Does Consciousness Lead to God? | Episode 912 | Closer To Truth

Video Statistics and Information

Video

Captions Word Cloud

Reddit Comments

Captions

I WONDER ABOUT GOD, AND I AM PUZZLED BY CONSCIOUSNESS. BUT WHY DOES THE MYSTERY OF CONSCIOUSNESS LEAD SOME TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? AND WHY DO OTHERS TAKE CONSCIOUSNESS TO BE CAUSED ENTIRELY BY THE BRAIN, MUCH LIKE RUNNING IS CAUSED ENTIRELY BY THE LEGS? CONSCIOUSNESS IS WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO SEE A RED SUNSET OR A HORROR FILM, TO HEAR A BEETHOVEN SYMPHONY OR A JACKHAMMER. SUCH INNER AWARENESS IS EXTRAORDINARY. IN ALL THE COSMOS, CONSCIOUSNESS SEEMS OUT OF PLACE, ODD. BUT IS OUR CONSCIOUSNESS SO WILDLY OUT OF PLACE, SO ODD, THAT IT POINTS TO A HIGHER CONSCIOUSNESS? I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE IN GOD. CAN CONSCIOUSNESS HELP GET ME THERE? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. I'VE ALWAYS HAD MY SENSE ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, EITHER REALITY IS ALL AND ONLY PHYSICAL, OR THERE IS SOME KIND OF NON-PHYSICAL EXISTENCE, PERHAPS A GOD, THAT CONSCIOUSNESS WOULD BE THE KEY. BUT I DO NOT TRUST MY SENSE. SO HOW TO EXPLORE A POSSIBLE CONSCIOUSNESS-GOD LINK, IF THERE BE ANY? I START WITH A THEOLOGIAN TRAINED AS A PHILOSOPHER, THE FORMER REGIS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AT OXFORD, KEITH WARD. KEITH CLAIMS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS POINTS TO GOD. WHY? >>I THINK THE TRADITIONAL PLACE TO BEGIN IS WITH INTROSPECTION, THAT IS, LOOKING AT YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE AND ASKING WHAT ALL THE KNOWLEDGE IS BASED ON? AND YOU SAY, HOW DO I HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE AT ALL, OR HOW DOES IT START? AND IT STARTS FROM THE FACT YOU'RE CONSCIOUS OF SOME REALITY. YOU'RE CONSCIOUS OF SOMETHING. >OKAY. CAN SOMETHING FOLLOW FROM THAT? >>I THINK QUITE A LOT FOLLOWS FROM IT, BECAUSE IF YOU SAY CONSCIOUSNESS IS, IS A FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT OF REALITY, YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, WELL, HOW DOES CONSCIOUSNESS ORIGINATE? DOES IT JUST SUDDENLY SPRING INTO BEING FOR NO REASON? WHY DOES IT SPRING INTO BEING WHEN THE BRAIN SAYS THAT WE'RE READY FOR IT? PERHAPS, CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT ONLY FUNDAMENTAL IN THE HUMAN CASE, BUT PERHAPS, CONSCIOUSNESS IS FUNDAMENTAL IN THE COSMIC CASE, THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE WHOLE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, IN SOME SENSE, PRESUPPOSES AND DEPENDS UPON AND STARTS FROM CONSCIOUSNESS. >NOW, THAT WOULD ASSUME THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS THAT OUR LITTLE EARTH HAS PRODUCED HERE, A SMALL MICROCOSM OF ALL REALITY, SOMEHOW HAS A CONNECTION WITH ALL OF REALITY? >>YES, THAT'S RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S NO SURPRISE. I MEAN, AS PHYSICAL BEINGS, WE'RE CONNECTED WITH ALL REALITY, AND OUR PHYSICAL BITS ARE INTERCONNECTED WITH EVERYTHING PHYSICAL IN THE UNIVERSE. SO, IT'S NOT REALLY A BIG SURPRISE TO SAY THAT HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS