Being, Thinking and Consciousness

2025 Nov 28

René Descartes famously said, I think, therefore, I am.

What was he talking about? At the time he was taking a radically skeptical viewpoint on everything in life. However, he was also trying to salvage some point of certainty from which to build up meaning for life.

He reasoned that if he had doubts about things, that meant he was thinking. Therefore, his self must exist because he was aware of the doubts in his thoughts. •••

This essay was prompted by a piece by Stephen J. Iacoboni in which he said he thought Descartes had the idea completely reversed. The correct statement should have been, I am, therefore I think.

Critics pointed out that Descartes was only assuming that it was he doing the thinking. And, since the “I” is assumed at the beginning, the doubting and thinking is not evidence of his self. The only thing that could be evidenced was that thinking by some undetermined entity was happening.

While Descartes' argument was imperfect, I actually think he was the one doing the thinking...

Descartes was aware, but was this consciousness? •••

Who is the audience for this discussion and explanation of consciousness?

It is written for Christians, for those that accept the existence of God, and those who do not completely reject all supernatural.

Kinds of Awareness

Rocks exist, and events happen to rocks. Rocks, however, don’t have any experiences because they are without awareness. They don’t sense things and they don’t react to their environment. In our material universe, this is the natural state of all non-living things.

Microbes exist. Unlike rocks, they sense their environment. They even retain certain functional memories of their context, which helps them thrive in their environment. They will act with force when they sense danger. However, even though they sense things, it is unlikely they have any experience of their existence. Their awareness is only instinctual and reactive. They have no desires; they are not happy or sad.

Dogs exist. They sense and experience their context. They come with preprogrammed instincts, but they also have capabilities beyond that. They learn so they can do the things that they want. By all appearances they experience happiness and sadness. Dogs think (especially the motivated ones), but they do not seem to be self-aware. (For example, they don’t pass the mirror test.) They do retain memory of experiences. They have active desires informed by what they have learned. But, they live in the moment of experience, aware of their present. There is no indication that they contemplate their existence.

Humans exist. Although they have some instincts, they rely on learning more than any other species. Humans have experiences and are aware they are experiencing their existence. They envision plans to achieve desired experiences. Afterwards they may have good memories of having lived the experience with friends. Aware of themselves, they contemplate themselves and assess the meaning and purpose of their existence. They are aware of their past, present, and potential future. Humans desire not only the resources to live with a good physical quality of life, but they also need reasons to live.

Naturally Unexplainable

Is there an explanation for all these things?

First, why does anything even exist? (Existence is not natural) ••• Why are microbes even alive? (Life is naturally impossible) ••• Why do dogs have experiences, including that of desires and emotions? (Having experiences is unnecessary in nature) •••

It is not necessary for dogs to experience life because we see microbes flourishing without experiences in their lives. That dogs experience desires and emotions also is unnecessary for fitness for life. Thus, there is no good natural reason for these things.

A natural explanation for a thing must show probabalistically why that thing should happen. However, probabalistically by natural law, dogs should not have these characteristics.

From the best that science tells us, life is impossible by natural law, therefore, from this perspective microbes are not natural.

And, why do microbes react instinctually in ways that keep them alive? This is foresight, not consciousness. This foresight is well beyond the abilities of such an organism though it is very necessary for their flourishing. Why are their instincts so comprehensive? The needed foresight cannot have originated from nature or from them.

Our existence is not predicted by anything natural. It is a surprise and a wonder!

It even requires us to believe in the supernatural.

Why do humans contemplate and think about themselves? (This builds on top of all those already unexplainable aspects of existence, life and experiences.) Natural law and the material world cannot explain this.

Awareness, cognition and volition are key elements of consciousness, but I would argue that they are all physically unnatural. They don't exist naturally and no forces in nature tend toward them. For example, rocks exemplify what natural things do, and rocks don’t think. Rocks are also never about anything, however, humans choose to think about things.

Why do humans have an “I”, a self which they see as distinct from their environment? This is what Descartes was attempting to explain.

In fact, the existence of human consciousness is one of the most mysterious and profound questions that we face. What is it? Why do we have it? What is the purpose for consciousness? Why are humans aware of themselves and crave meaning for their life?

Too many explanations

People have long attempted to find answers to these questions, but understanding consciousness is always difficult. In general there are two kinds of explanations about happenings, answers for how and answers for why. ••• From natural and human sources we don’t have good explanations for how consciousness functions, or why it does.

The standard questions of a news reporter

  • who
  • what
  • where
  • when
  • why

cover the important human interest parts of a story. Most of these ask for context documentation. They are not scientific questions.

