Epigraph:

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)

What is Ultimate Reality? | Episode 1301 | Closer To Truth – YouTube

Presented by Zia H Shah MD

Abstract

Consciousness is often deemed the most familiar yet most mysterious aspect of our existence. In a Closer to Truth episode exploring “What is Ultimate Reality?”, neuroscientist Christof Koch offers a scientific perspective on consciousness, grappling with how subjective experience fits into the fabric of the universe. Koch’s views – notably his advocacy of Integrated Information Theory and a form of panpsychism – are situated alongside broader commentary from the Closer to Truth series, which has catalogued hundreds of diverse theories of mind. Despite advances in neuroscience, experts in the series (from hard-nosed materialists to idealists and theologians) converge on a humbling truth: no one yet knows why or how consciousness exists. In this detailed summary, we distill Koch’s insights on the mind–brain problem, integrate other perspectives from Closer to Truth interviews, and introduce the distinctive viewpoint of Zia H. Shah MD, who approaches consciousness through science and scripture. Shah emphasizes the Quran’s stance that human knowledge of the soul is inherently limited, suggesting that the enigma of consciousness may forever transcend purely material explanations. An epilogue reflects on the enduring mystery of consciousness – the “inner light” that animates our reality – and echoes host Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s provocative conclusion: “Nobody knows why consciousness is part of our universe!”

Christof Koch on Consciousness and Ultimate Reality

Christof Koch, a pioneering neuroscientist and one-time collaborator of Francis Crick, confronts what he calls the “central mystery” of the mind: how and why physical processes in the brain give rise to the feel of subjective experience. We can roughly understand the brain’s mechanism – photons hitting the retina, neurons firing, muscles moving – yet that doesn’t explain why these electro-chemical events are accompanied by an inner movie of sights, sounds, thoughts, and emotions. As Koch puts it, “nothing in quantum mechanics, nothing in relativity tells us about feelings, nothing in the periodic table of elements or our genes tells us about these conscious feelings, but here they are”. This frank admission frames the mind–body problem: there is a gap between objective brain processes and the reality of first-person awareness.

Closer to Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn has highlighted this same conundrum, noting that consciousness is “the single most important data point for understanding reality, yet perhaps the least understood”. Koch agrees that traditional physical science, on its own, has not yet cracked this puzzle. He rejects the idea that conscious experience is an insignificant byproduct. Instead, Koch suspects that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe – not supernatural or magical, but an intrinsic aspect of nature that science must accommodate. He often draws an analogy to elementary physics: “The electric charge of an electron doesn’t arise out of more elemental properties… it simply has a charge. Likewise,” Koch argues, “we live in a universe of space, time, mass, energy, and consciousness arising out of complex systems”. In other words, consciousness may be as basic to reality as physical forces and constants – a built-in aspect of the cosmos rather than an accidental quirk.

At the heart of Koch’s approach is Integrated Information Theory (IIT), developed with Giulio Tononi. IIT proposes that what we experience as consciousness corresponds to how much a system’s components integrate information. This integration is quantified by a value Φ (“phi”): the more a system’s parts form a unified, irreducible whole, the higher its Φ and the more conscious it is. Koch explains that “any system with integrated information different from zero has consciousness…. Complex systems do [have consciousness]. And how much consciousness they have depends on how many connections they have and how they’re wired up.”. In a human brain, billions of neurons with trillions of connections produce a high Φ, yielding our rich awareness. But IIT implies that simpler organisms – even very simple systems – might possess a faint glimmer of experience if they have any functional integration. Koch famously extends this idea to claim that all animals, from humans down to earthworms, are conscious in varying degrees, and even inanimate systems like the internet could have a trace of consciousness if organized with sufficient complexity.

This provocative view aligns with a modern revival of panpsychism – the notion that consciousness is “fundamental and ubiquitous” in the natural world. Rather than appearing out of nowhere once brains become complex enough, consciousness (in rudimentary form) was “baked into” matter from the start. In Koch’s words, consciousness would be present “to varying degrees in all things,” not an all-or-nothing property unique to humans. He finds this continuum view appealing because it avoids the sharp magic moment when insentient matter supposedly leaps to sentience. Koch’s stance is a scientifically refined version of an ancient idea (traced back to Plato, Spinoza, and Eastern philosophy) that mind is a fundamental aspect of reality. As Koch recounts, his upbringing as a Catholic taught that humans alone have immortal souls, but he felt this made little sense – “either humans and animals alike had souls, or none did”. Discovering Buddhist and philosophical perspectives on the universality of mind resonated with him. Today, Koch is one of the most prominent scientists to defend a form of naturalistic dual-aspect monism: he doesn’t invoke anything supernatural, but he does assert that mind (subjective experience) is a fundamental aspect of nature, alongside matter.

