The fact that we have an awareness of who we are and what we feel is a sign of Gods existence. This is phenomenal consciousness, the fact that we have an inner subjective experience. For example, when eating a strawberry, you have an internal subjective experience no one else can access; they may have their own experience of eating a strawberry, but cannot comprehend what you feel. Even if you know every physical fact about the brain, you cannot find out what an inner subjective experience feels like. Neuroscience is mostly a science of correlations, but these correlations cannot tell us what it is like to be in an inner conscious state, but only when it occurs. “There are a lot of hard problems in the world, but only one gets to call itself ‘the hard problem’. That is the problem of consciousness- how 1300 grams or so of nerve cells conjures up the seamless kaleidoscope of sensations, thoughts, memories and emotions that occupy every waking moment… The hard problem remains unresolved.” Daniel Bor The fact that we have these inner subjective experiences can only be rationally explained by the existence of an All-Aware Being, who created conscious beings. A materialistic view of the world does not offer a reasonable solution. Cold, blind non conscious matter giving rise to consciousness is logically impossible, as something cannot give rise to something it does not contain. Additionally, adding non conscious matter or processes would not give rise, as it would just be 2 non conscious processes. It’s like trying to turn iron into wood, it cannot even if you add more iron. The failed approaches: Biological approaches: These generally fall into 5 categories Explaining something else; researchers admit the problem is too difficult and attempt to explain something else. “Well, let’s first forget about the real difficult aspects, like subjective feelings, because they may not have a scientific solution. The subjective state of play, or pain, if pleasure, of seeing blue, of smelling a rose- there seems to he a huge jump between the materialistic level, of explaining molecules and neurons, and the subjective level.” Koch Denying the hard problem of consciousness. Claims we’re biological zombies with only the illusion of free will. Claims we are biological machines with no subjective experience, redefining what it means to be human. Claiming subjective experience is explained by understanding the physical processes in the brain, as explained earlier, how does non conscious matter give rise to inner subjective experiences? Explain the structure of experience; however this does not explain why experience exists in the first place or what it is like for a person to have unique experiences. Isolating the substrate(underlying basis) of experience; this aims to isolate the neural basis for experience by understanding certain processes. However this fails to explain what it is like to have a conscious experience and why it arises Frank Jackson’s Mary Ward argument: Imagine someone called Mary lived in a black and white room her whole life and acquired information via a black and white computer. Mary gains access to all scientific objective physical facts. One day she leaves the room and looks at a red rose for the first time, she only appreciates the experience of seeing the colour red the moment she sees it. She did not know what it was like to see the colour red by learning all physical facts, but rather only knew what the experience was like when it occurred. Chalmers premises: Mary knows all the physical facts Mary does not know all the facts Physical facts do not exhaust all the facts In other words: There are truths about consciousness that are not deducible from physical truths. If there are truths about consciousness that are not deducible from physical truths, then materialism id false Materialism is false Objections to the Mary Ward argument: It is not possible to know what knowing all possible physical facts is like, however the argument is not focused on what it’s like knowing all physical facts, but rather the inability of knowing the experience of seeing red. The ability hypothesis; this states Mary did not gain any new knowledge, but rather new abilities. For instance, when someone learns how to ride a bike they don’t learn something new but gains the ability to ride it. This, however, is an inadequate response, as when someone learns a new ability they also gain new knowledge, e.g. length of time to hold brakes The argument that Mary does not acquire new knowledge about red, but only a new way of conceptualizing the colour. This objection declares that there is only one property that can give rise to distinct concepts of that property. These concepts are physical-functional concepts and phenomenal concepts(concepts that refer to subjective experience). So Mary does not experience a new property but rather experiences a different way of conceptualizing what she already knew. Before leaving the room, she recognized the property of red in physical functional terms, but upon seeing red she acquired a new way of recognizing the physical property of red in phenomenal terms. The main problem with this strategy is that it is based on the assumption that we can acquire phenomenal concepts from observing physical properties. However this gives rise to the question; How fan a brain state observing a physical-functional property acquire a phenomenal concept? To suggest phenomenal concepts can arise from a physical property is inadequate to explain the knowledge one gains from experiencing a subjective conscious experience. Eliminative materialism: This objection rejects the existence of inner subjective experiences. However this is obviously absurd, and would amount to denying yourself Reductive materialism: This objection states that consciousness can be explained via physical processes(which are currently unknown), however this is not possible due to matter being non-conscious as explained above. Additionally, physical processes cannot explain what it is like for someone to have an experience, Professor Revonsuo explains: “Still, it seems clear that to talk about neural firings, activations and deactivations in different brain areas or oscillatory synchrony in neural assemblies is not at all the same thing as talking about feelings if pain, sensations of colour, passionate emotions or inner thoughts- and never will be. What is being left out is, first and foremost, the subjective aspect of the conscious mental events.” Emergent materialism: This objection states that consciousness emerges due to complex entities with complicated casual experiences, however falls into same issues as reductive materialism Science will eventually find an answer: This is an example of ‘science of the gaps’ fallacy. Knowing what an inner subjective experience is like is something that cannot be empirically observed and lies completely outside the scope of science. In conclusion, all material approaches to the hard problem of consciousness fail. Non materialistic approaches: 1.substance Dualism Substance dualism is the idea that there are 2 different substances, one physical and the other non-physical. These substances are fundamentally distinct and exist independently of each other. With regards to consciousness, the brain and consciousness are fundamentally different and from different substances. An objection with this approach is the interactionist problem. If both conscious states and the brain are radically different, then their interaction should not be possible. Additionally, if substance dualism is adapted from an athiestic worldview, it does not answer some fundamental questions ‘where did the immaterial substance come from?’ ‘How does it exist within the physical universe?’ Epiphenomenalism: With this theory, conscious states are distinct from physical states, and physical states cause conscious states but not the other way round. However, this goes against experience because for example if being chased by an animal, you run away due to fear, not by mere luck coinciding with your moment of fear. Panpsychism: This idea asserts that subjective consciousness is a part of physical matter. However this idea has problems: Firstly there is no evidence or anything to suggest that protons and electrons contain consciousness. This idea also fails to explain where this property of consciousness comes from. There are also no examples of consciousness existing outside living entities. What is consciousness without an ‘I?’ Additionally this would contradict the idea of having a cohesive, singular, unified subjective experience. According to this idea, we have multiple conscious experiences according at same time, so how then do we experience one unified consciousness? God is the best explanation: The theistic approach, of suggesting an All-aware being with will and volition explains consciousness is the most rational explanation. It explains where consciousness comes from, which no other view does. Even with a non materialistic view, if consciousness and matter are distinct, how does consciousness arise from matter. Theism explains the interaction between non physical and physical, as God’s will and power would enable such interaction to take place. If in the beginning of the universe only matter existed, then consciousness would not. However if in the beginning a type of consciousness created the physical world, then the interaction between physical and mental states makes more sense. Theism explains our ability to have subjective conscious states and an awareness of what it’s like to be ourselves, as we were created by an All-aware, ever living and alive being. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xviitSBr0iA