Some people have opinions, and some people have convictions......! What we offer is PERSPECTIVE!

(For example!)

THE LEFT WING IS CRAZY. THE RIGHT WING SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF ME!

Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Tuesday, 4 February 2025

YOU KANT DO THAT!

Back about fifty years ago, I had an interest in "history" and began to read all about big historical stuff down thru the ages... but the more I read..., the more I realized that every historical event... was caused by some sort of Religious bullshit!

So, I started reading all about Religion... which immediately started me thinking about why people were "religious" in the first place... so I decided that I needed to look up... "Religious Studies!"


Key points about Religious Studies:

  • Focus on objectivity: Unlike theology, which often involves a personal commitment to a religious faith... Religious Studies aims to analyze religion objectively, comparing and contrasting different traditions. 
  • Interdisciplinary approach: Religious Studies draws from various fields like anthropology, sociology, history, psychology, and philosophy to understand religion comprehensively!
  • ***
  • SO... flash forward about fifty years and while I was writing my series of books about the history of Human Beings and Civilization... I ran across a guy from 18th century Germany who was one of the most brilliant and influential philosophers of all time... and his name was Immanuel Kant!

"Iman" had a lot to say about Life and Metaphysics... (That branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space! -Whew!)

Anyway... Kant did come up with some incredible ideas... and the second I saw this article I was fascinated... because he explained a lot of stuff that I was interested in!

I know it's rather long... and not everyone will be interested in this stuff... but for the few that do... I hope you like it!

5 Quotes by Kant Explained:

In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant became the link between two Eras... Enlightenment and Romanticism. 

The founder of classical German philosophy refuted dogmatic methods of cognition, believing that the method of critical philosophizing should be taken as a basis for research.
 

In 1781, Kant produced one of his main and most famous works–Critique of Pure Reason, which explored the cognitive capabilities of the human mind. 

Many quotes from Immanuel Kant’s writings took on a life of their own and turned into aphorisms. 

What are the most popular ones?

1. “Two Things Fill the Mind With Ever New and Increasing Admiration and Awe... the More Often and Steadily We Reflect Upon Them: (1) The Starry Heavens Above Me and (2) the Moral Law Within Me.”

***
 The first quote we want to analyze offers an excellent demonstration of how Kant is interested in both natural and moral philosophy and his ideas about transcendental idealism and practical reason.
 

Kant believed that the human mind has innate structures that shape our understanding of reality. He argued that our perception of the world is not directly a reflection of external objects but rather something created by our mental faculties when organizing sensory input. 

According to Kant’s transcendental idealism, we can never know things as they are in themselves... because what we perceive is always filtered through these mental structures.

 

The “starry heavens above me” symbolize the wonders of nature... for Kant, contemplating the vastness and complexity of the universe could evoke awe because it showed how little we knew about it... it represents something beyond comprehension... something sublime!

But Kant also wants to highlight another thing worth admiring: “the moral law within me.” Ethics dominates his philosophy, which seeks to create a system based on rationality without recourse to religious or consequentialist justifications.
 

For him, inherent in every individual is a sense of duty derived from practical reason. Moral law refers to universal principles guiding human actions and behaviour.

 By asking us to reflect on these two things–nature’s enormity and beauty (“the starry heavens”) and our capacity for moral reasoning (“the moral law”)–Kant invites us to think about what’s amazing both in terms of ourselves and how small humans are compared with everything else around them.

These two realms, he thinks, showcase human cognitive abilities most strikingly and offer a framework for understanding humanity’s place in the cosmos.

Kant’s quote also helps illustrate his belief in an aesthetic–ethical connection. Captivation by “the starry heavens” and recognizing “the moral law within me” provoke similar feelings: wonder, admiration, and reverence. Both experiences go beyond mere sensory perception, aiming for something deeper–transcendence.

2. “Act Only According to That Maxim Whereby You Can at the Same Time Will That It Should Become a Universal Law.” 

This next quote highlights Kant’s core moral principle, the categorical imperative. According to this principle, our actions should be based on maxims that we can will to become universal laws for all rational beings.

