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?