The science-oriented question is how.

The questions of how and why are the ones needing answers that are explanations.

Certainly, natural sources don't have a good answer for where consciousness came from. On natural causes and forces, it would not be predicted and should not exist. Even so, many natural or evolutionary explanations have been offered. This paper describes hundreds of explanations in a landscape that at one end is purely materialistic and the other end is purely idealistic (immaterial). And it is not even an exhaustive collection! •••

The paper says qualia is a key distinctive of consciousness. Qualia is what we call our experience of sensations in our world. Some examples of qualia:

  • the deep redness of a rose
  • an evocative smell which brings a memorable day to mind
  • music that brings a rush of emotion out of us

The linked paper then really is a collection of explanations for qualia.

Although though qualia is mysterious, I do not think it is the most important aspect of consciousness. This is because all living things sense their environment. However, humans above other living things also have a reflective awareness of all this. So I think the paper's view is a seriously impoverished (even mistaken) understanding of consciousness.

I am not, however, surprised that explanations of qualia are presented as explanations of consciousness. There is a strong bias these days to not present humans as exceptional above other species. If qualia is all that needs to be explained, then it is reasonable to think that other species also have qualia, and therefore that they would have consciousness too.

This is a mistake because artifacts of consciousness are only produced by humans. No other species designs and produces technology or original works of art. Other species do not make stories encoded in spoken and written languages. Exceptionally, only humans do this, and it is done out of their consciousness.

If non-human species have never created artifacts of consciousness, it is most likely they are not conscious.

The fact that there are so many explanations on offer is confirmation that in general humans really do not understand consciousness. Maybe part of the problem is attempting to explain the wrong thing. Maybe consciousness is not even a "thing" on its own. Maybe consciousness is a means, the means by which we experience our lives.

Distinguishing human consciousness

Is human consciousness unique? Only humans invent artifacts of consciousness such as technology, art and literature. This argues human consciousness is qualitatively distinct among all living species.

The first distinguishing feature of human consciousness is reflective awareness of the self. We can experience our self even while devoid of sensory input (example: if floating in an isolation tank). Descartes got it right that consciousness is primarily associated with thinking and awareness of thinking.

Consciousness includes our experience of sensory input, as for instance our awareness of the "redness" of red things. This personal experience of our sensations is called qualia. It is through consciousness that we notice qualia, and by consciousness we abstract the qualia.

Consciousness is connected with our abilities regarding stories: seeing our own story, creating new stories, being captivated by stories we hear, and remembering them. It is connected with our ability to think abstractly and to think about things. It is connected with our awareness of our existence and context. It is connected with our ability through contemplation of alternate possible realities (stories) to make, communicate, and execute plans to change our life.

Sources for consciousness

The non-living material world has none of these characteristics that distinguish consciousness. We can conclude it is without consciousness. Therefore, consciousness could not have come from it. •••

If you would think consciousness can come from the material world, that would be a metaphysical conjecture. It lacks physical evidence because consciousness has not ever been measurable. There are no units of consciousness or devices to quantify consciousness. We only see the effects of consciousness.

Panpsychism is an example of a hypothesis for consciousness that supposedly avoids the supernatural. However, it doesn’t explain anything. It just says that consciousness is a feature of all things. Some things (apparently humans) have more of it. Even in this theory, consciousness is intangible and immaterial. Panpsychism therefore really is a supernatural description, but not a very good one.

There is nothing wrong with looking to the supernatural for a good explanation, but do so honestly and admit that. And if the supernatural is in scope, then promote a good explanation, not a poor one.

The rest of the (non-human) world of living things is missing key aspects of consciousness. There is no evidence there for the telling of stories. ••• These living things do not make and execute plans to invent new contexts of living. We see no artifacts of consciousness from them. Consciousness then cannot come out of this living part of the physical world either. •••

Couldn't consciousness have just emerged out of the complex brains of humans as they evolved through time (and presumably became more complex)? No.

Things only emerge out of structures that explictly enable the emergent behavior.

  • The fluidity of water emerges out of the particular structures of water molecules.
  • Flight emerges out of wings that are shaped as an airfoil

Emergence is never a happy accident; it only occurs when the material components are structured to produce the effect. No natural materials are already structured for consciousness, and no natural laws exist that increase the odds of naturally-occurring consciousness.

 

Couldn't consciousness come from evolutionary selection forces? No.

In theory it could if consciousness were a result of brain function. However, that is not what evidence shows. Split brain studies, study cases of certain deformed brains, study of direct stimulation of the brain, and verified near death experiences all show that the mind is not what the brain does.