 

To understand the quote, imagine a person facing a moral choice about lying or telling the truth. They might feel tempted to lie because it would avoid bad consequences for them. 

But if they apply the categorical imperative, they must examine their maxim–“I will lie whenever it suits me.” 

Kant would argue that such a maxim could not possibly be willed as a universal law because if lying became universalized, trust and communication would collapse. 

Without communication, lying becomes impossible.

 Now consider someone considering stealing from an employer: their maxim might be, “I will steal when I want something I cannot afford.”
 

Once again, Kant’s categorical imperative kicks in by urging us to think of such a maxim as being universally applied. 

Property rights would collapse if stealing were considered morally permissible for personal gain, and society would be in chaos. 

More importantly, without property rights, stealing would no longer be possible!

 

Kant grounds ethics in rationality rather than subjective desires or situations by insisting we act only on principles that can withstand universalization. This is why he refers to rational beings as autonomous agents capable of making ethical choices purely on reason alone.

 This quote also brings out another aspect of what is distinctive about Kantian ethics–its idea of human dignity and worth. 

According to the categorical imperative, every individual has inherent worth and deserves equal moral consideration and respect.
 

Treating others fairly and recognizing their intrinsic value as rational creatures with autonomy helps uphold the universality of ethical principles.

3. “In Law a Man is Guilty When He Violates the Rights of Others. In Ethics He is Guilty if He Only Thinks of Doing So.” 

In this quote, Kant distinguishes between two realms: law and ethics. It suggests that someone can be legally guilty of violating the rights of others, but they can also be morally guilty even if they only think about doing so.

 Guilt concerning law comes about when an individual’s actions cross over established legal boundaries and impinge on the rights of others. 

This could involve stealing from another person or harming them physically–these activities are observable and objective, with legal consequences such as fines or imprisonment.
 

But Kant goes beyond legality into the realm of ethics–the internal framework of principles and moral reasoning that guides our behaviour. 

According to his philosophy, true moral guilt is not solely down to external actions... but also to any intentions (or inclinations) we harbour internally.

 As an example, consider someone who is thinking about cheating on a test. They have all the knowledge required to succeed honestly... but are tempted by laziness or personal gain. 

Even though they haven’t done anything wrong yet, their thoughts alone would make them morally guilty under Kant’s philosophy.
 

For Kant, ethical responsibility means recognizing one’s duty towards other people and acting out of respect for universal moral laws. 

In this case, simply thinking about cheating would mean failing in one’s duty and contravening the principle of treating others with respect/fairness.

 Kantian philosophy prioritizes intentionality and draws attention to inner disposition as something important in ethical decision-making processes. 

It requires individuals to examine the motives behind their actions and evaluate whether those motives align with moral principles that can be universally willed.

4. “Rules for Happiness: Something to Do, Someone to Love, Something to Hope For.”

This quote from Kant is all about his understanding of happiness and gives a sense of what he reckoned were the essentials for a fulfilled or meaningful existence. (These were having “something to do, someone to love,” and “something to hope for.”
 

Kant’s take on happiness isn’t about pleasure or getting what you want. It’s about flourishing as a person based on moral worth. True happiness comes from living according to moral principles and doing your duty rather than pure self-interest.

The first bit of the quote is about having something to do–goals, purposes, tasks that have meaning. Examples might include working towards a career, taking up hobbies, volunteering–anything that features in people’s lives with purpose and contributes positively towards their well-being.
 

Having someone to love speaks for itself–this is essential in Kant’s view: genuine human connections are vital for happiness. Loving relationships provide emotional support, companionship, and identity–fundamental aspects of leading a fulfilling life.

 Lastly, there is having something to hope for. This helps people stay optimistic during difficult times because they can see beyond their present circumstances. 

Aspirations for personal growth or societal progress motivate individuals and help them find purpose outside their current situation. Envisioning improvement could give them reasons to improve themselves and work towards improving society over time.
 

Throughout this interpretation, we see that Kant understands “happiness” much more than subjective contentment aligned with his wider philosophical framework concerning morality (doing one’s duty), rationality (by adopting universal ethical principles), and worthwhile goal-orientated pursuits such as those described above.