How does this play into the question of “ultimate reality”? In the Closer to Truth episode, Koch suggests that any complete account of reality must include consciousness as a basic feature. Space, time, matter, and energy – the traditional physical ingredients – are not enough to explain our existence because we also have awareness. Thus, any putative “Theory of Everything” in physics would be incomplete if it ignores the fact of consciousness. Koch’s IIT offers a way to bridge the mental and physical by treating consciousness as an emergent quantitative property of certain physical systems (those with high Φ). If IIT (or something like it) is correct, then **consciousness is an ontological primitive – part of the universe’s fundamental architecture. This does not yet answer the ultimate why of consciousness, but it reframes it as a lawful aspect of nature. Koch even speculates that there could one day be a “consciousness meter” to objectively gauge Φ in any system, underscoring his view that subjective experience, mysterious as it is, can be studied with empirical rigor.

While optimistic about scientific progress, Koch remains clear-eyed that we do not yet have the final answer. Decades of research (including his own search for specific “neural correlates of consciousness” like synchronized 40Hz brain waves) have produced intriguing data but no consensus on a mechanism for experience. Koch acknowledges deep puzzles such as the “combination problem” – if small systems have tiny consciousness, how do these combine to form the unified consciousness of a human? IIT offers mathematics, but some critics argue it relabels the mystery (assigning a Φ number) rather than truly resolving it. Koch’s openness to panpsychism has drawn both interest and skepticism; even he calls it a “speculative” but perhaps necessary leap given the failure of reductive materialism to account for mind. In the end, Koch aligns with a sentiment often heard on Closer to Truth: consciousness is real, deeply puzzling, and likely rooted in the structure of reality itself – but why it exists at all remains an unsolved riddle.

Wider Perspectives from Closer to Truth: The Mystery of Mind

Robert Lawrence Kuhn, the creator and host of Closer to Truth, has spent a lifetime probing the nature of consciousness through conversations with over 200 scientists, philosophers, and theologians. The series leaves no stone unturned, canvassing views across the spectrum – from strict materialists who see the mind as nothing but brain, to dualists who posit an immaterial soul, to idealists who claim consciousness is the ground of reality. This breadth of dialogue reveals a startling fact: there is no agreement on what consciousness fundamentally is or how it fits into the universe. “By one count researchers have proposed over 200 distinct theories of consciousness,” Kuhn notes, emphasizing the “radical diversity” of approaches and the lack of any single paradigm commanding wide assent. Closer to Truth has even attempted to map this “landscape of consciousness,” arranging theories from the most physicalist on one end to the most non-physical on the other. The implication is, as Kuhn writes, that current explanations operate at “astonishingly divergent orders of magnitude and putative realms of reality” – from quantum micro-events in the brain to cosmic fields or universal mind. This divergence itself is telling: we lack a unifying framework for how something as immaterial-seeming as subjective experience could arise from or relate to the material world.

Several recurring themes emerge from Closer to Truth’s deep dive into consciousness. One is the stark contrast between “easy” problems and the “hard problem” (a term coined by philosopher David Chalmers). The “easy” problems involve explaining cognitive functions – how the brain processes information, controls behavior, etc. – and neuroscience has made headway on those. But the hard problem asks why those processes should feel like anything from the inside. As Chalmers memorably framed it: we can imagine a world where creatures behave exactly like us, down to the neural firings, yet have no conscious experience – why isn’t our world like that? Explaining qualia (raw subjective sensations) and the first-person perspective has proven profoundly difficult. It’s often said, accordingly, that “consciousness is what we know best and explain least.” Even Patricia Churchland, a champion of neurophilosophy, bluntly admits the puzzle: “Out of meat, how do you get thought? That’s the grandest question.” By “meat” she means the brain’s physical tissue – how does mere matter generate the rich tapestry of mind? This line, spoken on Closer to Truth, captures the bewilderment even materialists feel when confronting subjective awareness.