IS PART OF A WIDER COSMIC FORM OF CONSCIOUSNESS. >IF WE ASSUME THAT OUR HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS IS REAL, IS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF REALITY, CAN WE THEN MAKE ANY INFERENCES TO SPIRITUAL REALMS OR IN A DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS? >>I WOULDN'T SEE IT QUITE AS AN INFERENCE LIKE THAT. IT'S -- IT'S MORE A QUESTION OF WHAT YOU TAKE TO BE CONSTITUTIVE OF REALITY, OF WHAT THE WORLD IS MADE OF. AND IF YOU MAKE CONSCIOUSNESS REALLY PRIMARY, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF REALITY ITSELF, OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE? YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THE ANSWER, A CONSCIOUSNESS. >WELL, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IN ESSENCE, IT'S NOT JUST THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF REALITY, ALONG WITH THE STRONG FORCE AND THE WEAK FORCE, AND ELECTROMAGNETISM AND GRAVITY, AND ALL THE THINGS THAT PHYSICS -- SO, LIKE, A FIFTH FORCE. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT, INDEED, A MUCH MORE FULL BODIED CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS EVEN MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN ALL THESE FORCES. IS THAT RIGHT? >>YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. >THAT'S A BIG STATEMENT. >>BUT IT IS A STATEMENT THAT MOST PHILOSOPHERS HAVE MADE THROUGHOUT HISTORY. AND TO OVERTURN THAT STATEMENT JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW A HUGE AMOUNT MORE ABOUT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS PERHAPS NOT SOMETHING WHICH IS GOING TO LAST. I MEAN, I THINK THE MATERIALIST VIEW IS A VERY SHORT LIVED PHENOMENON. THIS VIEW IS NOT NECESSARILY A RELIGIOUS VIEW, THAT YOU CAN ARGUE THE PRIORITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT HAVING ANY RELIGIOUS INCLINATIONS WHATSOEVER. >I AGREE WITH THAT. HOW IS GOD INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS? >>WELL, I DO THINK CONSCIOUSNESS EMERGES BY NORMAL EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES. I'M JUST SUPPOSING THAT, IF IT'S INTENDED BY GOD, THEN GOD IS ACTUALLY HAVING A CAUSAL INPUT INTO HOW EVENTS IN THE UNIVERSE ARE DEVELOPING IN THAT WAY. THERE ARE CHOICES AT VARIOUS POINTS. WHICH WAY THE THING GOES COULD BE INFLUENCED BY THE INTENTIONS OF GOD. IT MAKES SENSE TO ME, THOUGH YOU'RE LOOKING TERRIBLY SKEPTICAL. >RIGHT, KEITH. I AM SKEPTICAL. I WISH I WEREN'T. I'D LOVE GOD TO HAVE DONE ALL THE INTENDING, BUT I STRUGGLE TO FIND HARD EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. AS MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE, I CANNOT SUSPEND CRITICAL THINKING. SO, WHILE AT OXFORD, I VISIT A PSYCHOLOGIST WHO GAVE UP HER SEARCH FOR THE SUPERNATURAL BECAUSE, AS SUE BLACKMORE SAYS, THE DATA DIDN'T SUPPORT IT. I ASKED SUE WHAT SHE THINKS OF CONSCIOUSNESS AS A SIGNPOST FOR GOD. THEN I DUCK. SUE, SOME WOULD CLAIM THAT THIS EXISTENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS ONE OF THE BETTER PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. >>HOW DO THEY WORK THAT ONE, PLEASE? >BY THE FACT