5. “Science Is Organized Knowledge. Wisdom Is Organized Life.” 

Finally, Kant’s quote draws a line between science and wisdom, pointing out the nature of each as well as their repercussions. 

According to him, science is organized knowledge; wisdom is organized life.

 Science consists of accumulating and systematizing knowledge through observation, experiment, and logical reasoning. 

This is how we obtain an understanding of how things work: the scientific method.
 

It provides us with empirical facts and theories that testing can objectively verify. Physics gives us laws governing motion; biology tells us about living organisms; psychology describes human behavior.

 But scientific knowledge alone does not lead to wisdom, according to Kant. Wisdom involves more than just intellectual understanding. It includes using your knowledge for practical purposes.
 

Wisdom means applying what you know about the world when considering what you should do–acting on it–in a way that matches up with moral principles or values.

 For example, a scientist whose research specialism was medicine could have vast amounts of knowledge about diseases, treatments, or pharmaceuticals from doing scientific studies. But just because they have this information doesn’t mean they are “wise.”
 

What if we said, “…a doctor who has accumulated years of clinical experience…?” 

Could such a doctor really be said to “know” any less than a medical scientist? 

The point here is that acquiring lots of facts doesn’t automatically give someone wisdom: understanding some abstract proposition isn’t the same thing as being able to put it into practice responsibly (as opposed to irresponsibly), for instance:

 Kant thought cultivating wisdom meant acting consistently with universal moral principles rather than personal desires or societal norms.
 

To be wise, you need to use reason to work out what these principles are–they shouldn’t change depending on who you are or where and when you happen to live. 

Then, once you’ve done that, your choices should reflect this–as opposed to reflecting self-interest.

 So, wisdom involves making ethical (as opposed to immoral) choices. 

It means leading a moral life and being the kind of person whose decision-making is guided by principles such as respecting the autonomy of others, promoting justice, and striving for the greater good.

So, What Does Kant Teach Us?

To prioritize reason and morality in our actions and decisions is, in essence, the core of what Kant teaches. 

Acting out of duty rather than self-interest or external influences, guided by universal moral principles, is the key to Kantian ethics.
 

Our internal moral compass has a part to play because intentionality matters when it comes to ethical behaviour

True moral guilt arises not just from wronging someone externally... but also from having thoughts or inclinations toward harming them.

 Kant’s ideas reach beyond legality into ethics–what it means to live a morally responsible life. 

We are invited to reflect on our intentions and maxims: can they be willed as universal laws that apply to all rational beings?
 

Happiness should not come solely through personal pleasure or satisfying desires but via meaningful pursuits, loving relationships, and hopeful aspirations. 

True happiness lies in living a life grounded in moral duty and embodying ethical values.

Ultimately, we’re taught by Kant to engage in critical self-reflection, align our actions with reason and morality, cultivate wisdom (that is, organize our lives around ethical principles), and strive for a society based on justice and compassion.

Wednesday, 11 September 2024

HOLY SMOKE!

If you tell people something...

Enough Times.....

With Enough Conviction...

***

THEY WILL BELIEVE ALMOST ANYTHING!

***

(Look at Religion!)



Saturday, 27 April 2024

The 'Toronto Star' likes my books!

 Allan W. Janssen has written a fascinating book about religion... and the search for God and meaning throughout human history. 

From the earliest burial rituals to the main religions of modern times, he examines what we believe and how these beliefs were formed. 

The book is filled with illustrations and wonderful quotes, such as the ending quote from Arthur C. Clarke: "One of my objections to religion is that it prevents the search for God." (And that quote pretty well epitomizes what Mr. Janssen has to say about the matter!) 

The message as I perceive it is that when a religion is written down and a priesthood or other system of leaders is established, then that religion can be used for whatever purpose the leadership decides it should be used for, and true believers will not question it, since to do so would be a sin. (And when people do not dare to question... that is where the trouble begins!) 

The first part of the book covers the history of human development and how religion began. It includes a very detailed timeline that is very helpful in putting everything into perspective. 