Consciousness is a characteristic of the mind, not of the brain. And the mind is not produced by the brain. So, consciousness cannot emerge naturally, whatever the forces.

Stories are sequenced communications of events, experiences and thoughts. Stories include feelings (because we experience feelings). However, only communicating feelings doesn't quite constitute telling a story.

The primary means we have for telling stories is by languages that have words. Sequences of pictures can also tell stories, but when missing words this method is limited. (Think the "Pictionary" game, or silent movies before sound was integrated into them.)

Personally I think some entities without a human spirit (see main text following) are able to emulate simple story telling. What they do is learn, identify, and reproduce patterns used in human story telling. Examples of this are some exceptional birds that have learned the sounds of talking, Koko - a captive gorilla that could use sign language, and some advanced Large Language Model AI systems. They may emulate stories produced by humans, but this story telling is not original to them.

Does music (without words) tell stories? I think it can tell sequences of feelings. However, the known stories in music only exist because they follow patterns that have already been established from a story known through words. (example: The Sorcerer's Apprentice) Birdsong and whalesong might be examples of telling feelings, but not telling stories.

There are some unusual languages based on musical patterns. An example is whistled languages. There are established signal conventions for these languages, and so, if they are used to tell stories it is because they communicate words.

If we don't see consciousness naturally present in our world, let us designate a placeholder source. I will posit that consciousness comes from something we are unable to observe directly, but which has characteristics of awareness, cognition and volition.

Religions in the world offer their explanations about consciousness by a variety of supernatural means. However, many of these have the form of "just so" stories. They are interesting narratives, but what they purport to explain does not follow from their description, and they lack evidence.

A very good answer though comes from Christianity. •••

Is there evidence for the truth of the Christian explanation? I admit it is not conventional scientific evidence in the sense of hypothesis, reproducible experiment and test results. Firstly it is historical evidence, largely as encoded in the Bible, and the Bible as validated by the findings of archeology, and by concordance with other non-religious historical documents.

However, there is a bit of an experiment which can lead to testible results. If putting the context and premises of this explanation into practice does work to make the predicted changes in personal life, that can be evidence for the truth of it all.

I am aware this is insufficient to many people, however, evidence is a problem for all theories of consciousness. Humans obtained consciousness at some time in the past, and that is an event which cannot be repeated by humans in the present. Therefore, whatever theory you hold, it is a historical theory.

At minimum the Christian explanation has significant evidence which supports the reliability of the historical documents conveying the theory - something other theories generally do not have.

Consciousness from God

The Christian God is a maximally great being, a necessary being that was not created. God is a single powerful immaterial living entity that is the causal source of all other existence and being. God is conscious, maximally powerful, intelligent, knowledgeable, creative, moral and loving. •••

Why should the reader believe this explanation for consciousness from God has any validity?

  1. Our universe exists, and we are alive in it. I bring arguments this is sufficient evidence for the existence of God. I argue that only supernatural explanations can account for our existence, and the best explanation is God.
  1. We observe Jesus of Nazareth, a unique historical figure, attested to by his followers and documented by third-party historians. He was a teacher and miracle worker that was killed, but was resurrected by God. Jesus was fully human, although his identity uniquely also was God. Jesus' unique characteristics are instructive for this topic.

Please note that this explanation only works if the God in view is the one that Jesus represented. All other conceptions of god are missing critical aspects for this explanation.

 

How is this explanation

  • not just doing what the Greeks did by making their Gods be like them, just much more powerful?
  • not making a claim that this therefore just invented God explains consciousness?

Yes, I do claim there is similarity between humans and God. However, this God is unlike anything a human would have invented. This God calls humans to do that which is completely unlike their natural selves. God calls us to repentence from selfishness and to replace it with beneficial love for others.

There is no advantage to humans to invent such a God, or to do such a thing. Humans aren't even able to make this change in themselves by their own power. It is only if they work with power that God gives them that they can change in this way; they become measurably different people.

This God also sent Jesus to willingly die, substituting himself for others. Humans generally see this as high foolishness, but God considers this to be his wisdom.

Humans would not invent a God so weird and unlike them. Instead, I think it is more likely that God is genuinely real and therefore able to supply power into people's lives to change what they are unable to change on their own.

God exists in three distinct persons (but is still a single being). This means that God exists in relationship without needing any other. Between the persons of God there is harmony, communication and sharing of plans and purposes. •••

It might be surprising to us to think of God as a single being in three distinct persons. But, it should be no surprise when we realize that this God is very different from us.

There is no being superior or even equivalent to God. Humans are therefore lesser beings, and we cannot judge God by our own characteristics. When we acknowledge that God is not like humans, this characteristic of God cannot be unreasonable.