THAT IT'S SO UNIQUE, AND THAT IT'S A FIRST PERSON EXPERIENCE, AND THAT OUR FIRST PERSON EXPERIENCE CAN'T BE EXPLAINED BY JUST THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE BRAIN, THEY'RE SO TOTALLY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, AND THAT, FOR THIS TO HAVE EVOLVED, THERE HAS TO BE SOME FUNDAMENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE UNIVERSE CALLED GOD. >>I SAY, WHAT KIND OF TWISTED WONKY -- IF YOU START FROM THE PREMISE OF HOW IT FEELS, THAT SEEMS TO MAKE A CERTAIN KIND OF A SENSE. WE SEEM TO BE EVOLVED TO THINK THIS WAY. YOU KNOW, I AM IN HERE. IT'S NOT THAT I AM THIS BODY. IT'S THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M SOMETHING THAT'S INSIDE HERE. I'M THE DRIVER, IF YOU LIKE, IN A VEHICLE -- THAT KIND OF FEELING. IF YOU START WITH THAT VIEW, I CAN SEE HOW YOU MIGHT BE LURED INTO ALL THOSE KIND OF ARGUMENTS. BUT LET'S NOT DO THAT. LET'S START WITH WHAT WE ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS, THE WAY BRAINS WORK. ONCE YOU START LOOKING AT IT THAT WAY, AND STARTING FROM KNOWN THINGS, THOSE ARGUMENTS JUST LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE LOST IT AT THE FIRST STEP. WE'VE GOT HERE THIS ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL MYSTERY, THE NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. BRINGING GOD DOESN'T HELP IN THE LEAST. >WELL, IT IS SYNERGISTIC WITH THE CONCEPT OF GOD, IN THAT GOD IS A CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THAT GOD, IF YOU TAKE THE PERSONAL EXPRESSION IN WESTERN RELIGIONS, WANTS TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER CONSCIOUS BEINGS. >>IT HAS AN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY IF YOU THINK OF THE WORLD AS BEING KIND OF DRIVEN BY THESE INVISIBLE SUPERNATURAL POWERS. IS THAT REALLY A SENSIBLE WAY OF TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD? IT DOESN'T SEEM SO TO ME. >I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ISSUE OF SENSIBLE OR NOT SENSIBLE. IT'S A QUESTION OF WHAT'S REAL? A LOT OF THINGS IN THE WORLD THAT'S REAL, AND THEY'RE NOT SENSIBLE. >>I'M AFRAID I JUST -- I'M JUST FLUMMOXED BY PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT YOU GET ANYWHERE BY INVOKING A GOD AND THE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. IT DOESN'T HELP, DOES IT? IT'S JUST MYSTERY -- MONGERING. IT'S JUST REPLACING ONE MYSTERY WITH ANOTHER. CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOW A HUGE MYSTERY. I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVEN CLOSE TO A THEORY THAT DOES THE JOB. BUT WE WILL BE. AND THAT MYSTERY WILL GO AWAY. INVOKING GOD IS NOT GOING TO HELP IN THE LEAST. >HERE'S ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THEISTS WOULD USE THE CONSCIOUSNESS ARGUMENT TO INFER THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THEY WOULD SAY, WE HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS, AND EVERYBODY AGREES THAT WE CAN'T EXPLAIN IT. AND, UNDER WHICH SET OF PRIOR HYPOTHESES WOULD CONSCIOUSNESS BE EASIER TO EXPLAIN? THE GOD HYPOTHESIS THAT THERE IS A CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HAS EMERGED, OR, A RANDOM