Naturalists struggle to fit consciousness into their worldview because it seems obvious that consciousness is not material in nature. Various attempts have been made by naturalists to account for consciousness. One of the strangest explanations is offered by philosopher Daniel Dennett. His solution is to eliminate consciousness so that it does not require an explanation at all. He does so by claiming that consciousness is not real, but an illusion.
Of the myriad of ways one might go about showing why Dennett’s solution does not work, I think Greg Koukl has offered the most straightforward and clearest critique. Koukl points out that in order to recognize something as an illusion, two things are required: (1) the presence of a conscious observer who is capable of perception, and (2) the ability to distinguish between what is real and what is illusion.
If there were no conscious observers who can perceive, then it is impossible to know there is an illusion because the non-conscious do not perceive or know anything. So if consciousness was not real there would be no way to perceive that consciousness was just an illusion. If consciousness is required to perceive an illusion, then consciousness cannot itself be an illusion. Similarly, one would have to be able to perceive both the real world and the illusory world in order to know there is a distinction between the two, and to subsequently identify the illusory world as illusory. If all one perceived was the illusion, they would not be able to recognize it as such.
Naturalists struggle to fit consciousness into their worldview because it seems obvious that consciousness is not material in nature. Various attempts have been made by naturalists to account for consciousness. One of the strangest explanations is offered by philosopher Daniel Dennett. His solution is to eliminate consciousness so that it does not require an explanation at all. He does so by claiming that consciousness is not real, but an illusion.
Of the myriad of ways one might go about showing why Dennett’s solution does not work, I think Greg Koukl has offered the most straightforward and clearest critique. Koukl points out that in order to recognize something as an illusion, two things are required: (1) the presence of a conscious observer who is capable of perception, and (2) the ability to distinguish between what is real and what is illusion.
If there were no conscious observers who can perceive, then it is impossible to know there is an illusion because the non-conscious do not perceive or know anything. So if consciousness was not real there would be no way to perceive that consciousness was just an illusion. If consciousness is required to perceive an illusion, then consciousness cannot itself be an illusion. Similarly, one would have to be able to perceive both the real world and the illusory world in order to know there is a distinction between the two, and to subsequently identify the illusory world as illusory. If all one perceived was the illusion, they would not be able to recognize it as such.
Thinking to Believe 
January 12, 2012 at 4:26 am
Conscousness is brain activity! So, no problem exists for us naturalists. How does conscousness arise is a problem for neuroscientists.The God of the scientific gap need not apply for work! And the one of the metaphysical gap need not apply as the Ultimate Expllantion,despite Leibniz, or the Primary Cause,despite Aquinas.
And the argument from reason fails,because no intent exists for us to find truths,save our own! We learn from trial and error to trust and- mistrust our faculties. We use instruments to aid them. We debate matters. The skeptic way is to investigate fairly.
Would Plantinga, as he does with natural evils, allege that possibly demons have the intent for us to err in finding the truth?
Lamberth’s teleonomic argument notes that as science finds no intent behind natural causes, then to posit Him behind natural causes contradicts science instead of complementin it.
Therefore, theistic evolution is an oxymoronic obfuscation!
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Griggs,
That’s a very confident assertion you have made. What’s your evidence for it? There’s a reason why even hard-care materialists call it the “hard problem of consciousness.” Clearly you do not appreciate the problem they are grappling with, and still have not solved. Saying consciousness is just brain activity is more of a philosophical commitment than a finding of science.
In order to justify your assertion, you need to explain how unconscious matter can give rise to conscious matter. It’s an entirely different quality. And how can matter have intentionality? And if consciousness is a feature of matter, why is it that only you have access to your thoughts? Why is it that only you can see your memories? If consciousness was just the brain, then scientists should be able to see what you are seeing because matter is 3rd person, not 1st person.
Jason
LikeLike
January 19, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Jason, I defer to science for that. No God of the scientific gaps you would agree is needed. The God of the metaphysical gap, we naturalists find not explanatory.