The second part of the book has to do with how religious leaders emerged and how religion began to be used for various purposes by these leaders. 

One part of this section that I found particularly interesting was the section on Memes, those phrases, images, and ideas that become repeated so often that they become a part of our culture and our thoughts. 

How do these memes relate to religion and spirituality? That's an interesting question, which is explored in (The Plain Truth About) God in detail. 

I found this book to be well-researched and filled with intriguing information. I believe that any open-minded person with an interest in human culture and religion will find it useful and enlightening, as well as entertaining to read. 

This is not a dry textbook but a vital exploration of human beings and our search for a bigger meaning, and what the results of that search have and can lead to. 

(The Plain Truth about) God? is a very good overview of the subject of humanity and religion, and I highly recommend it to all open-minded readers. --Toronto Star

ALL FOUR OF THEM ARE OVER HERE -->

 

Tuesday, 27 February 2024

The 'Toronto Star' likes my books!

Allan W. Janssen has written a fascinating book about religion... and the search for God and meaning throughout human history. 

From the earliest burial rituals to the main religions of modern times, he examines what we believe and how these beliefs were formed. 

The book is filled with illustrations and wonderful quotes, such as the ending quote from Arthur C. Clarke: "One of my objections to religion is that it prevents the search for God." (And that quote pretty well epitomizes what Mr. Janssen has to say about the matter!) 

The message as I perceive it is that when a religion is written down and a priesthood or other system of leaders is established, then that religion can be used for whatever purpose the leadership decides it should be used for, and true believers will not question it, since to do so would be a sin. (And when people do not dare to question... that is where the trouble begins!) 

The first part of the book covers the history of human development and how religion began. It includes a very detailed timeline that is very helpful in putting everything into perspective. 

The second part of the book has to do with how religious leaders emerged and how religion began to be used for various purposes by these leaders. 

One part of this section that I found particularly interesting was the section on Memes, those phrases, images, and ideas that become repeated so often that they become a part of our culture and our thoughts. 

How do these memes relate to religion and spirituality? That's an interesting question, which is explored in (The Plain Truth About) God in detail. 

I found this book to be well-researched and filled with intriguing information. I believe that any open-minded person with an interest in human culture and religion will find it useful and enlightening, as well as entertaining to read. 

This is not a dry textbook but a vital exploration of human beings and our search for a bigger meaning, and what the results of that search have and can lead to. 

(The Plain Truth about) God? is a very good overview of the subject of humanity and religion, and I highly recommend it to all open-minded readers. --Toronto Star

ALL FOUR OF THEM ARE OVER HERE -->

 
 
  


Saturday, 30 September 2023

Saturday Morning Confusion: How I found out AI is not conscious!

The concept is simple enough...! (Once you get your head around the nuts and bolts of it!) 

"We, (meaning all of us) are actually part of that Divine presence we call God... and manifest ourselves as an 'individual' much like the phrase: "We are all just waves in the ocean!" (This is God playing the game of life vicariously through us, kids!)



This means there is an underlying commonality between all the "waves" (people) ...and it is through this underlying Presence (GOD) that we can best explain the concept of "genetic memory" and how it passes from one generation to the next!

Now... here comes the rub!

I went on CHAT GTP to see what it would say about this hypothesis  for genetic memory... and since the program is only designed to look for information that is already on the Internet (it's just a smart tape recorder) ...the damned program couldn't make any connection between 'waves on the ocean' and 'genetic memory.' (It seems it couldn't use its "imagination" to postulate something that wasn't already there!)

Here's what it said:

The concept of genetic memory and the phrase "we are all just waves in the ocean" are not directly related, but I can help clarify both concepts for you.

Genetic Memory:

  1. Genetic memory refers to the idea that some knowledge or experiences can be inherited through genetic material (DNA) from one generation to the next. It suggests that certain traits or behaviours may be encoded in an organism's DNA and passed down to its offspring. However, the concept of genetic memory is highly debated among scientists and lacks strong empirical support. While genes can influence various aspects of an organism's development and behaviour, the idea of direct transmission of specific memories or experiences through genes is not well-established in scientific research.

