AGAINST THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Contents:
In the fundamentals of metaphysics, we have established that the fact of existence and the laws of reality necessitated by this fact supersede all else by the very nature of existence. We also established the primacy of existence, but I aim to reinforce this truth with a dialogue.
Causality is inherent in the fact of existence, and existence is an absolute; there is no “state of non-existence” that needs to be overcome, since existence is all there is and all there can be. Hence, order in some form is inherent in the very fact of existence. However, we may still ask: what about complexity, especially the purposeful complexity seen in life-forms? In other words, does the fact that nature has complex order and purposefulness imply an intelligent design?
Consider the fact that intelligent beings such as us humans came after nature, i.e. nature was prior. Furthermore, consider the fact that what we do and create is an extension of the capacities of less intelligent and unintelligent things present in nature. Animals act with a certain purpose, many animals even create things of some complexity, yet animals are less perceptive than humans, at least in a broader context. Likewise, trees grow with a certain purpose, yet they are not even conscious, i.e. they cannot perceive their environment and only act according to the direct effects of their environment. Evidently, purposefulness is not rooted in intelligence, but rather, intelligence is a form of purposefulness that extends from the lower forms of purposeful action such as nutrition and sense-perception.
Furthermore, we see that the purposefulness of life itself has two aspects: self-generated action and self-sustaining action. Regarding these aspects, we observe a continuum of complexity: (1) Physical entities merely acting and reacting. (2) Entities capable of self-generated action (such as stars) that do not orient themselves toward their own survival in a wider range of conditions; a star existing by itself in a vacuum faces no potential for orienting itself for or against its survival, but when it does face other conditions, e.g. collisions with other stars, it only reacts and does not itself act to sustain itself. (3) Entities capable of self-generated action along with self-sustaining actions in a very specific range of conditions, such as a virus. (4) Entities capable of life but in a very basic consumption-oriented way, e.g. single-celled life-forms. (5) Entities capable of reproduction, with a few more specialised parts and structures. (6) Simple organisations of cells, with some specialisation among the cells. (7) A continuum of organisational complexity of cellular life-forms, from single-cellular life-forms to simple multi-cellular organisms to plants and animals.
Hence, we see that complexity and purposefulness do not exist apart from natural developments; there is a continuum of complexity and purposefulness, with each level of complexity being built logically and causally on the previous, simpler level.
NOTE: I do not propose to give a naturalistic explanation for intelligence. I do not know how intelligence arose, nor am I trying to give a definitive answer. I am only pointing out that the existence of intelligent beings and of purposeful beings in general does not imply intelligent design, based on the evidence we have. In fact, the evidence points strongly to a naturalistic basis.
Furthermore, consider the logical validity of the argument that intelligibility in the world implies intelligence. From the fact that we are intelligent and thus can create intelligible things, it does not follow that all intelligible things were created by intelligent beings. After all, A → B does not mean B → A. In fact, intelligibility is based on identity and causality, which are inherent in existence as such.
Finally, consider the fine-tuning argument: everything in existence seems so precisely tuned to support life, hence there must have been an intelligent fine-tuner. Now, note that intelligence is itself a result of “fine-tuning”, i.e. it is a result of an intricate and complex organisation of things. Even basic awareness is far more complex than mechanistic causation. Hence, ascribing the precise nature of reality to an intelligence begs the question: what about the creator-intelligence itself, which is itself bound to be more complex than at least mechanistic causation, basic awareness and perhaps even human consciousness? If such an intelligence can be eternal, why can the far less complex and intelligible universe not itself be eternal in some form? In fact, the existence of a creator-intelligence answers nothing, since such an intelligence still has to act by certain laws to achieve certain effects, which means understanding its creation still requires understanding the laws of reality that it relies on.
NOTE: I posit that intelligence implies complexity on two grounds. (1) Empirically, our only knowledge of intelligence is as an emergent property of a complex biological entity. (2) Intelligence is based on the capacity for abstraction and integration, which implies a capacity for complex behaviour. Now, a thing can only act according to its nature, which means if it shows complex behaviour in and of itself, there must be a variety of interacting factors producing such behaviour, implying a complex structure underlying the intelligence.
Any part of reality has an identity and acts according to it, which means it exists in some logical and causal relationship to the rest of reality. Hence, any part of existence naturally reflects its relationship to the rest of existence in some form. However, a one-to-one correspondence is in no way necessitated. A creature having eyes does not mean the planet it lives on must have the power of vision, and a person having a mind does not mean the universe must be based on a mind itself. On the contrary, we observe that since everything that exists is necessarily something distinct in at least some respects, a one-to-one correspondence is never guaranteed on every level. Nonetheless, the parts do reflect the whole in some way: for example, the creature’s existence does reflect a lot about its planet, e.g. the nature of lighting on the planet, the air composition, some materials present on it, etc. Likewise, the universe and the factors that make it what it is need not reflect the structure of our minds in a one-to-one correspondence; in other words, human consciousness does not imply divine consciousness.
What of the claim that the whole of existence is one consciousness? By the nature of consciousness, it cannot be the whole of existence (since consciousness, being a faculty, is an aspect of an entity and not the whole of it). Now, one could claim that the universe itself is a brain that supports a consciousness. However, not only is this an arbitrary claim, but it also does not contradict any metaphysical axioms or anything derived from them. Why? Because even if there exists such a consciousness, it is by its very nature a product of existence and not existence as a whole. It would be an incredible discovery in astronomy, perhaps, but it would not shake metaphysics or even physics.