Another theme is the allure of non-materialist paradigms when materialism seems to falter. Some thinkers on the show lean towards forms of dualism (mind and matter as distinct). For instance, physicist Sir Roger Penrose – interviewed multiple times by Kuhn – proposes (with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff) that the brain’s neurons leverage exotic quantum processes to produce consciousness (their **Orch-OR theory). In this view, mind is tied to new physics at the quantum level, potentially introducing non-computable elements into brain activity. While Orch-OR is speculative and controversial (critics note the brain is a warm, wet environment hostile to long-lived quantum coherence), it exemplifies how far some are willing to stray from classical neuroscience to find answers. Others, like philosopher Galen Strawson or Philip Goff, resurrect panpsychism to avoid what Strawson calls “the Denial” – the refusal to acknowledge the reality of consciousness. They argue that if consciousness can’t emerge from non-conscious matter, perhaps matter itself has a mental aspect all along. This “one-stuff” approach (sometimes dubbed dual-aspect monism) tries to solve the mind–matter dichotomy by positing a substance that is simultaneously physical and experiential. As noted, Koch finds this plausible, but Closer to Truth fairly presents the challenges too: Panpsychism “lacks empirical support and is not falsifiable,” as neuroscientist Anil Seth retorts. And it faces the combination problem – how do myriad tiny consciousnesses combine into a unified larger one? No one on the series claims to have a complete answer, and debates can become impassioned, but these explorations broaden the conversation beyond strict reductionism.

Crucially, Closer to Truth also gives voice to idealist and theistic perspectives – views that turn materialist assumptions on their head. In some episodes, Kuhn probes whether consciousness might be not just a part of reality but the foundation of reality. The series references thinkers like the Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was influenced by Vedanta philosophy and asserted that “the overall number of minds is just one… in truth there is only one mind”. This radical unity-of-consciousness idea implies that the multiplicity of individual minds is an illusion, and a single cosmic consciousness underlies all beings. Few scientists in the series go that far, but the inclusion of such ideas underscores the program’s willingness to countenance Ultimate Reality possibly having a mental or spiritual character. Even Kuhn, a self-described agnostic about religion, is “obsessed” with questions of God and the soul in relation to consciousness. He often muses that if any phenomenon might hint at something beyond physical science, it is the mystery of mind. On one occasion Kuhn admitted that he hopes consciousness will “defeat materialism”, in the sense that it might point to new non-material aspects of reality – though he cautiously pegs his probability on this at 50/50. The show has featured theologians and philosophers of religion who argue that our capacity for experience, intentionality, and rational insight suggests a transcendent origin. For example, Closer to Truth interviews explore the idea of the soul and afterlife, sometimes proposing (as does philosopher John Searle in one conversation) that the brain could be more like a receiver of consciousness rather than the generator – akin to a radio picking up signals. While many neuroscientists disagree with that analogy, it points to an important insight: if consciousness cannot be fully explained by emergent brain complexity, some speculate it might be a fundamental property or even a seed planted by a prior Mind. Kuhn, summarizing such views, lists non-material possibilities like a “non-physical component” to consciousness or a fundamental cosmic consciousness as options to consider alongside purely physicalist models.

In sum, the broader Closer to Truth discourse portrays the study of consciousness as a grand tapestry of conjectures – neuroscientific, philosophical, and spiritual. For all the disagreements, virtually everyone concurs that consciousness is profoundly mysterious. It feels immediate and self-evident (in philosopher Descartes’ famous insight, “I think, therefore I am”, one cannot doubt one’s own mind), yet when we try to pinpoint what it is or how it comes to be, we face what Thomas Nagel called “a fundamental conundrum”. After dozens of interviews, Kuhn remains struck that no explanation of consciousness is anywhere near complete. Materialist theories struggle to explain subjective qualities; non-materialist theories often lack testability or clarity. It is as if consciousness stands at the intersection of science and philosophy, defying reduction to one or the other. This is precisely why Kuhn devoted roughly a third of the Closer to Truth series to brain/mind topics – not because the answers are known, but because the questions cut to the core of reality. As viewers, we come to appreciate why many describe the exploration of consciousness as a journey in search of ultimate reality itself.