The one-line summary of the explanation for human consciousness is that God made humans as finite beings in the image of God.   Adding detail:

  • God is an immaterial infinite spirit.
  • God created everything that is physical.
  • God made humans with a finite spirit.
  • Humans are an integrated physical body and immaterial spirit (together, a single soul). •••
  • The spirit is the unobserved component that is the source of consciousness.

This is a substance dualist view of consciousness.

Of course there are apparent difficulties with the mind-body problem: How can an immaterial component of a human interact with and affect the physical component of a human?

This question is an issue only if you demand causal closure of the physical world. (This is the view that the physical world is complete and closed off from anything other than what is physical. It views that there is no way something immaterial can have a physical effect.)

However, such a causal closure is incompatible with (for instance) the accepted beginning of the universe. A cause to bring the universe into existence is necessarily supernatural and immaterial, and everybody already accepts this.

Interaction from an immaterial spirit to a material body is a trivial challenge in comparison to the problem of the initiation of the universe.

What is this image of God? It would be in characteristics that we see that both God and humans have (but that the rest of material nature does not have). This would include personhood, ability to think, having qualia and experiences •••, moral awareness and agency. It includes all the characteristics we see associated with consciousness: observing, telling and listening to stories, abstract thinking about things, remembering, self awareness, self reflection, making plans for change of personal context and execution of the plans. •••

A significant part of this explanation lies in our understanding of Jesus.

Jesus was a historical human figure attested to by eyewitnesses and contemporary historians. He had an unusual birth story. God said he himself directly, extra-physically caused the human pregnancy. (Jesus was not conceived by male human physical impregnation.) God also said that the child conceived was God, one of the very persons of God. (This last point by broad synthesis.)

Jesus was a miracle worker. He was killed for what he said and did, but was resurrected by God. There were many witnesses of his renewed human life after he had died. This life as resurrected by God was validation from God of all that Jesus had said and done as a human.

So analyzing Jesus: he was human but the spirit part of his integrated human self was one of the very persons of God. Jesus was fully human, though he was not made in the image of God - Jesus actually was God. The difference from ordinary humans is that the identity of the spirit of Jesus was exactly that of God.

So, Jesus like all humans had a spirit integrated in his human soul. The spirit gave Jesus his unique identity. After his resurrection when he had a different upgraded human body, it was this identical spirit that made him identifiable as the same person to those who knew him from before. It was this spirit that gave him personal knowledge of God the Father. It was the spirit that gave him unusual wisdom and ability to analyze and think about complex challenges (like those posed to him in attempts to trip him up in what he said).

This example of Jesus is the most important guidance I have for this explanation about human consciousness.

Why should we think that God has experiences?

It might be taken as a theology question whether God actually has experiences. However, God certainly uses the language of experiences regarding himself in the words he has caused to be written in the Bible. If nothing else this tells us that our own experiences in our life are another element that is in the image of God.

 

Why should we think that God has qualia?

As God developed the earth in the creation story, he experienced the results of what he was doing. He said it was good, a statement of his personal opinion about what he was sensing. Jesus with the very spirit of God bound into his humanity experienced life with all its sensations, so Jesus God certainly had qualia.

These aspects don't claim that God's qualia is like our qualia. However, neither do I make that claim about any other characteristic given to us by being in the image of God. My only claim is that our qualia has a likeness to God's image and that God has God's own qualia.

  • This explanation accounts for why humans have consciousness. God made humans with consciousness because consciousness is part of his image.
  • This supplies an explanation for how humans have consciousness. God’s existence is as an immaterial spirit that is conscious. God included an immaterial spirit component like this in humans because again that is part of his image.
  • God wanted to enable voluntary relationship with humans. Consciousness is needed for this kind of relationship.
    • This relationship with God brings purpose and meaning to existence and is another reason why we have consciousness.
    • Consciousness also then enables meaningful relationships between humans.
  • An explanation for how consciousness works can be derived:
    • Characteristics of spirit entities include awareness, cognition and volition. (This by synthesis of observations of our world with respect to God, and from what God has revealed to us.)
    • The immaterial human spirit interfaces to the physical world through the instrument of the human body.
    • And so, the infused spirit supplies the integrated physical human with consciousness. •••

    How is this explanation not transgressing into an Aristotelian type which gives no "mechanical" reason for how it works? An example of that bad kind of explanation could be: "Sleeping pills work because of their dormative quality." This type of "explanation" is actually just attibuting causal power to the name of the effect. Rightly this type of explanation has been rejected.