UNCERTAINTY OF THE UNIVERSE, IN WHICH CONSCIOUSNESS HAS MAGICALLY, MYSTICALLY, AND RANDOMLY EMERGED. THAT'S THE CHOICE. >>BUT THE FIRST ONE'S - THE FIRST ONE'S HOPELESS. IT'S JUST SAYING WE GIVE UP. WE NEED THE KIND OF THEORY THAT DOES SOME WORK AT MAKING SENSE OF HOW BRAINS AND EXPERIENCE ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER. THAT DOESN'T HELP. DOES IT? DO YOU THINK IT HELPS? >THANKS, SUE, FOR PUTTING THE OWNESS BACK ON ME. OKAY, FAIR QUESTION. HERE'S MY ANSWER. IT'S THE ONLY ANSWER THAT MIGHT FAVOR A GOD HYPOTHESIS, IF THE MANIFESTATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS WOULD BE MORE LIKELY, MORE EXPECTED, MORE PROBABLE IF THERE WERE A GOD, COMPARED WITH IF THERE WERE NO GOD. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SUPPORT GOD WITH CONSCIOUSNESS. PERHAPS A STRONGER ANSWER COMES FROM A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. WHILE CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM AND ISLAM LINK CONSCIOUSNESS TO GOD, THE LINK FROM CONSCIOUSNESS TO SPIRITUAL REALITIES IS EVEN STRONGER IN HINDUISM. I ENGAGE HINDU PHYSICIST V.V. RAMAN, WHO RESPECTS THE DEEP TRADITIONS OF HIS HERITAGE, WHILE PRIORITIZING THE ADVANCES OF SCIENCE. >>IN MAINSTREAM HINDUISM, THERE IS THE VIEW THAT, UNDER GOD IN THE UNIVERSE IS A COSMIC AWARENESS. THE COSMOS ITSELF, FROM THE VERY FIRST SHRIEK OF THE BIG BANG, OR EVEN LONG BEFORE THAT, THERE HAS BEEN AN AWARENESS, WHICH ONE CALLS A COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS, IF YOU WILL. AND, IN THAT SENSE, FROM A TRADITIONAL HINDU PERSPECTIVE, THERE IS CONSCIOUSNESS IN EVERY ATOM AND ELECTRON IN THE UNIVERSE. SPIRITUAL ENLIGHTENMENT IS PRECISELY ONE IN WHICH ONE RECOGNIZES THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESS IS PART OF THE SUPREME UNDER GOD IN CONSCIOUS PRINCIPLE, WHICH IS THAT IN THE UNIVERSE. >CAN WE INFER FROM THE FACT THAT WE HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS THAT THERE IS SUCH A COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS, OR A GREATER CONSCIOUSNESS? >>ABSOLUTELY. IF ONE MAY USE AN ANALOGY, IF YOU HAVE A VERY GRAND PAINTING, THAT, IN THE CORNER OF IT, YOU SEE A LITTLE SIGNATURE BY THE ARTIST. SO, ONE MAY SAY THAT OUR INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESS IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT OF A REMINDER OF WHO DID THIS GRAND PAINTING. >NOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE, THEN, IN THE HINDU TRADITION, CONSCIOUSNESS IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT IN REFLECTING THE ULTIMATE REALITY THAN IT IS IN THE WESTERN TRADITIONS. >>YES. IN THE HINDU SPIRITUAL TRADITION, THAT IS WHAT ALL SPIRITUAL EXERCISES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE -- THE REALIZATION OF THE IDENTITY BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE ULTIMATE CONSCIOUSNESS, OF THE COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. >NOW, THIS COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS -- DOES IT HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL AWARENESS? >>THAT COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS, WHICH IS CALLED BRAHMAN, IN