Can materialistic evolution account for human consciousness?                  By Jack Kettler                                                  This essay will consider how “you” became “you” and the evolutionist as a metaphysician.       What exactly is self-consciousness?   When considering human consciousness, it is not an abstract concept. It is how each individual has an identity that is distinguished from others. Human consciousness is self-awareness.     Consider this about Self-Consciousness:   “Human beings are conscious not only of the world around them but also of themselves: their activities, their bodies, and their mental lives. They are, that is, self-conscious (or, equivalently, self-aware). Self-consciousness can be understood as an awareness of oneself. But a self-conscious subject is not just aware of something that merely happens to be themselves, as one is if one sees an old photograph without realising that it is of oneself. Rather a self-conscious subject is aware of themselves as themselves; it is manifest to them that they themselves are the object of awareness. Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”, terms that each of us uses to refer to ourselves as such.” (1)                      Can materialistic evolution account for human consciousness? This question probes the intersection of evolutionary theory and the nature of consciousness. Evolutionary theory aims to explain the development of physical life forms, a process known as "natural selection." However, it is unclear how this theory can account for non-physical entities such as consciousness, which is commonly understood to be an immaterial aspect of human existence. If consciousness is purely physical, it would be reduced to electrical and chemical interactions in the brain, a perspective that raises questions about the nature of thought, communication, and the orderly structure of human consciousness.   The theory that human consciousness is merely the result of random electrical and chemical reactions in the brain leads to numerous logical and mathematical inconsistencies. This perspective, often associated with a strict materialist view, suggests that thoughts and consciousness are solely the product of physical processes in the brain.   However, this idea raises significant questions about the nature of thought, communication, and the apparent orderliness of human consciousness. Consider the following:   1.      Orderly Thought and Communication: If thoughts are random, it would be mathematically improbable for them to consistently produce coherent and meaningful communication. The complexity of language and the structured nature of thought suggest a level of organization that is not easily reconciled with randomness. The probability of random electrical and chemical reactions consistently producing orderly thought is infinitesimally small, suggesting that there must be some underlying organizing principle at work. 2.      Information Theory: Information theory, a branch of applied mathematics, provides a framework for quantifying the amount of information in a signal or message. In the context of human consciousness, the amount of information conveyed in thoughts and communication is significant. If thoughts were random, the amount of information they contain would be minimal, contradicting the observed complexity and richness of human thought. 3.      Complexity and Emergence: The brain's complexity, with its billions of neurons and trillions of synaptic connections, is often cited as evidence of its ability to produce consciousness. However, complexity alone does not guarantee consciousness's emergence. The mathematical probability of random interactions between neurons leading to consciousness's emergence is also very low. 4.      Computational Model: A computational model of the brain suggests that it functions like a computer, processing information and producing output. However, if the brain's output (thoughts and consciousness) were random, it would be equivalent to a computer producing random outputs, which is not a realistic or useful model. 5.      The Turing Test: The Turing Test, a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human, provides a framework for evaluating the nature of consciousness. If human consciousness were merely random electrical and chemical reactions, it would be difficult to explain how a machine could be programmed to pass the Turing Test, as random processes would not consistently produce intelligent behavior.   Thus far, the theory that human consciousness is the result of random electrical and chemical reactions leads to numerous logical and mathematical absurdities. The complexity of thought, the information conveyed in communication, the emergence of consciousness, the computational model of the brain, and the Turing Test all suggest that there must be more to human consciousness than randomness.   The consciousness dilemma:   The existence of consciousness presents a dilemma for the evolutionist, particularly if consciousness is non-material. Materialism, which posits that everything is physical, struggles to explain the emergence of non-material entities like logic, ethics, mathematics, and science. The mechanisms by which consciousness arises within a purely physical framework remain unclear and are often the subject of metaphysical speculation. Consciousness, as a non-physical phenomenon, is not quantifiable in the way physical entities are, making it difficult to integrate into an evolutionary framework.   Self-consciousness, a central aspect of human identity, further complicates the issue. Each individual's self-awareness distinguishes them from others, and this personal consciousness is not merely an abstract concept but a fundamental aspect of human experience. The evolutionist's claim that human consciousness evolves daily, akin to ongoing macroevolution, is difficult to reconcile with the observable world. If consciousness is evolving daily, it implies a miraculous, almost personified evolution, which contradicts the scientific premise that phenomena must be observable and measurable.   Thus far, it is seen that the evolutionist's attempt to explain consciousness through materialistic evolution often relies on metaphysical speculation rather than empirical evidence. This approach blurs the lines between science and religion, as it requires a leap of faith in the unseen. The evolutionist's reliance on non-observable phenomena challenges the scientific method and highlights the philosophical and religious underpinnings of their arguments.   Materialistic evolution cannot account for human consciousness due to the following logically structured reasons:   1.      Non-Physical Nature of Consciousness: Materialistic evolution is designed to explain the development of physical life forms. However, consciousness is understood to be an immaterial aspect of human existence. If consciousness is purely physical, it would be reduced to electrical and chemical interactions in the brain, which does not adequately explain the complexities of thought, communication, and the orderly structure of human consciousness. 2.      Emergence of Non-Material Entities: Materialism, which posits that everything is physical, struggles to explain the emergence of non-material entities like logic, ethics, mathematics, and science. These entities are fundamental to human consciousness and cannot be explained through physical interactions alone. 3.      Mechanisms of Consciousness: The mechanisms by which consciousness arises within a purely physical framework remain unclear and are often the subject of metaphysical speculation. Consciousness, as a non-physical phenomenon, is not quantifiable in the way physical entities are, making it difficult to integrate into an evolutionary framework. 4.      Self-Consciousness: Each individual's self-awareness distinguishes them from others, and this personal consciousness is not merely an abstract concept but a fundamental aspect of human experience. Materialistic evolution struggles to explain how individual consciousness evolves daily, akin to ongoing macroevolution, which is difficult to reconcile with the observable world. 5.      Leap of Faith: The evolutionist's attempt to explain consciousness through materialistic evolution often relies on metaphysical speculation rather than empirical evidence. This approach blurs the lines between science and religion, as it requires a leap of faith in the unseen. The evolutionist's reliance on non-observable phenomena challenges the scientific method and highlights the philosophical and religious underpinnings of their arguments.   In conclusion, materialistic evolution cannot account for human consciousness due to its inability to explain the non-physical nature of consciousness, the emergence of non-material entities, the mechanisms of consciousness, the nature of self-consciousness, and its reliance on metaphysical speculation rather than empirical evidence.   The above study expands on the essay “Can evolution account for human consciousness?” It was also Groked and perfected with Grammarly AI.   “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)   Note:   1.      Principal Editor: Edward N. Zalta, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Self-Consciousness,” (First published Thu Jul 13, 2017; substantive revision Tue May 12, 2020).   Mr. Kettler is a respected author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler's extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.