Zia H. Shah MD on Consciousness: Science Meets Scripture

Among those grappling with the enigma of consciousness is Zia H. Shah MD, a physician and scholar who approaches the topic from a unique angle: integrating cutting-edge science with insights from the Quran and Islamic theology. Dr. Shah, who serves as Chief Editor of The Muslim Times, has extensively commented on consciousness as the nexus of the physical and spiritual. He echoes the scientific consensus on one level – that the origin of conscious awareness is a deep puzzle for which materialist science has yet to provide a satisfying answer – but he also brings in a theological perspective, suggesting this mystery is not an accident but by design. In fact, Shah frequently cites a verse of the Quran that seems uncannily apt. The scripture states: “And they ask thee 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.’” (Quran 17:85). To Shah, this 1,400-year-old verse anticipates our modern predicament: despite all our brain research and philosophizing, humanity still possesses only “a little” knowledge of the soul (or consciousness). The enduring multiplicity of competing theories (200+ by recent counts) and the lack of consensus among experts serve, in Shah’s view, as a “testament” to the Quran’s declaration. No matter how much we learn about neurons and circuits, the essence of subjective experience stubbornly eludes complete scientific capture – just as the Quran intimates it would.

Shah’s own conception of consciousness is notably dualistic, but not in a simplistic mind-vs-matter way. Rather, he envisions consciousness as an “interface” between the material brain and a higher, non-material reality. “Human consciousness is the final frontier of the scientific enterprise,” Shah writes, “It is an interface capable of receiving messages from beyond, from the transcendent God of Abrahamic faiths… an attempt to understand the very essence of us.”. In his interpretation, our conscious mind allows two-way traffic: on one hand, it processes our everyday sensory experiences and emotions (the realm of neuroscience), and on the other, it is a receiver for inspiration, meaning, and revelation from a divine source. This approach reframes the mind–body problem: the brain is not producing consciousness alone, but rather hosting or mediating it. Just as a radio can transmit music but the signal originates elsewhere, Shah suggests the brain may instantiate our individual consciousness while the ultimate source of conscious awareness lies in a transcendent “broadcast” from God. In his words, “our physical bodies have an interface with the non-material reality. It is this interface that generates our free will and an entry point for God’s Providence, true dreams or revelations.”. Here Shah is positing a spiritually-informed version of interactive dualism: the soul or consciousness isn’t an epiphenomenon of matter, but an independent reality that interacts with the brain (especially during acts of free choice, spiritual experience, or phenomena like near-death experiences and dreams). Through this lens, the Hard Problem of consciousness (why we have subjective experience at all) might be answered by saying: because our minds partake in a higher, God-given reality. The material brain by itself could never “produce” qualia any more than a radio produces the song it plays – the song (soul) exists at a different level, only manifesting through the device.

While this view ventures beyond mainstream science, Shah argues it is consistent with certain scientific observations. For example, despite advances in AI, we have not created a machine with genuine subjective awareness. Shah provocatively asserts that we never will – that true consciousness is uniquely tied to the living soul and cannot be replicated by mere silicon and code. He challenges materialists to consider a test: if someday we could copy a person’s exact brain state into a computer or robot, yielding an entity that undeniably has the same memories and inward awareness as the original, then materialism would be vindicated. But Shah is confident this will never happen. He states, “If you can copy the consciousness and memories of any person into a computer or robot… then science has demystified human consciousness and I am proved wrong. Otherwise, the tall claims of the atheists are merely premature triumphalism.”. In his view, consciousness is an irreducible divine gift – a spark of the infinite in each of us – and not something we can engineer or fully comprehend. In one of his essays, Shah even quantifies his conviction with playful bravado: “I am not on the fence. I am voting 100 to zero that consciousness defeats materialism.”. By “defeats,” he means that mechanistic explanations will never fully explain away consciousness; there will always remain a facet pointing to a non-material reality.

Shah’s perspective is bolstered by insights from many domains. He notes that some renowned scientists have leaned toward mind-first views of reality. For instance, physicist Paul Davies (a Closer to Truth guest himself) speculated about an almost panentheistic principle, that “mind” might be embedded in the cosmos. Shah also references the philosopher Nicholas Humphrey, who called human consciousness a kind of “transcendence” – but being an atheist, Humphrey then labeled this apparent miracle an illusion because it didn’t fit a materialist worldview. Shah prefers the opposite conclusion: the seeming transcendence of consciousness is real, not illusory, and it points toward a transcendent source. He aligns with those who are willing to “set limits to human knowledge” and acknowledge that perhaps not everything about consciousness will be demystified, especially if we are, as one philosopher on Closer to Truth quipped, “only evolved apes” with cognitive limits. Shah resonates more with an attitude of agnosticism about total scientific omniscience than with what he calls the “triumphal” materialist claim that mind will inevitably be explained away.