THE HINDU TRADITION, IS EXACTLY ONE WHICH IS AWARE OF EVERYTHING AND IT IS BEYOND ANY OF THE CATEGORIES THAT WE HAVE. IT MEANS SOMETHING WHICH HAS NO ATTRIBUTES AT ALL. IT IS JUST THE ULTIMATE VOID, AS IT WERE, AND THAT CONSCIOUSNESS PURE. >IN EASTERN RELIGIONS, CONSCIOUSNESS IS PURE AND PRIMARY. CONSCIOUSNESS DOESN'T SO MUCH AS POINT TO GOD AS IT REPLACES GOD WITH A COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS KIND OF ULTIMATE REALITY. CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF, PURE CONSCIOUSNESS -- MORE THAN A MONOTHEISTIC GOD-BEING -- IS THE HIGHEST PLANE OF EXISTENCE. BUT THIS WHOLE EDIFICE OF CONSCIOUSNESS POINTING ETHEREALLY UPWARD, WHETHER TO GOD OR TO COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS, IS BUILT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT CONSCIOUSNESS TRANSCENDS THE PHYSICAL. MOST SCIENTISTS REJECT ALL THIS AS NONSENSE. THEY RIDICULE THE ANCIENT IDEA THAT CONSCIOUSNESS COULD POINT TO GOD. CONSCIOUSNESS POINTS TO THE BRAIN, THEY ASSERT, NOWHERE ELSE. YES, I WAS TRAINED AS A BRAIN SCIENTIST, AND YET I CANNOT SHAKE MY STRANGE SENSE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS REALLY SPECIAL. CAN I RECONCILE THE WARRING CAMPS OF BRAIN SCIENCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS AS REALLY SPECIAL? I SPEAK TO A COSMOLOGIST WHO SEES IN THE UNIVERSE A POWERFUL ROLE FOR CONSCIOUSNESS, BUT PAUL DAVIES IS NO RELIGIOUS BELIEVER. PAUL, WHERE DO YOU FALL ON THIS BIMODAL APPROACH TO CONSCIOUSNESS? ONE IS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS SO FUNDAMENTAL, SO IRREDUCIBLE THAT IT LEADS TO GOD. OTHERS, CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ILLUSION, INTERESTING BUT DOESN'T LEAD ANYWHERE. >>DON'T BELIEVE EITHER OF THEM. THE FIRST THING IS THAT, I TAKE CONSCIOUSNESS SERIOUSLY. I THINK THAT MIND IS NOT JUST SOME ABERRATION, SOME ARBITRARY LITTLE EMBELLISHMENT IN SOME CORNER OF THE COSMOS. I THINK IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE WHOLE. AND THAT IS BECAUSE, EVENTUALLY, MIND HAS THE CAPABILITY OF TRANSFORMING THE UNIVERSE. IT'S REALLY OF COSMIC SIGNIFICANCE. NOW, AT THE MOMENT, WE'VE TRANSFORMED OUR PLANET. WE CAN IMAGINE THAT IN MILLIONS OF YEARS' TIME, OUR DESCENDANTS MAY TRANSFORM THE SOLAR SYSTEM. WHO KNOWS -- EVENTUALLY, THE GALAXY, PERHAPS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. SO IT HAS THAT ABILITY. SO THAT'S ONE REASON I TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. THE OTHER IS BECAUSE, THROUGH SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS, HUMAN BEINGS HAVE DEVELOPED THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND NATURE AND THE RULES ON WHICH NATURE RUNS. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS APPARENT IN DAILY LIFE. WHEN NEWTON SAW THE APPLE FALL, HE DIDN'T JUST SEE A FALLING APPLE. HE SAW A SET OF DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS CONNECTING THE MOTION OF THE APPLE TO THE MOTION OF THE MOON. THAT'S THE SORT OF INFORMATION YOU WOULD NEVER, EVER GET IN A MILLION YEARS, JUST BY LOOKING AND NOTING, AND NOT UNDERSTANDING OF THIS DEEPER MATHEMATICAL, THEORETICAL LEVEL. SO HERE IS A UNIVERSE