Chapter 1: Understanding Consciousness

The assertion can be made that the color blue indeed exists. More specifically, what philosophers refer to as the ‘qualia’ associated with the color blue is a genuine phenomenon. The essence of ‘blue’ as a quality is undeniably real; it represents a fundamental aspect of our experience, as basic as any truth can be. While it is subjective—one cannot ascertain if my perception of ‘blue’ aligns with yours—the mere fact that I experience it stands as an undeniable reality.

Nevertheless, some philosophers might contest this point. They argue that the mind is ‘hallucinating’ reality, constructing a framework that does not accurately reflect the physical world as described by science. Since even the brain itself is subject to physical scientific inquiry, they conclude that ‘qualia’ may not truly exist.

This perspective reveals an intriguing commentary on the influence of philosophical biases and a determined belief system that allows certain reductionist atheists to claim that our reality is merely a figment of imagination. Ironically, this misguided viewpoint is often rooted in the self-satisfaction that comes from dismissing others' experiences as mere delusions. Regardless, whether one believes the brain is ‘hallucinating’ reality or crafting a heuristic, the reality of experience remains intact.

Even if one posits that experience is merely a series of fabricated delusions created by the mind to navigate the world, the fact of experience persists. The discussion shifts the origin of experience from a genuine quality of reality to a product of our brain’s workings in relation to reality.

Interaction with reality has shaped our existence. For any entity to thrive, it must be molded by its environment, which acts as the filter, shaping what adapts to it. By definition, ‘illusions’ serve a purpose only if they predict or relate to actual reality. When established neuroscientists like Anil Seth assert that “your brain hallucinates reality” in titles of his talks, they inadvertently showcase a philosophical inclination to undermine the fundamental reality of experience, a stance not supported by any concrete evidence.

Despite philosophical debates, experience is undeniable. It exists here and now, unceasingly. No amount of theorizing about causation or mechanisms can diminish the straightforward fact that we perceive something qualitative, whole, and authentic.

In fact, the assertion that heuristics are fundamentally false overlooks a vital truth: science itself operates as a heuristic. Science does not reveal the true nature of an atom but instead formulates laws aimed at predicting its behavior, thereby creating simplified heuristics. One cannot claim that science represents reality any more definitively than one can assert that experience embodies reality. Essentially, science mirrors the simplified processes that our brains engage in constantly.

However, the challenge science faces is that consciousness exists in its own dimension. One of the reasons science struggles to comprehend consciousness is that experience cannot be precisely ‘located’ since it does not correspond to a physical dimension. If I perceive the blueness of blue, where does that perception reside? Saying “in my brain” fails to capture the essence of experience, as the core of experience is the experiencer—a singular, ineffable point of awareness that remains elusive to objective analysis.

This argument does not negate the idea that it is the brain that experiences; if I witness the color blue and am struck on the head with a two-by-four, that experience will cease. Nonetheless, the transient nature of experience does not detract from its authenticity. Our understanding of reality must encompass the existence of qualitative experiences.

To express my view openly, I believe that Platonic idealism holds significant truth. There are genuine forms that represent irreducible aspects of consciousness, grounding all reality as we perceive it. By definition, consciousness comprises qualities, and these qualities endure as long as consciousness itself exists; they are not mere fabrications but rather facts of experience, reinforcing the notion that we embody reality.

Furthermore, for consciousness to manifest in any form, it must engage with the fundamental principles of reality. Even if consciousness is emergent, that emergence stems from the foundational laws governing reality. When we examine evolution and the mind from a broader perspective, it becomes apparent that we are not simply evolving from primates; rather, reality is structured such that, given the right conditions, consciousness emerges. This profound truth is acknowledged by biological theories, which essentially recognize the same astonishing fact. Cognitive scientist Christof Koch succinctly stated:

“Yes, we are contingent on evolution. However, we inhabit a universe that is uniquely conducive to forming complex structures, which then self-assemble. Once we have molecules, natural selection initiates evolution—a largely automatic process. While our evolution may be contingent, the emergence of complex creatures is far more predictable. In systems with intricate non-linear feedback, conscious sensations arise. Thus, consciousness is not merely contingent. What this means, I cannot fully articulate, but I remain hopeful. We exist in a universe particularly favorable to life—the anthropic universe—where physical laws seem to be finely tuned for life’s existence. Moreover, complex structures that facilitate life also give rise to consciousness, suggesting that we reside in a universe that promotes increasing levels of consciousness. Perhaps, the universe is evolving toward a form of self-consciousness… this thought fills me with hope. I cannot ascertain its meaning, but it offers a grand perspective on the universe's unfolding history.”

Much of our scientific methodology is entrenched in a naturalism that tends to dismiss consciousness as an inconsequential epiphenomenon, easily dismissed with labels such as ‘illusion’. This misguided path leads materialists to either follow Daniel Dennett's route—arguing that consciousness, our most fundamental experience, does not exist—or to adopt a more expansive view of reality.

It is noteworthy that Plato’s theory of forms aligns comfortably with a religious worldview. Nietzsche characterized Christianity as “Platonism for the masses,” and in C.S. Lewis’s final Narnia tale, when the children arrive in the ‘real’ Narnia, Digory exclaims, “It’s all in Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at these schools?” Interestingly, Augustine referred to Plato as “Moses in Attic Greek,” indicating that his insights extend beyond mere philosophy. Regardless, the glaring flaws in our current understanding of self necessitate that we recognize there is far more in existence than can be accounted for by our philosophies. After all, the evidence lies before us.

The first video titled "What is consciousness?" delves into the essence of consciousness, exploring its definition and significance in our understanding of reality.

The second video, "Is consciousness an illusion? 5 experts explain," features insights from various experts discussing the nature of consciousness and whether it is merely an illusion or a fundamental aspect of reality.