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.

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 do think it was him doing the thinking...

Descartes was aware, but was this consciousness?

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, 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 exist? As best as we can tell from science, all things natural (energy, space and matter) came into existence from nothing a finite time ago.

Why are microbes alive? From the best that science tells us, by natural law they are impossible, therefore, from this perspective microbes are not natural. •••

And, why do microbes react instinctually in ways that keep them alive? It is not consciousness, but it is a significant level of foresight, well beyond the abilities of such an organism. This characteristic seems to be necessary for their flourishing. But, why are their instincts so comprehensive? The needed foresight could not have originated from nature or from them.

Why do dogs experience things? This is not necessary for life since microbes flourish without experiences in their lives. Why do dogs experience desires and emotions? That also is unnecessary for fitness for life. There is no natural explanation for why this should need to be.

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. I would even argue that thinking is physically unnatural. Rocks exemplify what natural things do, and rocks don’t think. Rocks are also never about anything, however, humans 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?

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, 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.

Certainly these sources don't have a good answer for where it came from. On natural causes and forces, consciousness 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 an introspective 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.

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 even experience our self while devoid of all 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 ability to see our own story, to tell new stories and be captivated by stories told to us. 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. Therefore, we could conclude it is without consciousness, therefore, consciousness could not have come from it.

The rest of the world of living things (all that is non-human) has no evidence 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. Again then, consciousness cannot come from this part of the material world. •••

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.

There are a huge variety of supernatural answers on offer from various religions. Many of these are "just so" stories because they lack evidence.

However, a very good answer 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 experiment and results that come from putting the premises of this explanation into practice in our personal lives.

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

At least the Christian explanation has 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. •••

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.

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. •••

There is no being superior or even equivalent to God. Humans are therefore lesser beings, and we cannot judge God by our own characteristics.

It really is no surprise that this God is very different from us. It might be surprising to think of God as a single being in three distinct persons. However, when we acknowledge that God is not like humans, this cannot be unreasonable.

God made humans as finite beings in the image of God.

Note that:

  • Although God is greater than what we can imagine, God is a single completely integrated entity.
  • Humans are an integrated physical body and immaterial spirit (together, a single soul). •••

This is a substance dualist view of consciousness.

Of course there are apparent difficulties with the mind-body problem: How does the immaterial component of a human interact with and affect the physical component of a human? This is an issue only if you demand causal closure of the physical world (that is to say there is no way something immaterial can have a physical effect).

However, such a causal closure is incompatible with 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 not even a challenge in comparison to 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, 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, 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 into his human self. 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 an 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 because God has God's own qualia.

  • This explanation accounts for why humans have consciousness. God made humans with consciousness because that is part of his image.
  • God wanted to enable voluntary relationship with humans. Consciousness is needed for this kind of relationship. (This is both a why and a purpose reason.)
  • This supplies an explanation for how humans have consciousness. God’s existence is as an immaterial spirit; God created an immaterial spirit component to humans because that too is part of his image.
  • An explanation for how consciousness works can be derived: Characteristics of spirit entities include awareness, cognition and volition. (This from observation of the physical 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 kind of explanation could be: "A sleeping pill works because of its 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. An example about this was when 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 mechanical explanation for how the force was transmitted. He just left it as an unobserved entity.

My response is that my explanation is not like those rejected types of explanations. 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.

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

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

Supposedly Occam’s Razor would shave away the extra complexity of a duality of substances in humans. Everybody agrees that humans are physical, the immaterial portion should 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 these are supernatural and non-physical explanations, everybody already reasonably believes in the supernatural. If God exists as described (and we have good reason to believe this), then this explanation is completely adequate. And we already know that creative action like this is something that is characteristic of conscious and capable intelligent beings.

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.)

  • Human morality can be explained: 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.

A good explanation is also predictive. In this case, what are the implications of this explanation? ••• If we humans are made in the image of God, then following a pattern of living given to us by our designer 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 this God provides contentment and good living in spite of difficulties that life consistently presents.
  • It provides personal resilience and flourishing for the whole community.
  • And it provides 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 values can endure beyond 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 it, our relationships are enhanced and so our deepest desires are satified, bringing real meaning to our life and giving us a reason to live, and to live well.

This value system enhances our whole world of consciousness.

Still a Mystery

However, even with a good explanation of consciousness from God, consciousness continues to be mysterious.

This explanation is not a mechanistic or a physical explanation. This 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