WHICH HAS ENGINEERED ITS OWN COMPREHENSION. IT'S ENGINEERED LIVING BEINGS WHO CAN COME TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE. NOW, DOES THAT LEAD TO GOD? WELL, MAYBE NOT THE TRADITIONAL GOD. BUT I THINK IT LEADS US TO SOMETHING LIKE MEANING AND PURPOSE IN THE UNIVERSE. SO THAT IS MY PATH, BUT IT'S NOT AN ARBITRARY, TRIVIAL LITTLE THING, BUT IT'S NOT BESTOWED BY GOD. CONSCIOUSNESS -- MIND EMERGES OUT OF NATURE, BUT IT LINKS TO THE DEEPEST PROCESSES OF NATURE. SO THIS IS ALL PART OF MY PHILOSOPHY THAT THE UNIVERSE IS FORMED SORT OF SELF-CONSISTENT, SELF-EXPLANATORY PRINCIPLE OR LOOP. SO, THIS IS A RADICAL IDEA, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT SO RADICAL IF YOU'RE STEEPED IN QUANTUM PHYSICS, WHERE THE OBSERVER PLAYS A VERY SIGNIFICANT ROLE. IN THE POPULAR MIND, THERE'S THIS NOTION THAT THERE'S A UNIQUE HISTORY THAT CONNECTS, SAY, THE BIG BANG, THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE, WITH THE PRESENT STATE OF THE UNIVERSE. QUANTUM PHYSICS SAYS THAT'S JUST A LOAD OF BALONEY, THAT THERE'S AN INFINITE NUMBER OF HISTORIES, AND THEY'RE ALL FOLDED IN TOGETHER. BUT IF YOU KNOW NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE PAST OF THE UNIVERSE, YOU MUST TAKE ALL OF THESE HISTORIES. AND WHEN WE MAKE OBSERVATIONS, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS CHIPPING AWAY AT THESE HISTORIES AND REMOVING SOME OF THEM. WE'RE CULLING THEM. AND IN PRINCIPLE, IF WE CAN FILL THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WITH OBSERVATIONS, WE WOULD THEN HONE IN ON SOMETHING LIKE A UNIQUE HISTORY. AND SO, THE ACT OF OBSERVATION IN PART RESOLVES SOMETHING ABOUT THE HISTORIES OF THE UNIVERSE. SO THIS IS WHERE THE FEEDBACK LOOP COMES IN, THAT THE LAWS START OUT UNFOCUSED AND FUZZY, THAT EVENTUALLY, THERE'S LIFE AND OBSERVERS THAT LINK BACK THROUGH -- JUST LIKE IN QUANTUM MECHANICS -- BACK IN TIME, THROUGH MAKING THEIR OBSERVATIONS, AND HELP SHARPEN THOSE LAWS IN A WAY THAT'S SELF-CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN EXISTENCE. SO, HERE, WE HAVE A UNIVERSE THAT HAS AN EXPLANATION WITHIN ITSELF, THAT THE OBSERVERS THAT ARISE PLAY A PART IN SELECTING THE VERY LAWS THAT LEAD TO THE EMERGENCE OF OBSERVERS. >YOU USE SOME INTERESTING WORDS -- SELECTING, SELF-CONSISTENT, BUT IS THAT NOT BACKWARD CAUSATION, WHICH SEEMS TO FLY IN THE FACE OF EVERYTHING THAT SEEMS TO WORK IN THE MACROSCOPIC WORLD? >>RIGHT. IT'S NOT CAUSATION IN THE FAMILIAR SENSE THAT YOU CAN DO SOMETHING AND MAKE A CHANGE. YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE PAST. IT'S JUST THAT THERE ARE MANY PASTS. THE PAST IS FUZZY AND UNRESOLVED, AND SO, WHAT HAPPENS LATER ON HELPS BRING ABOUT A RESOLUTION OF IT, AND THAT'S -- THAT'S A SUBTLE DISTINCTION. >BUT CERTAINLY CONSCIOUSNESS PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN THIS PROCESS - >>IT ABSOLUTELY DOES. > - BECAUSE YOU ARE USING CONSCIOUSNESS TO SELECT AMONG THESE LAWS, TO CULL BACK HISTORY, BUT THAT THEN PATH, THAT BACK HISTORY PATH, HAS TO BE ONE THAT WOULD CREATE THE CONSCIOUSNESS. >RIGHT -- TO GIVE YOU A SELF CONSISTENCY. AND OF COURSE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS. IF