  2. "We are all just waves in the ocean": The phrase "we are all just waves in the ocean" is more of a philosophical or metaphorical statement about interconnectedness and unity. It suggests that, like waves in the ocean, we are all part of a larger whole and share commonalities with one another. This phrase is often used to express a sense of oneness or interconnectedness among all living beings. (Hence a conduit for "genetic memory! -Ed.)

  3. In summary, genetic memory and the concept of being waves in the ocean are distinct ideas. Genetic memory is a speculative concept related to the transmission of knowledge or experiences through genes, while the latter phrase is a metaphorical expression of interconnectedness and unity among individuals.

  4. They do not directly explain each other, as one deals with genetics and the other with philosophical or metaphysical ideas.

Yup, that's all it wrote folks... A.I. just couldn't make the connection between the two because it doesn't really think for itself..., it just takes what it finds on the Internet and presents that as an original thought!! (This is also why it makes so many mistakes!!!)

I hope I explained this properly!!!!


Sunday, 30 January 2022

It’s all in your head!

From my book : 

"AN EXPLORATION OF RELIGION!"

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B088LH21TB

GOD AND CONSCIOUSNESS! 

With all the fuss over the nature of consciousness and/or God lately..., I guess a few examples would be in order about now. 

(Remember, our  consciousness is just an example of God expressing Itself through us... because deep down that's what we are!)

So! You could say that we live in a duality of body and mind. 

“Consciousness,” is an emergent property of the unconscious mind, which is the true seat of our identity. And our “subconscious” mind is simply the connection that joins the Universality of a Supreme Being with our conscious thoughts. Hence my term: “Consciousness is the physical manifestation of God within us!”

***

FIRST: Eastern Philosophy:

Consciousness is not a substance that anyone can experience.

Consciousness is a concept that points to the luminosity which is behind seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling and thinking.

This luminosity is the SUBJECT that is INTELLIGENT and ALIVE and is also nameless, formless, dimension-less, non-local and non-temporal.

This SUBJECT does not know any boundary, which means that IT IS infinite and eternal.

This SUBJECT is a no-thing and non-material REALITY that can never be known as an object.

IT can only be intuited by the eye of wisdom.

The eye can see everything else, in fact the entire cosmos but it can never look at itself. It can never know itself as an object but it can intuit its own existence.

All that the eye can say is “I see this cosmos and therefore I AM”.

In exactly the same fashion THIS mysterious SUBJECT can never know itself as an object but IT can only intuit itself.

All that the SUBJECT can say is “I perceive this cosmos and therefore I AM”.

This is the declaration of the "Upanishads."

The one who knows this is a knower of Brahman.


*** 

Second: The following arguments are along the line of thought experiments that force us to confront the limits of human experience and inquiry. 

The Nature of Consciousness: By Alan Watts  

What you are, basically, deep, and deep down, and far, far in, is simply the fabric and structure of existence itself. 

In Hindu mythology, the world is the drama of God. 

God is not something with a white beard that sits on a throne and has royal prerogatives. 

God in Indian mythology is the self:    Satchitananda. 

Which means: 

-'sat,' -that which is- 

-'chit,' -that which is consciousness- 

-'ananda,' which is –bliss- 

SO! 

Let's suppose you were able, every night, to dream any dream you wanted to dream, and that you could, for example, have the power to dream in one night 75 years worth of time.  (A lifetime.) 

And you would, naturally, as you began on this adventure of dreams, fulfill all your wishes. 

You would have every kind of pleasure you could conceive, and after several nights of 75 years of total pleasure, you would say 'Well, that was pretty great.” 

But now, let's have a surprise! 

To make it more interesting, let's have a dream which isn't under your control. 

“Where something is going to happen to me, and I don't know what it's going to be.” 

Then you would get more and more adventurous, and you would take further and further gambles as to what you would dream until finally, you would dream where you are now.  

You would dream the dream of the life that you are living today. 

Because the whole nature of God, according to this idea, is to play that you’re not. 

Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. 

And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not.

And it's perfectly OK to pretend you're not. 