Central to Shah’s thesis is the idea that consciousness provides a line of evidence for God and the spiritual dimension. “To a believer,” he writes, “consciousness not only explains the Afterlife, but also dreams, revelation, and the consolation that God can provide in our lives.”. In Islamic theology, the soul (ruh) is created by God and returns to God, which dovetails with Shah’s view that our capacity for consciousness (and especially the awareness of moral truths, spiritual experiences, etc.) is a sign of this divine origin. He frequently points out that if consciousness were entirely generated by brain chemistry, it would be hard to account for phenomena like veridical dreams or revelations reported by prophets and saints – experiences where individuals receive knowledge they ostensibly could not have gotten from sense data alone. Shah interprets such phenomena as instances of the mind receiving input from a higher reality, consistent with the Quranic depiction of God “breathing of His spirit” into human beings (cf. Quran 15:29). Therefore, consciousness “leads to God,” as Shah boldly states. The very existence of our inner life – so rich, so qualitatively different from any physical process – serves as a pointer beyond the physical. In one article, Shah quotes Quran 6:102–103, “Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware,” to underscore that while God (and by extension, the true nature of consciousness) may be beyond empirical scrutiny, it/he can still reach into our subjective awareness. Our task, then, is not to reduce mind to matter, but to understand mind as the meeting point between matter and the divine.

Shah’s synthesis of contemporary science and theology is not without its challenges or critics. Skeptics would argue that invoking God to explain consciousness is a “God of the gaps” maneuver – plugging a current hole in scientific knowledge with a spiritual answer. Shah anticipates this by stressing that he is not simply inserting God due to ignorance; rather, he believes the nature of consciousness (its qualitative, unquantifiable, unified character) inherently points to something beyond blind matter. It’s an inference to the best explanation, in his view, not a defaulting to mysticism. He also engages with modern philosophy of mind, noting the resurgence of idealism and non-materialist theories among some scholars. The fact that respected academics like David Chalmers openly ponder whether consciousness might be fundamental lends credence to Shah’s stance that rejecting strict materialism is intellectually viable. Moreover, Shah argues that accepting a transcendental element to consciousness doesn’t hinder scientific inquiry – instead, it could open new avenues (for instance, investigating consciousness in relation to quantum physics, or studying extraordinary mental phenomena) without the constraint of materialist dogma. In the spirit of Closer to Truth, he proposes falsifiable criteria for his view (like the thought experiment of copying consciousness to a computer) to keep the discussion honest. He invites open-minded exploration of all evidence, empirical and experiential, rather than ruling out the spiritual dimension a priori.

In summary, Zia H. Shah MD contributes a theologically integrative voice to the study of consciousness. He stands on common ground with Koch and others in recognizing the baffling “inner light” of awareness that no theory has yet fully illuminated. But Shah goes further to claim that this very bafflement is expected if indeed “of the knowledge of the soul we have been given but little.” Rather than viewing the mystery of mind as a temporary ignorance science will swiftly dispel, he views it as a signpost to the limits of material explanation and the presence of a higher order. Consciousness, in his outlook, is the human encounter with the Infinite – both a gift (enabling reason, love, creativity) and a reminder of our epistemic humility before the Creator. His perspective enriches the conversation by suggesting that ultimate reality might encompass both the physical and the spiritual, meeting within our very minds.

Epilogue: The Unfinished Quest for Consciousness

After surveying Christof Koch’s scientific theories, the panorama of Closer to Truth perspectives, and Zia Shah’s theological insights, one might ask: Where do we stand in understanding consciousness? Despite tremendous progress in brain science and a profusion of philosophical models, consciousness remains an open question – perhaps the open question – about the nature of reality. The journey has been illuminating: we’ve learned how tightly consciousness is woven into the brain’s fabric, yet also how irreducible the feel of experience seems. We’ve identified patterns and correlations (for example, certain brain areas and oscillations linked to awareness) but still struggle with why those physical processes light up the screen of the mind. We’ve entertained possibilities from “it’s all neurons” to “it’s a glimpse of God,” with myriad hybrids in between. And still, the explanatory gap yawns wide.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn, in his role as interlocutor, often closes his interviews by distilling this sense of wonder and ignorance. After talking with Christof Koch – who offered that consciousness might be a fundamental property like space and time – Kuhn didn’t declare the mystery solved. Instead, he sharpened it, observing that for all our theories, “Nobody knows why consciousness is part of our universe!” This candid exclamation (coming from someone who has arguably interrogated the question more than anyone) perfectly encapsulates our epistemic state. We know consciousness exists – intimately so – but we do not know why it exists, or even fully what it is. It’s as if nature has left a profound riddle at the heart of our being. Every attempted answer leads to deeper questions: If consciousness emerges from matter, why does matter have that potential? If consciousness is fundamental, why should a universe have such a feature at all? If it comes from God, why and how is it bestowed through physical processes? At present, no one knows for sure.