WE'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE EXIST IN ITS PRESENT FORM, AND IN PARTICULAR, WHY DOES IT CONTAIN LIFE AND OBSERVERS -- OBVIOUSLY, THOSE LIFE AND OBSERVERS HAVE TO BE RELEVANT TO THE LAWS THAT GIVE RISE TO THEM, BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER WAY YOU CAN HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE UNIVERSE FROM ENTIRELY WITHIN IT. SO, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS TO APPEAL TO SOMETHING OUTSIDE IT, LIKE AN UNEXPLAINED GOD OR AN UNEXPLAINED SET OF PHYSICAL LAWS. SO IF WHAT I'M SAYING SOUNDS RIDICULOUS, THEY SOUND RIDICULOUS, TOO, BECAUSE, WHEN WE'RE TANGLING WITH THESE ULTIMATE QUESTIONS OF EXISTENCE, WE'RE BOUND TO GO BEYOND INTUITION. WE'RE BOUND TO GO BEYOND COMMON SENSE, SORT OF, EVERY DAY NOTIONS. AND SO, ANYTHING WE COME UP WITH IS GOING TO STRIKE YOU AT FIRST SIGHT AS JUST BIZARRE, RIDICULOUS, EVEN ABSURD. BUT I THINK WHAT I'M SAYING IS NO MORE RIDICULOUS OR ABSURD THAN TAKING ON FAITH THE EXISTENCE OF AN UNEXPLAINED GOD OR DESIGNER, OR AN UNEXPLAINED SET OF PHYSICAL LAWS THAT JUST HAPPEN TO BE RIGHT, AND GAVE RISE TO OBSERVERS LIKE OURSELVES. >RIGHT, PAUL. EVERY EXPLANATION OF EXISTENCE IS RIDICULOUS. PAUL'S KIND OF BACKWARDS CAUSATION, WHERE CONSCIOUSNESS TODAY CAN SOMEHOW SELECT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT ENABLED ITS OWN EARLIER EMERGENCE IS CERTAINLY RIDICULOUS. BUT IS PAUL'S THEORY MORE RIDICULOUS THAN A SELF-EXISTING GOD, OR THEN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS MAGICALLY APPEARING OUT OF NOTHING AND BEING PERFECTLY TUNED TO HUMAN EXISTENCE? OR THAN VAST NUMBERS OF UNIVERSES, EACH WITH ITS OWN LAWS? WHY SUCH EXTREME SOLUTIONS TO COSMOS, CONSCIOUSNESS, GOD? MAYBE EXTREME IS WHAT'S NEEDED TO EXPLAIN ULTIMATE REALITY. ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT PAUL OFFERS THE MOST EXTREME ULTIMATE EXPLANATION HAS NOT ENCOUNTERED PHILOSOPHER JOHN LESLIE. JOHN IS COEDITOR OF THE MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE: WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL? >>IT COULD BE THAT THE WORLD HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AROUND CONSCIOUSNESS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD BE A BELIEVER IN GOD WHO THOUGHT THAT THE WORLD WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED AT ALL, HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR CONSCIOUSNESS. AND I THINK YOU CAN EVEN DEFEND THE THEORY THAT NOTHING COULD ACTUALLY BE REAL UNLESS THERE WAS CONSCIOUSNESS INVOLVED. >HOW WOULD THAT BE? >>THE IDEA, I THINK, IS BASICALLY THIS -- THAT IT'S ESSENTIAL TO THE NATURE OF REALITY THAT REALITY BE SOMETHING COMPLICATED, BUT ALL THE COMPLEXITIES ARE ALL IN A SINGLE THING. BUT, THIS DEMANDS CONSCIOUSNESS. ONLY CONSCIOUSNESS IS ABLE TO TAKE AN ENTIRE COMPLICATED PATTERN AND MAKE IT BELONG TO A SINGLE THING. AND UNLESS YOU HAD CONSCIOUSNESS, THERE WOULD BE NO COMPLEXITY IN THE WORLD. I THINK THAT IT COULD BE THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD IS A STRUCTURE THOUGHT BY AN INFINITE MIND. OR, IT COULD SIMPLY BE THAT YOU COULD DEFEND THE VIEW THAT EVEN AT THE