I struggle with this question... but I mean, who doesn’t ?!?
I certainly agree with the notion that trying to find a reductionist answer to something that is inherently the opposite is a waste of time for both sides of the argument. Trying to find materialist explanations for non-material issues seems pointless. I’ve had to argue about that when it comes to researching the efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine interventions, as there are a lot of non-reductionable qualities (alongside typical recuctionable, however) involved in the understanding of physiological functioning and the interventions.
But anyway... the idea that consciousness is part of the make-up of the universe... well that starts to get to get into theological territory and then I automatically get my hackles up and wonder what biases and presuppositions may be present. Not that I’m anti-religion or anti-spirituality... I’m quite content being agnostic. Intelligent Design as a concept makes sense, however I just refuse to believe in it if it’s a defecto argument for the existence of a Christian (and also American) God.
And herein lies the rub about all of this... the ‘vested interests’... I guess no one can be totally released from the attachment to their beliefs and social/cultural/etc conditioning, but it would be good if these discussions could genuinely take place in a non-partisan space. Because only in that space can we genuinely inquire without preconceived notions and hopefully come to something resembling truth.
Thanks for the stimulating read 😊🙏🏽☯️
Thanks so much for this inspiring response @metametheus, I like that a lot 😊
What I like about the axiomatic view on consciousness is that it is, for now at least, a more honest approach than just saying that consciousness is "emergent" from our brain's complexity. The same goes for the definition of "life"; there's no universally accepted definition of it, we don't really understand how inanimate molecules give rise to entropy-defying living organisms, so we just say that it's emergent, resulting from the complex interactions within a complex network. I have a big problem with this approach; other emergent properties we understand very well; one water molecule can't be liquid, solid or gas, only a complex system of inter-related molecules can take on those properties. It's nice that we know that chemistry emerges from physics and biology from chemistry. But this we can explain. In the case of life and consciousness emergence is but a guess.
To just say that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe seems somehow logical and necessary; it seems the only way to begin to explain our reality without invoking some external power or entity.
But ultimately, this is a guess to, just a slightly better one in my opinion ;-) Like you I'm content to remain agnostic about this stuff, so I can dream about possibilities; knowledge can be liberating, but absolute knowledge is the end of science and curiosity... 🤓🙏