Yet, rather than despair, this enduring mystery can be seen as an invitation – a call to humility, yes, but also to wonder. The philosopher Thomas Nagel once said that without consciousness, the mind–body problem would be much less interesting, but with consciousness, it seems nearly intractable. And therein lies its allure. Consciousness forces us to confront the limits of what science can describe and what concepts our minds can grasp. It urges a dialogue between disciplines: neuroscientists, philosophers, and theologians need to learn from each other’s insights and limitations. The Closer to Truth series, coupled with voices like Zia H. Shah’s, demonstrates the value of this cross-pollination. We see a kind of symmetry: as scientists reach outward for broader frameworks (even entertaining panpsychism or cosmic mind), some theologians and philosophers reach inward for grounding (insisting on logical rigor and empirical engagement in any God hypothesis). In the middle, consciousness stands as a meeting point – perhaps the hinge between matter and spirit.

In practical terms, the quest continues on multiple fronts. Neuroscientists will keep refining measures of brain integration and mapping correlates of consciousness in humans and animals. AI researchers will test the boundaries of machine “minds,” probing whether complex algorithms can ever produce the spark of experience. Philosophers will refine arguments about the nature of mind, maybe devising new paradigms that transcend the old dualism-vs-materialism dichotomy. And spiritual thinkers will continue to interpret consciousness in light of existential questions: what does it imply about purpose, about life after death, about our connection to the cosmos? Every so often, a new insight – a clever experiment, a novel theory, an ancient wisdom rediscovered – will shed light on one facet of the prism that is consciousness. But the whole might remain elusive, at least for a long time to come.

Is that a defeat? Not necessarily. It may be that consciousness is special in a way that challenges the very framework of understanding. As Kuhn suggests, perhaps expanding our grasp of consciousness will demand expanding our concept of reality itself. Christof Koch’s openness to consciousness as a fundamental entity is one such expansion; Zia Shah’s assertion of a divine interface is another. Even if one disagrees with either, both recognize that status quo science might need a revolution to crack this cosmic safe. Until then, we can savor the mystery as much as the pursuit. Our inability to explain consciousness is, in a sense, what makes us most conscious of our own small yet significant place in the universe. We are the only known beings who not only experience the world, but also turn around and question that experience, seeking its source and significance.

In the final analysis, the study of consciousness links the very intimate (our inner life) with the very ultimate (the nature of reality). It encourages a kind of intellectual spirituality and spiritual intellectualism – pushing the boundaries of science while keeping us humble before the unknown. As Zia H. Shah MD eloquently remarks, “I believe that this interface of the finite mind with the Infinite transcendent God will always be beyond the scope of human knowledge… we will have access to this domain only as much as God wills to reveal.”. Even those who do not share Shah’s theism might appreciate the sentiment that some truths could lie forever just beyond the horizon of empiricism, teasing us, inspiring us.

Consciousness, in the end, remains a profound paradox: it is at once the most immediate reality (the only thing we directly know – our own mind) and perhaps the most ultimate reality (hinting at deep structures or purposes in the universe). The Closer to Truth episode with Christof Koch, enriched by Kuhn’s commentary and Shah’s reflections, leaves us with a deepened awe for this enigma. Yes, nobody knows why consciousness is part of our universe – but by engaging with the question from all angles, we inch a bit closer to truth. And in that very striving, in the conscious contemplation of consciousness, we may find meaning: a mirror in which the universe beholds itself, and something beyond the universe may be whispering to us.

Sources: Christof Koch’s insights are drawn from his Closer to Truth interview and related works. Broader context is provided by Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s analyses and other Closer to Truth interviews. Zia H. Shah MD’s perspectives and quotes are taken from his writings on consciousness and the Quran, highlighting the intersection of contemporary science with Islamic theology.

If you would rather read in Microsoft Word file: