indeed, consciousness stands as the final frontier of the scientific enterprise, an enigmatic phenomenon that defines our very existence yet defies full understandingthemuslimtimes.info. It encompasses the intimate texture of our everyday experiences – our perceptions, emotions, thoughts, and sense of self – and, as believers in the Abrahamic tradition hold, may even serve as an “interface” to the transcendent, capable of receiving inspiration or guidance from Godthemuslimtimes.info. The Quranic assertion, “you have been given but little knowledge” of the soul, sets the stage for a humbling realization: despite centuries of study, the “inner light” of consciousness remains deeply mysterious. In this commentary, we will weave together insights from science, philosophy, and theology – informed by contemporary experts and thinkers – to illuminate how each domain approaches the riddle of consciousness, and how all of them ultimately underscore the wisdom of Quran 17:85 in proclaiming the miracle of consciousness beyond human understanding.

The Scientific Quest for Consciousness

Over the past few decades, neuroscience and cognitive science have advanced rapidly, yet consciousness – the subjective “what it feels like” aspect of mind – persists as a baffling puzzle. In fact, by one count researchers have proposed over 200 distinct theories of consciousnessthemuslimtimes.info. Robert Lawrence Kuhn, creator of Closer to Truth, performed a monumental survey of these ideas (eventually cataloguing 225 theories), and noted the “radical diversity” of approaches as “telling” – indicating that no single paradigm commands wide agreementthemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info. These theories span a spectrum from strictly materialist explanations to non-physicalist modelsthemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info. Modern science can correlate many brain processes with mental states (the “easy problems”), but the core mystery is how and why brain activity produces first-person experience. As Kuhn observes, current explanations operate at “astonishingly divergent orders of magnitude and putative realms of reality,” underscoring how far we are from a unified understandingthemuslimtimes.info.

Neuroscience approaches consciousness as an emergent function of the brain’s complexity. Techniques like fMRI have mapped neural correlates of consciousness, and several mainstream theories have arisen. A prominent example is the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) developed by Giulio Tononi (advocated by neuroscientist Christof Koch). IIT posits that consciousness corresponds to the degree of integrated information in a system, quantified by a value Φ (“phi”). The more a system’s information is unified and irreducible, the higher its Φ and the more conscious it isthemuslimtimes.info. IIT intriguingly implies that even relatively simple systems (animal brains, perhaps even microprocessors) might possess minimal awareness if they integrate information, a view that leads Koch toward a form of panpsychism – the idea that consciousness is a fundamental, ubiquitous feature of realitythemuslimtimes.info. In Koch’s words, consciousness would be an intrinsic property present “to varying degrees in all things,” not an all-or-nothing phenomenon restricted to humansthemuslimtimes.info.

Other scientists pursue different avenues: cognitive models like Global Workspace Theory (which likens consciousness to a spotlight of attention broadcasting information across the brain), or developmental/evolutionary views that see consciousness as an adaptive biological trait. Notably, Francis Crick and Christof Koch once hypothesized that specific neuronal oscillations (40 Hz oscillations) might generate conscious awareness – a hypothesis still under investigation. Yet, despite many such efforts, no consensus “solution” is in sight. As one science writer quipped, “Consciousness is what we know best and explain least.” The sheer multiplicity of theories and the lack of a definitive empirical test for subjective experience have led some observers to label consciousness studies a pre-paradigmatic science.

Amid this ferment, some researchers have ventured into more radical scientific hypotheses to bridge the explanatory gap. One famous example is physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff’s Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory. Orch-OR proposes that quantum processes inside neuronal microtubules (tiny structural filaments in brain cells) underlie conscious awarenessthemuslimtimes.info. In this view, the brain isn’t just a biochemical organ but also a quantum computer, with quantum wavefunctions collapsing in orchestrated fashion to produce moments of conscious experiencethemuslimtimes.info. This theory attempts to leverage the weird properties of quantum mechanics – non-locality, entanglement, superposition – to explain features of consciousness that seem mysterious in classical terms (like unity of awareness or free will). Likewise, Federico Faggin, a physicist known for inventing the microprocessor, has argued that consciousness might be a purely quantum phenomenon unique to each individual, invoking quantum theorems (e.g. the no-cloning theorem) to suggest that a quantum state (like a wavefunction) carries a form of subjective self-awarenessthemuslimtimes.info. Such ideas remain highly speculative and face the challenge that the warm, wet brain is inhospitable to long-lived quantum coherence (decoherence is a major criticism of quantum brain models)themuslimtimes.info. Nonetheless, these theories highlight an important point: conventional neurobiology alone has not yet explained consciousness, leading credible scientists to explore novel, even borderline mystic, concepts. As one review noted, investigations range from neural network dynamics and electromagnetic field theories, to exotic proposals involving quantum entanglement influencing neural synchronythemuslimtimes.info.