LEVEL OF VERY SIMPLE SYSTEMS, LIKE ATOMS, THERE IS A VERY OBSCURE SORT OF CONSCIOUSNESS, WHICH IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO GET THE BUSINESS OF COMPLEXITY INTO THE WORLD. HOW DO YOU GET A COMPLEX UNIVERSE? HOW DO THE VARIOUS PARTS OF IT KNOW THAT THE OTHER PARTS ARE THERE, SO THEY CAN REACT TO THE OTHER PARTS? I THINK IT COULD MAKE SENSE TO SAY CONSCIOUSNESS IS REQUIRED FOR THIS, AND - >SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS A MORE FUNDAMENTAL PART OF REALITY? >>THAT COULD BE THE CASE, YES. BUT, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD SIMPLY BE DISMISSED OUT OF HAND. >WELL, IT'S SOMETHING THAT MOST SCIENTISTS WORKING TODAY WOULD DISMISS, OUT OF HAND. >>YEAH, I THINK, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T THOUGH THAT MATTER THROUGH. I THINK THEY HAVEN'T REALIZED THAT WHAT THEY ARE CONSTANTLY INVESTIGATING IS THE STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD, SUCH AS COULD BE DESCRIBED BY MATHEMATICS. THEREFORE, THEY AREN'T IN THE BUSINESS OF DECIDING WHAT CARRIES THAT STRUCTURE, WHETHER, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S CARRIED BY A DIVINE MIND. IF YOU WERE A PANTHEIST, YOU COULD THINK THAT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING EXISTS INSIDE A DIVINE MIND, THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD IS THE STRUCTURE OF THE THOUGHTS IN A DIVINE MIND. THERE'S AN ETHICAL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS SATISFIED BY THE FACT THAT A UNIVERSE EXISTS. NOW, I, MYSELF, CAN'T THINK THAT THE UNIVERSE WOULD HAVE ANY VALUE AT ALL, EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, IF CONSCIOUSNESS WERE ABSENT FROM IT. I THINK THIS WAY OF THINKING ISN'T -- ISN'T CRAZY. >TO GET AT ULTIMATE REALITY, CRAZY THINKING MAY BE JUST WHAT'S NEEDED. HERE'S MY TAKE ON CONSCIOUSNESS AND ULTIMATE REALITY. A SEQUENCE OF QUESTIONS. QUESTION ONE: IS CONSCIOUSNESS REAL, OR AN ILLUSION? IF AN ILLUSION, STOP. ONLY THE PHYSICAL EXISTS, AND THERE IS NO GOD. IF REAL, GO ON TO QUESTION TWO. QUESTION TWO: IS CONSCIOUSNESS ENTIRELY THE ACCIDENTAL OUTPUT OF THE PHYSICAL BRAIN? IF YES, STOP. IF NO, GO ON TO QUESTION THREE. QUESTION THREE: IF CONSCIOUSNESS GOES BEYOND THE PHYSICAL BRAIN, WHICH OF FOUR CAUSES WOULD IT HAVE? A -- NEW FUNDAMENTAL FORCE. B -- REFLECTION OF PRIMORDIAL COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. C -- CREATION OF A CONSCIOUS GOD. D -- PRODUCT OF A FUNDAMENTAL VALUE. I, MYSELF, CAN GET TO QUESTION THREE. OF ALL THAT WE KNOW ABOUT ULTIMATE REALITY, CONSCIOUSNESS PROVIDES THE BEST CLUES. BUT THEN, WHICH WOULD CAUSE CONSCIOUSNESS? FUNDAMENTAL FORCE, COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS, GOD, VALUE? WHICH WOULD BE CLOSER TO TRUTH?

Info

Channel: Closer To Truth

Views: 54,141

Rating: undefined out of 5

Keywords: closer to truth, robert lawrence kuhn, Keith Ward, Simon Blackburn, Varadaraja Raman, Paul Davies, John Leslie, Does Consciousness Lead to God, closer to truth full episodes, consciousness, god, philosophy of religion

Id: -tXs-gN-xZk

Channel Id: undefined

Length: 26min 46sec (1606 seconds)

Published: Tue Sep 01 2020