The life you're living is what YOU have put yourself into. 

Only you won't admit it, because you want to play the game that’s happening to you. 

Now here's the drama.   

You are the central self! 

You can call it God, or you can call it anything you like ……, and it's all of us. 

It's playing all the parts of everything, everywhere and anywhere. 

It's playing the game of hide and seek with yourself.  

***

 From Wikipedia: New Mysterianism is a philosophy proposing that certain problems will never be explained, or at the least cannot be explained by the human mind at its current evolutionary stage. (This problem is most often referred to as the “hard” problem of consciousness.) 

Owen Flanagan noted in his 1991 book Science of the Mind that some modern thinkers have suggested that consciousness may never be completely explained. 

These "Old Mysterians" are thinkers throughout history who have put forward a similar position. 

They include Leibniz, Descartes, and Thomas Huxley. 

Huxley wrote, "How it is that there is anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness, which comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue!”              

Noam Chomsky, meanwhile, distinguishes between problems which seem solvable …, at least in principle, through scientific methods and mysteries which do not …., even in principle. 

He notes that the cognitive capabilities of all organisms are limited by their biology. E.g., a mouse will never speak like a human. 

In the same way, certain problems may be beyond our understanding. (We shall talk about this some more!) The term ‘New Mysterianism’ has been extended by some writers to encompass the wider philosophical position that humans do not have the intellectual ability to solve many hard problems, not just the problem of consciousness, at a scientific level. 

For example, in the mind-body problem, emergent materialism claims that humans are not smart enough to determine "the relationship between mind and matter." (Dualism)

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why there is any physical state that is conscious rather than nonconscious.  

The usual methods of science involve the explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties - explanations of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question:

Why is it conscious? 

This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the methods of science.  

 Therefore, this presents a hard problem for science. (Or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain.) 

Explaining why consciousness occurs at all can be contrasted with so-called “easy problems” of explaining the function, dynamics, and structure of consciousness.  

These features can be explained using the usual methods of science.  

But that leaves the question of why there is something there when these functions, dynamics, and structures are present. 

People like Dawkins and Hitchens attempt to use a physics version of the psychological “soft” problem in defining our reality, and when they run into a limit on their conjectures they postulate this to mean that there is just not enough information, rather than admitting there is a “hard’ problem in physics.  

This ‘hard’ problem is the Universe seems to be a duality. 

(Dualism is strongly associated with the thoughts of René Descartes, which holds that the mind is a nonphysical, and therefore non-spatial substance. Descartes identified the mind as having consciousness and self-awareness, and distinguished this from the brain as the seat of intelligence.) 

He was the first to formulate the mind-body problem in the form in which it exists today. It asserts that when matter is organized in the appropriate way (i.e., in the way that living human bodies are organized), mental properties emerge! 

Hence, it is a sub-branch of emergent materialism.  

The term dualism was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse. 

But it has been more generalized in other usages lately to indicate a system that contains two essential parts, i.e. positive-negative, matter-antimatter, observer and observed and of course the corporeal and non-corporeal, which is the Christian dualism of God and creation(In the philosophy of mind, dualism is any of a narrow variety of views about the relationship between mind and matter, which claims that mind and matter are two ontologically separate categories.)

Matter, by any definition or classification, is inert and without purpose. (We look at it objectively.) 

 Mind, or consciousness, on the other hand, is separate from any material state and it operates with a certain purpose. (It is subjective.) 

This confirms our contemporary scientific hypothesis that without the subjective mind to do the observing, there would be no objective matter!  

(If a tree falls in the forest, etc.) 

*** 

The Mystery of Consciousness. 

So!  How is it that unconscious events can give rise to consciousness? 

This is the hard problem, and the only reason the hard problem of consciousness is hard is that we don’t accept the fact that it is “ab extra,” or not part of this Universe.  

We are an expression of what is referred to as Cosmic Consciousness, just as all living things are to a greater or lesser degree. 

This system explains how consciousness can exist to varying degrees among humans and other animals. 

(The theory incorporates some elements of panpsychism, the philosophy that the mind is not only present in humans, but all things.) 