It is telling that for every promising scientific theory of consciousness, there are substantial critiques and unresolved questions. For example, IIT, while mathematically elegant, struggles with the “combination problem” (how to account for unified consciousness in a brain if even simple mechanisms have tiny consciousness) and can lead to counterintuitive implications (like a generalized claim that “even a thermostat has a flicker of consciousness” – a point of debate). Global Workspace Theory explains attention and reportability but is questioned for whether it truly captures subjective feeling. Meanwhile, the ambitious Orch-OR model is criticized for lack of direct evidence that coherent quantum states exist in neurons for relevant timescalesthemuslimtimes.info. These disagreements underscore a stark reality: we do not even agree on what a successful theory of consciousness would look like. Neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris has remarked that, unlike other scientific problems, in consciousness studies we cannot even frame the solution clearly – we only recognize that standard frameworks fall short. Thus, in empirical science, consciousness remains “so mysterious” that some have dubbed it the problem that science forgot. It is, in Kuhn’s phrasing, the single most important data point for understanding reality, yet perhaps the least understoodacademia.edu.

Significantly, the open-endedness of the scientific quest lends credence to Quran 17:85’s claim of “little knowledge.” As the Chief Editor of The Muslim Times notes, “there are more than 200 actively pursued theories of consciousness in academic circles,” and the total lack of consensus among them serves as a “testament” to the truth of the Quranic versethemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info. Each new theory reveals a different facet of the mind, but none singlehandedly cracks the riddle of subjective awareness. This persistent plurality and uncertainty in science might be interpreted (especially from a faith perspective) as humbling evidence that the essence of consciousness lies in a higher domain – “of the command of my Lord” (min amri rabbī), as the Quran says.

Philosophical Perspectives: The Hard Problem and the Soul

While scientists assemble data and models, philosophers have long probed the nature of mind and its relationship to matter. In modern philosophy of mind, David Chalmers famously distinguished between the “easy problems” of consciousness (explaining functions like discrimination, integration of information, verbal report, etc.) and the hard problem of consciousness – explaining why those functions are accompanied by an inner subjective experience (the redness of red, the pain of pain). Chalmers argues that no purely physical account, no matter how complete, seems to logically entail “and therefore there is something it is like to be this system.” There is an explanatory gap between objective mechanisms and subjective qualiathemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info. Even if neuroscience mapped every spike of every neuron, we could still wonder: why does all that electro-chemical activity feel like anything from the inside? This hard problem has become a rallying point – not because anyone has a solution, but because it starkly formulates the mystery. Chalmers himself has been willing to consider non-materialist ideas (like panpsychism, or a fundamental psychophysical principle) to bridge the gap, showing how seriously the puzzle is taken in philosophymindmatters.aimindmatters.ai.

Other thinkers go further, suggesting human reason might never solve the hard problem. This view is known as “New Mysterianism.” Philosopher Colin McGinn is a leading advocate, arguing that the human mind could be cognitively closed to understanding its own basis, just as a chimpanzee’s brain can never grasp quantum mechanicsthemuslimtimes.info. McGinn suggests there may indeed be a perfectly natural explanation for consciousness, but it’s one our brains are “simply not equipped to comprehend,” due to evolutionary limits on our intellectthemuslimtimes.infophilosophynow.org. He draws an analogy from linguist Noam Chomsky: humans distinguish “problems” (solvable questions) from “mysteries” (questions inherently beyond our intellectual reach)themuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info. If consciousness is a **“mystery” in this Chomskyan sense, it doesn’t mean there’s no truth to it – only that our minds can’t fully attain that truth. McGinn encapsulates this with the phrase that the solution to consciousness might lie “beyond the rim of human intellectual competence”, meaning we lack the mental capacity to even formulate or grasp the answerphilosophynow.org. Notably, he clarifies this is not mysticism but a sober epistemic humility: the cosmos might contain facts that brains like ours will never decode, one being the mind-brain nexus. This stance directly parallels the Quranic stance of limited knowledge. It posits a ceiling on our understanding – a notion often uncomfortable for scientists but well-founded in philosophy and, as we see, in scripture.