Ah, yes, here I’ve much to learn.
I’ll just have to read this blog on the problem to get a better understanding,sir!
What i go by is that should something happen to the brain,it happens also to the mind.
I have some of my blogs crossposted to others of them.
LikeLike
January 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm
You misunderstand the issue if you think this is an example of god-of-the-gaps arguing. I’m not even employing God. While an immaterial mind is surely much more friendly to theism than atheism, the existence of an immaterial mind does not spell theism per se. Consider Buddhists. They believe in an immaterial self, and yet Buddhism is an atheistic religion.
Secondly, the god-of-the-gaps is employed as ignorance, not knowledge. We are not saying, “We don’t know how science can explain consciousness in terms of material causes, therefore consciousness must be immaterial (or God must have created the soul),” but rather, “We have good reasons to think that our minds are immaterial and distinct from our brains.” The fact that science cannot explain it is not the foundation of our claim, but rather congruent with it.
As for the issue of when something happens to the brain, it also happens to the mind, I would agree. But at best this establishes correlation, not causation or identity. When I unplug the TV set the picture disappears, but that does not mean the picture on the TV is caused by the plug.
Jason
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm
I agree with your statement that consciousness is not material… but it is still possible that it is a construct resulting from material things. I think consciousness could be an illusion in that sense – that it is not a thing in itself, it is only perceived. Secondly, the argument you cite against the illusion seems flawed – I can’t explain exactly how, but it feels like circular logic.
Either way, the question of whether or not consciousness is a religious or a natural phenomenon is completely separate… unless you are arguing that consciousness survives after death, that consciousness is equivalent to the soul. In my opinion, consciousness does not equal the soul. It does not survive death, but that doesn’t mean some other form of a soul does not.
I explain more in my blog post: http://wp.me/pT0nj-ir
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 9:19 am
Listener,
How could consciousness be produced from material things? How does a material entity produce anything but another material entity? While certain combinations of atoms can produce new material effects (the liquidity that results when combing 2 hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom), there is no way to combine material objects to produce immaterial phenomenon. No matter how you arrange atoms, something immaterial like consciousness will never emerge. They are two different kinds of things.
But let’s say it was possible to gain consciousness by arranging matter in certain ways (epiphenomenalism). Then what? That may explain how an immaterial mind is produced, but the mind would be incapable of influencing the material world because the causal flow is unidirectional: from the material to the immaterial. The immaterial mind cannot cause anything in the material world. As such, we would still be stuck with physical determinism.
And even if consciousness was a byproduct of material processes, it would not be proper to think of it as an illusion. It is real. It is an immaterial entity. The only difference between that view and substance dualism (as I hold to) is how consciousness is produced. It does not affect what consciousness is. If consciousness is real on substance dualism, consciousness is still real on epiphenomenalism—it’s just produced in a different manner.
As for your claim that the reality of consciousness does not in itself argue for an afterlife, I agree with you. Indeed, on the Christian view both animals and humans are conscious—both have souls. And yet, the souls of animals will not survive their death. The reason the souls of men survive death is because God has willed for them to do so, because He made man in His image, and desires eternal fellowship with man.
Jason
LikeLike
June 12, 2012 at 2:25 am
It seems clear that consciousness can not be an illusion, but this what we could learn from Descartes: if consciousness is an illusion, then it seems that exist but not exist, something absurd, because in consciousness, unlike what happens in the physical, appearance is reality. If it appears that my stomach hurts, then it really hurts my stomach but my stomach does not actually exist but is a virtual construction, such as Matrix or the evil genius. Hence not only consciousness is not an illusion, but if something can not be an illusion, it is our consciousness.
And I think that a more relevant question is what is the relationship between mind and brain, matter where neuroscience is not only competent, but also the parapsychology.
LikeLike
July 8, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Jason, I was going to debate some of your points, but then that last paragraph…
LikeLike