    Instead, explanations became expected to include a "mechanical" cause that directly "pushed" or "pulled" to obtain the effect. In a story about this, Leibniz accused Newton of occult action at a distance with his formula for gravity. The distance squared portion of the equation implied a force between bodies in space. Newton, however, offered no method for how the force was transmitted. (This was a real impediment for the "mechanical philosphers" of his time.) Newton simply left it as an unobserved entity.

    My response is that my explanation is not like those rejected explanation types. The causal power is not attibuted to the effect's name. Instead, I am positing an unobserved entity with causal power for the effect that is observed.

    Unobserved entities are very commonly postulated in modern science. Sometimes an experiment might be done later which is able to observe the entity, but until that time the postulated entity is just accepted in the explanation.

Together, these are a simple and parsimonious explanation for human characteristics and existence, satisfactory to Occam’s Razor. •••

Occam’s Razor is a principle of thinking that helps reduce explanations to only what is necessary.

In the opinion of some people, the Razor would shave away the extra complexity of a duality of substances in humans. Everybody agrees that humans are physical, the immaterial portion would then be cut out of the explanation.

However, the Razor only shaves unnecessary entities. The immaterial component of humans is very necessary for the extensive power of the explanation.

Although this is a supernatural and non-physical explanation, everybody already reasonably believes in the supernatural. If God exists as described (and we have good reason to believe this), then this explanation is adequate. We know that creativity is a characteristic of conscious, intelligent beings, therefore, this explanation (of God as creator and likeness to God) is appropriate.

Further Explanatory Power

We are social beings. In fact, social contact is such an inherent need in people that solitary confinement is punishment to all, even for the very most antisocial of humans. However, social contact is a bare minimum requirement for humans; relationship is what we really desire.

  • Social bent is explained by being made in God’s image. God is inherently relational, so humans also being relational is another essential aspect of God’s image.
  • I think this also answers another purpose for consciousness: self identity by consciousness establishes who is in the relationship.

All humans have an inherent sense of justice. Humans are held to standards of morality in their behaviors, but animals never are. Humans have a sense of morality, though it is either doubtful or indeterminate if animals do. (Animals are selfish to survive, but not in a moral sense.)

  • This explains human morality. God is moral, so moral awareness in humans reflects another essential aspect of God’s image.

The persons of God deeply desire relationship with each other. We see this in the constant affinity of Jesus God for the presence of God the Father during the time Jesus was on earth.

  • This explains why humans consistently seek connection with the divine. We desire God because desire for relationship with the persons of God is yet another aspect of God’s image.

This explanation matches with what we have learned from studies of brain function. Verified near death experience accounts also make sense in this explanatory context. But this is not all the explanation can account for.

A good explanation is also predictive. In this case, what are the implications of this explanation? ••• If we humans are designed and made by God in God's image, then following a pattern of living given to us by the one that designed us should result in good living. If we test the premises of this explanation in our own life, what are the results?

I also see this explanation as part of a larger related perspective. It explains other things well too. A few:

A life following and in relationship with this God provides

  • contentment and good living in spite of difficulties that life consistently presents
  • flourishing for the whole community.
  • personal resilience
  • personal satisfaction in relationships because most deeply we want to be seen and valued as ourselves

Toward Relationship

Relationship and consciousness are closely tied together because full relationships depend on characteristics of consciousness.

But, relationship also depends on shared values. Shared values are not natural to achieve in humans because by nature we all have distinctly selfish values. Natively instead we make do with interests that we have in common with others. However, interests shift, growing and waning, and this is precarious for relationships. Interests are a poor substitute for values because personal values can endure beyond personal interests.

How can we gain shared values with other humans? How can we gain shared values with God? We do so by adopting the value system of God. This is the one value system that can be shared because it is not based on self. It is sacrificial love for the benefit of others and Jesus is our example of what this looks like when lived out. As we live this value system our relationships are enhanced and so our deepest desires are satified. It brings real meaning to our life and gives us a reason to live, and to live well.

This value system enhances our whole world of consciousness.

Continuing Mystery

In the end, even with a good explanation of consciousness from God, consciousness continues to be mysterious. I think this is a good thing and a point for wonder!

This explanation is not a mechanistic or a physical explanation. That may be problematic for many people, (though their opinion has no bearing on the good qualities of the explanation). Based on what we know from introspection of ourselves as conscious beings and based on what we see of conscious beings around us, explaining consciousness by creation in God's image makes good sense.

 

I propose a definition of consciousness, for the purpose of thinking more about it:

  • Consciousness The means by which we have personal experiences and personal thoughts, are aware of the existence of self and the story of self, and have agency in thoughts and actions.

Another interesting resource: The Immortal Mind