Another influential philosopher, Thomas Nagel, highlighted a different aspect of the challenge: the subjective viewpoint. In his essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” Nagel argued that consciousness is essentially tied to having a point of view – a bat experiences echolocation “from the inside” in a way inaccessible to us, no matter how much objective data we gather about bat brainsthemuslimtimes.info. This implies that objective science (third-person descriptions) can never fully capture subjectivity (first-person presence); there is always something irreducible about “what it is like” for the subject. Nagel’s point suggests that even conceptually, a complete objective explanation of consciousness may be unattainable – because explaining subjectivity requires adopting the subject’s perspective, which conflicts with the external stance of scientific explanationthemuslimtimes.info. Thus, some aspects of consciousness may remain inherently private and indescribable in physical terms – again echoing the idea that a full understanding is barred.

Philosophy also furnishes vigorous debates against reductionism. One hot debate is over illusionism – the claim by certain philosophers (like Daniel Dennett or Keith Frankish) that our common sense idea of having a subjective conscious self with qualia might be mistaken, a kind of cognitive illusion created by the brain’s processes. Dennett, for instance, does not deny consciousness exists, but he famously argues that things like the vivid, unified “movie-in-the-head” that we think we experience are actually brain-generated tricks. In his model, multiple computational drafts of events occur in the brain with no central experiencer, and our notion of a coherent stream of consciousness is a retrospective story – hence, in a sense, an “illusion”philosophynow.orgphilosophynow.org. This provocative view aims to make consciousness less mysterious by showing we often misinterpret what our consciousness is doing. However, critics counter that consciousness cannot be an illusion in the basic sense – because an illusion itself is an experience. As philosopher Galen Strawson pointed out, to claim “conscious experience is not real” is self-defeating: “If it seems to you that you are conscious, that seeming just is the reality of consciousness”mindmatters.aimindmatters.ai. You cannot be wrong about the existence of your own subjective appearance, because the appearance is the reality. Strawson elaborates that while we can doubt specific perceptions (maybe you are hallucinating a person who isn’t there), we cannot doubt that an appearance is appearing to us. He quips that calling consciousness an illusion is akin to saying “it seems that it seems, but that second-order seeming is itself unreal” – a logical incoherencemindmatters.ai. In short, the reality of consciousness is the one certainty we cannot undermine, the “most certainly known fact,” more certain to each of us than even the existence of the physical worldmindmatters.ai. (As Descartes might rephrase today: “I think, therefore I know consciousness exists.”) This insight supports the special status of consciousness: it is not just another phenomenon in nature that we can objectify and doubt – it is the very datum of all inquiry, the one thing utterly undeniable from the first-person perspective.

From such debates, philosophy has increasingly entertained that standard physicalist frameworks might be incomplete. Some philosophers, including Strawson and Chalmers, have even warmed to panpsychism – the idea that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of matter, so that even elementary particles have proto-experiential properties. This doesn’t mean electrons have minds, but rather that mind-like quality pervades the universe in some form, and complex brains somehow amplify or combine these micro-consciousnesses into the rich minds we knowmindmatters.aimindmatters.ai. Panpsychism aims to solve the hard problem by postulating consciousness as basic (like space, time, mass) rather than something that magically emerges from non-conscious matter. Although controversial and still lacking specifics (the combination problem – how little consciousnesses form a big one – is unresolved), panpsychism shows how far serious thinkers will go to find a conceptual foothold. It is intriguing that some panpsychist or idealist views resonate with certain theological perspectives – e.g. the notion of a “universal consciousness” or a fundamental consciousness that underlies reality can sound akin to the concept of an all-pervading Spirit or even God (though secular panpsychists typically do not invoke a theistic God). The Closer to Truth discussions highlight such intersections: for example, in one interview, Strawson (an atheist) remarked that it made more sense to grant electrons some tiny spark of experience than to deny consciousness exists – an argument that incidentally keeps materialism but edges toward panpsychismmindmatters.aimindmatters.ai. In another episode, philosopher Bernardo Kastrup (a proponent of analytic idealism) might argue that the physical world is an expression of a universal consciousness, an idea that flirts with metaphysics bordering on theology.