This flies in the face of theories of self and identity by people such as Daniel Dennett, Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins as they postulate that the concept of “Me” or “I” is an illusion.  

If anything, it’s the other way around. The Universe is the illusion! 

***

The Mystery of Consciousness by Sam Harris:  

The term “consciousness” is notoriously difficult to define, therefore many a debate about its character has been waged without the participants’ finding a topic such as common ground.

By “consciousness,” I mean simply “sentience,” is the most unadorned sense. Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter of subjective experience. 

Either the lights are on, or they are not. To say that a creature is conscious, therefore, is not to say anything about its behaviour…., no screams need to be heard, or wincing seen, for a person to be in pain.  

It is surely a sign of our intellectual progress that a discussion of consciousness no longer must begin with a debate about its existence.

*** 

By Sam Harris:

The hard problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world. 

Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this Universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself. The only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity.

Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a focus of the experience.

Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical Universe.

Nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to the painfulness of pain, for instance, as it puts in an appearance only in consciousness!

If we look for consciousness in the physical world, all we find are increasingly complex systems giving rise to increasingly complex behaviour.

The fact that the behaviour of our fellow human beings persuade us that they are conscious does not get us any closer to linking consciousness to physical events.

 Most scientists think that consciousness emerges from complexity and we have compelling reasons for believing this because the only signs of consciousness we see in the Universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves.

Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle.

To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes,

I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible — rather like a naïve conception of the big bang. The idea that everything (matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of nothing seems worse than a paradox.

“Nothing,” after all, is precisely that which cannot give rise to “anything,” let alone “everything.”

Many physicists realize this, of course. To say “Everything came out of nothing” is to assert a brute fact that defies our most basic intuitions of cause and effect—a miracle, in other words.

Likewise, the idea that consciousness is identical to (or emerged from) unconscious physical events is, I would argue, also impossible to properly conceive.

Consciousness - the sheer fact that this Universe is illuminated by sentience - is precisely what unconsciousness is not.

And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work.

An analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness.

The Universe is filled with physical phenomena that appear devoid of consciousness. From the birth of stars and planets to the early stages of cell division in a human embryo, the structures and processes we find in Nature seem to lack an inner life.

At some point in the development of certain complex organisms, however, consciousness emerges.

This miracle does not depend on a change of material, for you and I are built of the same atoms as a fern or a ham sandwich.

Many readers did not understand why the emergence of consciousness should pose a special problem to science. 

Every feature of the human mind and body emerges throughout development: Why is consciousness more perplexing than language or digestion?

The problem is that the distance between unconsciousness and consciousness must be traversed in a single stride if traversed at all.

Just as the appearance of something out of nothing cannot be explained by our saying that the first something was “very small,” the birth of consciousness is rendered no less mysterious by saying that the simplest minds have only a glimmer of it. This situation has been characterized as an “explanatory gap” and the “hard problem of consciousness,” and it is surely both.

But couldn’t mature neuroscience nevertheless offer a proper explanation of human consciousness in terms of its underlying brain processes?

We have reasons to believe that reductions of this sort are neither possible nor conceptually coherent. Nothing about a brain, studied at any scale (spatial or temporal), even suggests that it might harbour consciousness.

Nothing about human behaviour, or language, or culture, demonstrates that these products are mediated by subjectivity. We simply know that they are - a fact that we appreciate in ourselves directly, and in others by analogy.

Here is where the distinction between studying consciousness and studying its contents becomes paramount. For these reasons, it is difficult to imagine what experimental findings could render the emergence of consciousness comprehensible. This is not to say, however, that our understanding of ourselves won’t change in surprising ways through our study of the brain.

While we know many things about ourselves in anatomical, physiological, and evolutionary terms, we do not know why it is “like something” to be what we are.

The fact that the Universe is illuminated where you stand—that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative character—is a mystery, exceeded only by the mystery that there should be something rather than nothing in this Universe…….!      

By Sam Harris 

(For the sake of simplicity... and brevity, let's describe God as something similar to "The Force" in the Star Wars movies!)