Thread by @MidbellSoul

The Hard Problem of Consciousness: a nail in the coffin for atheism and one of the most perplexing questions to exist.

[Thread]

Bear with me, this ones hard to explain. But once it clicks, you’ll understand that it is an irrefutable argument against materialism or atheism /1

In its simplest form, the problem is that a purely physical world cannot account for subjective experiences. Subjective experience, however, exists. Therefore, there must be more than a purely physical world. Let me give an example to explain this /2

The color red. In nature, in objective reality, red doesnt exist. What does exist is a wavelength of 650 nm oscillating through space. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a purely physical, numerical phenomenon.

Yet somehow, the subjective, nonmaterial experience of “red” /3

comes into perception, despite there not being a source of “data” in nature to define what the experience of red should be. You might say “well no, we have organs to sense colors”

Not quite. We have organs to sense the wavelengths, not the “colors.” let me explain /4

Could color be an objective truth? Could it be mapped out in an equation and be explained to someone who is blind? Can I ever prove my “blue” is the same as yours?

No. The reason is because there is no objective data on the matter; it doesn’t exist. Let’s go further /5

How do we perceive red? We have a purely physical wavelength permeating through space. It hits our retina (also a purely physical thing), which sends an electrical signal (physical) to neurons (physical), and the neurons then interact (all mechanical, physical). /6

Somewhere, somehow, in this interaction between materials, a nonmaterial thought, an experience, manifests despite there being no link between the two. The same goes for taste, sound, sadness, spatial dimension, etc. ALL inner experiences are not a product of physical data /7

That’s where the problem lies. We paradoxically have nonmaterial experience in a material world, and there is no scientific way to rationalize how that works /8

It’s called the hard problem because the answer doesn’t lie in “we just need better technology or more science” to solve it.

The problem is inherently unsolvable scientifically, because science deals with objective reality whereas consciousness is purely subjective /9

The 2 paths are parallel and there is no crossing between them. We will never have a scientific answer to this problem.

“I eventually came to the conclusion that [a scientific theory of consciousness] just doesn’t work.” - David Chalmers /10

What does Allah say about this?

“And they ask you [O Mohammad] about the soul. Say, “The soul is of the affair of my Lord, and mankind has not been given knowledge except a little” [17:85]

Allah Himself says that we cannot explain how this works, as He has not given us /11

the knowledge (except a little).

Yes I am arguing that the soul is the source for consciousness.
Many philosophers are beginning to argue that consciousness is a fundamental building block of nature, like mass, charge, or dimension. This view does not contradict an /12

Islamic view, as we believe the Soul that Allah blew into Adam was what gave him life, and not the physical body that was constructed. That was merely a “biological robot,” but the Soul placed within is what gave Adam the experience of existing. So the emerging modern view /13

Is in line with simple Islamic text. This emerging view and Islamic philosophy, however, challenge the reductionist, material/atheistic view. They just don’t have any ground to stand on, and anyone who argues otherwise simply hasn’t understood/avoids the Hard Problem. /14

Materialists say there is nothing above our physical world. Consciousness says otherwise. It logically necessitates it.

This opens a door atheists have been trying to close for centuries: that there is more to the world than what we can observe. /15

They’ll tell you “show me objective evidence of God” while they can’t even show you evidence that their own mind exists. Still, they believe it does. A fundamental logical flaw that shows they pick and choose what to think to fit their agenda; they don’t *want* to believe. /16

There’s a lot more to say and more to delve into with this topic, but I don’t want to make this too long. The big idea is that Islam is a more encompassing and accurate world view than what science can offer, and this is becoming more and more evident as we learn. /17

If you benefitted from this at all, retweet to spread the knowledge and follow for future posts similar to this.
JzkAllah khair :)