The philosophical upshot is that consciousness forces us to confront the limits of our frameworks. Whether through mysterian humility (McGinn) or radical new hypotheses (panpsychism, dualism revival), philosophers acknowledge a kind of conceptual impasse. As The Muslim Times commentary notes, many scholars conclude that “a complete understanding of consciousness may be perpetually beyond human reach,” and they marshal arguments about cognitive limitations, subjective irreducibility, and explanatory gaps to support thisthemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info. This aligns elegantly with Quran 17:85. It’s as if the verse’s implication – “this is a realm you won’t fully penetrate” – is being re-discovered in secular terms. New mysterianism in philosophy and the Quran’s teaching share a humble acknowledgment: human beings, for all our intellect, might hit an insurmountable wall when we turn our mind inward to grasp its own essence. After all, the eye cannot see itself directly; in the Islamic tradition, there is even a saying that “He who knows himself knows his Lord,” implying that the self’s reality is profoundly tied to the divine (and thus only God fully knows it). Interestingly, the Quran not only limits human knowledge of the rūḥ, but elsewhere (Quran 6:103) states: “Vision perceives Him (God) not, but He perceives [all] vision; He is the Subtle, the All-Aware.”themuslimtimes.info. In context, this means God is inherently beyond human sense-perception and comprehension, yet God fully encompasses our inner awareness. Some Quranic commentators interpret that the rūḥ (spirit) in humans is a special divine endowment – a breath of the Divine (referencing Quran 15:29 where God “blew of His spirit” into Adam) – and thus it has a transcendent quality that mortals by themselves cannot analyze or recreate. Consciousness, in theological terms, lies at the boundary between the created and the Creator, the finite and the Infinite. “Eyes cannot reach Him… He is All-Aware” of even our consciousnessthemuslimtimes.info – perhaps suggesting that only the Infinite Mind truly apprehends what consciousness is and what it is for. From this vantage, the permanent mysteriousness of consciousness in philosophy is exactly what we should expect if, as the Quran says, it is min amri rabbī – “from the command of my Lord” – a direct act of God rather than an emergent property of matter.

Theological Insights: Consciousness as Divine Mystery

In theological discourse, especially within Islam, consciousness (the soul) is not a mere by-product of brain matter but a gift from God, imbued with spiritual significance. The Quranic term rūḥ has been interpreted as the human spirit or soul, the life-giving principle breathed into the body by God. Classic Islamic commentators recount that the Prophet Muhammad was specifically asked by skeptics about the nature of the rūḥ, and Quran 17:85 was revealed in responsethemuslimtimes.info – essentially telling them that this knowledge belongs only to God and humans have “but little knowledge” of it. This response can be seen as guarding the sanctity and mystery of the soul. It discourages futile speculation on its essence, perhaps to prevent reductive or erroneous ideas, and to remind us of our epistemological limits before the divine.

Islamic theology (ʿaqīdah) generally affirms that the soul is a real entity distinct from the body. It is often described as “a command from the Lord” in the sense that it is an immaterial command/executive force that enlivens the body by God’s permission. Some scholars liken the relationship of soul to body as a rider to a vehicle. The exact nature of the soul, however, is deemed beyond human empirical inquiry – aligning perfectly with “you have not been given knowledge of it except a little.” In fact, no definitive philosophical definition of the soul is provided in Islamic scripture; it remains, by design, a mystery known fully only by God. This invites an attitude of reverence and humility. Consciousness, in this light, is not something we own or fully control; it’s a trust (amānah) from God and a sign of the divine within us (the “breath” of God in Adam). The enduring inability of science to artificially create or explain consciousness echoes another Quranic challenge: “Oh humanity, even if you gather together, you cannot create [even] a fly” (cf. Quran 22:73). If even a lowly creature’s animating principle is beyond us, how about the sublime peak of creation – a conscious, rational soul? As one Muslim writer notes, despite all our biotechnology, no experiment has ever generated a flicker of sentience from scratch, underscoring the Quranic view that life and consciousness are miracles of God’s commandthemuslimtimes.info.

