Consciousness refers to the qualitative aspect of experience—what philosophers call what it is like to be something. It is what distinguishes a conscious subject from an unconscious system. Because of this, consciousness is closely tied to questions of value and dignity: a conscious being matters in a way that an unconscious object does not. This does not mean that a human has more intrinsic worth than every other living thing by definition, but it does explain why consciousness plays a central role in moral reasoning.
Consciousness is not merely biological life. It involves awareness—the capacity to know that one exists. In this minimal sense, consciousness is self-revealing: to be conscious is already to be aware of being conscious. However, it does not follow that all conscious beings are literally “in communion” with one another; they share a property, not a collective mental state.
Awareness and Thought
When you try to stop thinking, you do not cease to exist. What remains is a bare sense of awareness. This shows that thoughts are contents of consciousness, not identical with it. From this it follows that a person is not reducible to their thoughts, memories, or self-descriptions.
For example, someone may strongly identify as a computer expert, an athlete, or a parent. These identities shape their self-understanding, but they are not the person themselves. If such traits were lost, the individual would still exist as a conscious subject. Identity over time therefore cannot be equated simply with a bundle of thoughts or roles.
What Remains?
If we imagine subtracting the body, emotions, memories, and thoughts, what remains is not a richly detailed self but a minimal sense of existence—the awareness that there is experience occurring. This does not prove that such a state could actually exist independently of the brain; it only shows that awareness is conceptually distinct from its contents.
This distinction is often exaggerated into the claim that consciousness could exist entirely on its own. That step requires further argument and cannot be assumed.
Consciousness and the Question of God
Religion famously asks, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and often answers, “God.” But this raises an obvious parallel question: Why is there God rather than nothing? Appealing to God does not automatically dissolve explanatory problems.
A more immediate philosophical puzzle is: Why is there consciousness at all? Why are we not systems that merely function without any awareness of existing?
Some writers claim that “we do not experience consciousness; consciousness experiences us.” This is rhetorically striking but misleading. A more careful formulation is that consciousness is not an object we observe; it is the condition under which experience occurs. Saying “we are consciousness” risks collapsing the distinction between subject, process, and person.
Moral Status and Consciousness
It is a mistake to argue that consciousness overrides all moral considerations or that a conscious being must be preserved regardless of its choices or consequences. Consciousness alone does not erase moral agency. Likewise, moral status does not reduce to functional roles (such as being a doctor), but neither does bare awareness automatically trump all other values.
Perception and Reality
We are aware that we are conscious, but we do not directly perceive the world “as it is in itself.” When we see a table, we experience a perceptual representation of it, not its underlying physical structure. Physics tells us that matter is mostly empty space, but this does not mean tables do not exist.
George Berkeley argued that because we only experience ideas, matter does not exist independently of perception. This conclusion does not follow. The fact that experience is mediated does not imply that there is no external reality. In everyday life—and in science—we reasonably proceed on the assumption that the world exists independently of our perceptions.
Is Consciousness “Useful”?
Some claim consciousness is useless because unconscious systems could, in principle, perform the same functions. This misses the point. Consciousness is not valuable because it is instrumentally efficient but because it is the condition under which anything can matter at all.
A person with severe cognitive impairment may lack memory, planning, or rational control, yet remains a conscious subject. This shows that consciousness is not identical with intelligence or goal-directed behavior. However, it does not follow that consciousness exists “for its own sake” in a metaphysical sense, nor that it is independent of physical processes.
Meaning and Consciousness
Consciousness is a necessary condition for meaning, but it is not sufficient by itself to guarantee that life has meaning. Meaning arises from relationships, projects, values, and contexts—none of which follow automatically from bare awareness.
Faulty Arguments for Eternity
Some writers argue that consciousness is eternal or indestructible because time is infinitely divisible or because a moment could, in principle, be experienced in infinitely many ways. These arguments are deeply flawed.
Infinite divisibility does not imply infinite duration.
A potential infinite division of experience does not mean experience actually becomes infinite.
Einstein’s relativity does not imply that minds can stop time or become eternal.
Possibility is not actuality. Having the conceptual possibility of endless experience does not entail that we will experience endlessly.
Infinity in one respect does not imply infinity in all respects. An infinite line is infinite in length but finite in every other property. Likewise, even if consciousness had some abstract “infinite” feature, this would not prove personal immortality.
Claims that consciousness is indestructible because it is “very good” commit a basic fallacy: value does not guarantee permanence. Many valuable things perish.
Time, Hope, and Truth
Recognizing that time passes and that situations can change can support hope, but this is a psychological truth, not a metaphysical proof of immortality or ultimate meaning. It does not replace religion, philosophy, or ethics, nor does it function as a substitute for God.
The Present Moment
I only know the present 100%. In other words, I know I experience the now. Thus no evidence, no Bible can ever refute this doctrine for it does not have the force of direct experience. In principle, the present moment matters more than the past or the future or even God. The present should be my God.
REPLY:
It is true that we directly experience only the present moment.
However, it does not follow that the present should be treated as
God or as more important than all other considerations. Memory,
anticipation, and reasoning are essential to human life, and
dismissing them undermines responsibility and understanding.
BUT - This answer assumes that we dismiss. No. We already have a thin line between putting the present first and them next anyway. We reduce not dismiss.
Consciousness and God-of-the-Gaps
Consciousness is deeply puzzling, but appealing to God as an explanation does not automatically help—especially if no account is given of how a non-physical being could be conscious. Used this way, God becomes a gap-filler, not an explanation.
Invoking a mystery to explain another mystery does not reduce confusion; it merely relocates it.
Conclusion
Consciousness is remarkable and foundational to experience, value, and meaning. But many arguments about it—especially those attempting to prove immortality, divinity, or indestructibility—fail due to equivocation, emotional appeal, or confusion about infinity and possibility.
Respecting consciousness requires intellectual discipline, not exaggeration. It is mysterious enough without turning it into a substitute for God or a guarantee of eternity.