Consciousness, from a philosophical and scientific point of view…

In this essay, I try to distill what I know about consciousness from a philosophical and scientific point of view. This does not address the insights and wisdom I have collected from expanded states' experiences over the years but is certainly consistent with my experience in expanded states.   Here you can read my summarized understanding from a rational, linguistic perspective.

I personally am most convinced by the hypothesis of panpsychism- this is the philosophical theory that holds that consciousness is the fundamental substrate of the universe, giving rise to all things, including all animate and inanimate objects. I will explain why I think this below from a rational and linguistic perspective, but I need to also say that I also intuit panpsychism is true from my own experience in expanded states.

According to the view of panpsychism, everything in the universe, from subatomic particles to complex organisms, possesses some degree of consciousness.    The most radical version of this theory is the idea that all matter and energy- literally everything- arises from some universal consciousness. The Hindus call this Brahman.  This idea that everything is consciousness lies in contrast to the materialistic perspective that proposes that consciousness simply arises from the material world.  

First and foremost, we need to agree that there is, in fact, a thing called consciousness.  It may seem silly to say this, but some people have taken the position that there is nothing that corresponds in reality to what we call consciousness.  They will define consciousness as something like a “soul” and then just dismiss it quickly and move on.  

I think this position is both silly and disingenuous.  Consciousness exists, and as Sam Harris would say, the fact that you are experiencing what it is like to be you is the only thing you can be 100% certain about.  Even if you are living in a simulation, you are still experiencing what is like to be you, living in a simulation.  This phenomenological experience of being is consciousness, and is exactly the meaning of Descartes’ famous quote, “I think, therefore I am.”  The fact that I experience consciousness (i.e. think) is evidence for my existence (i.e. I am).

Materialists are apt to say, “consciousness simply arises from complex configurations of matter,”  “consciousness is an epiphenomenon,” or “consciousness is an aberration of the material world.”  Because from a materialistic, or clockwork universe perspective, there is no use or need for consciousness to exist and there is no obvious utility to consciousness.

For example, it is easy to imagine a being who looks like you and behaves like you, responding to environmental inputs in a way that is consistent with prior experience and personality but has no internal experience, i.e. “the lights are not on.”   Philosophers call this idea the "zombie problem." In other words, a "zombie," in this context, is a being that behaves as if it is conscious but lacks subjective experience, i.e. consciousness. 

The truth is, you can’t be certain that I am conscious or your partner is conscious, or anyone else is conscious for that matter, just that you are conscious as evidenced by your actual experience. But you are most definitely conscious to the extent that you are having some experience of what it is like to be you, i.e.  “I think, therefore I am.”   Deductive reasoning suggests that I am conscious as you are conscious, but there is no reason that the world could be made up of all zombies- except you. The logical possibility that the world could be all zombies should lead you to wonder why you also are not a zombie.  

This zombie problem leads to what David Chalmers famously calls, “The Hard Problem of Consciousness.”  That is if zombies could exist in a clockwork universe, why is there consciousness? Why are the “lights on?” 

It is called the HARD  PROBLEM because science has not even come close to an answer for why consciousness exists and why we are not all just a collection of zombies- if, in fact, consciousness merely arises from the material world rather than being the fundamental substrate upon which the material world arises.  (FYI, If you are wondering what the “Easy Problem is,” it is the mapping of biological processes, e.g. brain regions, to different types of conscious experience- and that is, in fact, relatively easy as compared to the hard problem).   

Humans have come to recognize more recently that other animals are likely to be conscious also; it is just that their experience of the world is different from ours.  Plants also may be conscious.  Some philosophers have even posited that anything that can be in different informational states may experience some version of consciousness. For example, a thermometer me be conscious, as may be a light switch, as may be an electron.  Whatever is or is not conscious is slippery, and there is certainly no clear line demarcating “definitely conscious” from “definitely not conscious.” 

The hard problem is important because, generally, in science, we don’t allow for such a large, omnipresent phenomenon that exists in all animals, and possibly plants and maybe even reaching into any physical object that can “experience” different information states, to exist for no reason. There must be something to this phenomenon, we just don't know what it is.  

Especially considering that consciousness does appear to actually “do” something.  What does consciousness do?  In quantum mechanics, the “observer effect” refers to the finding that the act of measurement can influence the state of a quantum system. According to quantum mechanics, a particle exists in all possible states simultaneously until it is measured- by something or someone that is conscious- at which point the wave function collapses and the particle is said to assume a definite state. 

This is problematic because you now have something that is non-material, i.e. consciousness, interacting in some way with the physical world, a phenomenon that Albert Einstein called “spooky action at a distance".   

So, 1) we know consciousness exists, i.e. I think therefore I am, 2) it is highly likely to exist for some reason i.e. the hard problem of consciousness, and 3) it interacts in some fundamental way with the material world, i.e. the observer effect.  

It is incredibly difficult to resolve these three points if you believe consciousness arises from the material world, but it is almost easy to resolve these three points if you flip the script on its head and assume everything arises out of and is consciousness, i.e. panpsychism.    

This is where I think western science is heading and is where much of eastern philosophy has been for millennia. What do you think about this?