Contemporary Muslim thinkers often seek harmony between these theological tenets and modern knowledge. For instance, articles in The Muslim Times discuss theories of consciousness and relate them to Quranic verses. One author proposes a “Quran-based theory of consciousness” drawing on the Sleep Verse (Quran 39:42) which says: “Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep; then He keeps those for whom He has ordained death and releases the others for an appointed term.”themuslimtimes.info. This verse implies that sleep is a partial departure of the soul, a nightly “little death”. From it, the author infers that the soul (and consciousness) can exist independent of the body, at least temporarily during sleep, and will fully detach at deaththemuslimtimes.info. He creatively analogizes this to quantum entanglement: just as entangled particles remain connected across distance, perhaps the soul in sleep exists in a higher-dimensional state “entangled” with the body, and upon waking it “re-entangles” to resume conscious lifethemuslimtimes.info. While speculative, this idea tries to marry the spiritual concept of the soul’s transcendence with scientific imagery. The key theological point here is the dualistic notion that the soul is not annihilated when brain activity ceases (as in deep sleep or death) but continues in another mode, consistent with Islamic beliefs in an intermediate state (barzakh) and eventual resurrection. Consciousness is thus seen as only partly tethered to the physical brain. The Quran hints that during sleep our souls experience a different reality and God’s “holding” of the soul is what determines if we wake up again or notthemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info. This reinforces that consciousness/soul belongs to a realm of God’s amr (command), interacting with the material but not produced by it.

The promise that the “miracle of consciousness” will always remain beyond full human understanding does not mean we should cease inquiry – rather, it puts our inquiry into perspective. Islamic theology encourages reflection on the signs (āyāt) of God in ourselves and the universe. Our inability to fully comprehend consciousness can itself be seen as a sign of God’s greatness. As the Muslim Times author concludes, the existence of hundreds of conflicting theories and the persistent mystery serve as “a testament” to the Quran’s wordsthemuslimtimes.info. It’s argued that, in time, science may be guided to align more with the Quranic view, recognizing consciousness as fundamental and non-derivable from matterthemuslimtimes.info. We have already seen eminent scientists like Wigner, Schrödinger, and Dyson entertain notions that border on the theological – for example, Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger mused that consciousness is a singular unified phenomenon (there is really one mind, the appearance of many is an illusion), which gels with metaphysical ideas of a single Source or universal consciousnessthemuslimtimes.info. Schrödinger’s famous Cat thought experiment, often discussed in quantum mechanics and consciousness circles, raises the role of the observer in bringing reality into definite existence. One interpretation (the Copenhagen view) posits that a quantum system remains in superposition (both alive and dead in the cat’s case) until a conscious observation collapses it. Some have extended this to suggest consciousness “shapes” physical reality at the quantum levelthemuslimtimes.info. This is speculative and debated, but it intriguingly positions consciousness as more fundamental than matter, almost a cosmic principle. The Quranic perspective would agree that consciousness originates from the Ultimate Reality (God) and is not epiphenomenal. Thus, any scientific recognition of consciousness’s primacy or irreducibility can be seen as converging toward the theological truth that “the soul is of the command of my Lord.”

In Christian theology, too, consciousness/soul has been deemed an inscrutable gift. For example, in the Book of Ecclesiastes (11:5) it says: “As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” This mirrors the idea that the animation of matter by spirit is a divine mystery. Across religious traditions, the inscrutability of the soul is a common theme – the Vedas of Hinduism speak of the ātman (soul) as “subtler than the subtle” which only spiritual insight (not rational dissection) can grasp. The Quran’s unique contribution is a direct revelation pointing out this unknowability, effectively saying: Don’t be arrogant; there are realms God has kept to Himself.

From an Islamic spiritual perspective, consciousness is also where moral responsibility and divine connection reside. It is through our conscious intention (niyyah) and free will that we are accountable to God. Yet, intriguingly, even free will intersects with the mystery of consciousness – a deeply debated topic in both philosophy and theology. Some interpretations of quantum physics (as mentioned above) suggest consciousness might exert influence on indeterministic quantum events, hinting at a mechanism for free willthemuslimtimes.info. Whether or not that is true, theologically one might say: our conscious will is a small participation in God’s greater will, and its operation is something science may never reduce to equations.

In summary, theology places consciousness in a larger metaphysical context: it is a clue to our origin and destiny. The Quran implies that understanding consciousness is linked to understanding God’s nature. Little wonder then, that it prophesies our intellect will hit a wall – for finite minds cannot fully encompass the Infinite. As Quran 6:103 highlighted, “Eyes (vision, by extension insight) cannot grasp Him.” If consciousness is the “eye of the soul,” it cannot turn fully back to see its divine source; only God’s eye can see all. Instead, the mystery itself points to God. Our inability to comprehend the soul nudges us to acknowledge a higher truth: “And He is the Subtle, the All-Aware.” God’s knowledge penetrates into all things – including the depths of our psyche – while we “encircle nothing of His knowledge except as He wills.” In Islam, this engenders a sense of trust (tawakkul): we do our best to seek knowledge, but we submit that ultimate knowledge belongs to Allah. The miracle of consciousness – that we have inner awareness at all – is thus a daily sign of God. It lies just beyond scientific capture, perhaps eternally, inviting us to humility and to marvel at the work of the Creator.

Epilogue: The Ever-Elusive Soul

Even as our understanding of the brain and mind expands, the essence of consciousness remains a shimmering horizon – always seen, yet never reached.* In this journey through science, philosophy, and theology, we have seen the broader uncertainty that surrounds consciousness. Neuroscience maps neural circuits but cannot find the seat of the soul. Philosophy frames the hard problem but finds it hard to solve. The Quran, speaking across fourteen centuries, assures us this is by design: the human soul is a sacred mystery, a direct amr (command) of God placed within us, rendering each person an enigmatic blend of clay and spirit. In the end, we circle back to Quran 17:85 with deeper appreciation – “of knowledge, you have been given only a little.” This is not a defeatist statement but a call to intellectual humility and spiritual awe. The miracle of consciousness – that the universe has within it beings that can contemplate the universe – is a signpost toward the Divine. It suggests that our inner light comes from an eternal Light, one that human logic alone cannot contain. Like a galaxy of thoughts projected onto the screen of the mind, our consciousness hints at a vast reality beyond. As long as we gaze at the stars within (and above), we may never fully decipher their mystery, but we are guided by their illumination. In accepting that the soul will always surpass our understanding, we perhaps fulfill the very purpose of that soul: to lead us, in wonder and humility, closer to Truththemuslimtimes.info.*

Sources Cited

• The Quran (17:85, 39:42, 6:103) – English translations of the Holy Qur’an.
• Robert Lawrence Kuhn, “A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications,” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2024 – for an overview of 225 consciousness theoriesthemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info.
• Zia H. Shah, “Can Consciousness Be Only Explained in the Light of the Quran?” The Muslim Times, Feb 1, 2025 – discusses 225 theories and Quranic verses on the soulthemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info.
• Zia H. Shah, “My Quran-Based Theory of Consciousness: The Sleep Verse and Quantum Entanglement,” The Muslim Times, Mar 16, 2025 – proposes analogy between soul and quantum entanglementthemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info.
• “Schrödinger’s Cat and Its Bearing on Human Consciousness and Total Reality,” The Muslim Times, Dec 30, 2024 – on observer effect, consciousness and realitythemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info.
• Closer to Truth (TV series) episodes and interviews:
  • “Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious?” (Season 1, Ep 3) – interviews with Susan Blackmore, Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers, John Searle, et al., on the mind-brain problemthemuslimtimes.info.
  • “Is Consciousness an Illusion?” (Season 10, Ep 2) – features debates with philosophers like Nicholas Humphrey and Galen Strawson. Strawson’s argument that consciousness cannot be illusory is notedmindmatters.ai.
  • “What is Consciousness?” (Season 13, Ep 2) – exploration of definitions and whether consciousness is fundamental.
• Galen Strawson interview, Closer to Truth (c. 2020) – Strawson’s defense of the reality of consciousness and panpsychist turnmindmatters.aimindmatters.ai.
• Colin McGinn’s perspective (as summarized in Philosophy Now, Issue 54, 2006) – on cognitive closure and why we may never solve consciousnessphilosophynow.org.
• Thomas Nagel, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” (Philosophical Review, 1974) – argues for the subjective character of experience that science cannot capturethemuslimtimes.info.
• David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind (1996) – articulating the hard problem of consciousnessthemuslimtimes.info.
• Noam Chomsky (various works) – distinction of problems vs. mysteriesthemuslimtimes.info.
• Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch on Integrated Information Theory – e.g. IEEE Computer, 2014, and Koch’s book Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionistthemuslimtimes.infothemuslimtimes.info.
• Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff on Orch-OR theory – see Penrose’s Shadows of the Mind (1994) and Hameroff’s papersthemuslimtimes.info.
• Mind Matters (mindmatters.ai) article by Denyse O’Leary, Jan 2024 – summary of Galen Strawson’s arguments and panpsychism shiftmindmatters.aimindmatters.ai.

(All online content accessed and cited as of December 18, 2025.)

If you would rather read in Microsoft Word file: