Information: Proof Of Immaterial Consciousness!

Think about it...

Information requires human consciousness.

...A computer stores and processes what we know to be information. But obviously the computer has no awareness of the concept of information - because computers aren't conscious.

Even if our physical brains were packed with terabytes of information, we simply wouldn't know it without consciousness; we wouldn't be able to conceptualize logic, truth, and knowledge - all of which lead to information...

Information is a conceptual product of the mind (in respect to its origin) that is ultimately not possible without "the mechanism of awareness."

Now, consider that certain kinds of information, such as equations like 1+1=2, are universal and unchanging. We simply "know that we know" the logic underlying 1+1=2 will never change to 1+1=3, for example...

And it is human consciousness - our awareness - that indicates the absolute, unchanging nature of such information!

...But how does any of this meet a reasonable burden of proof in respect to an "immaterial consciousness" apart from the material brain?

It's actually quite simple, based on what we've demonstrated thus far:

1. Information is ENABLED by awareness; it REQUIRES consciousness/awareness.

2. Certain types of information, such as equations, are UNCHANGING.

3. Therefore, consciousness/awareness itself is also UNCHANGING.

...Material things are constantly changing. So because consciousness is unchanging, it must be IMMATERIAL - unlike the material brain.

To reiterate:

Consciousness enables "information awareness," and further reveals that certain types of information (e.g., equations) are universally true and unchanging...

And if consciousness were based on the material brain, it would mean that the truth of 1+1=2, for example, could also change, because our awareness of 1+1=2 (i.e., our information awareness) could change as a result of changing brain matter.

...But again, we know that such information can't change; to claim that 1+1=2 could potentially change to 1+1=3 (or other) simply defies what we know from the very core of our minds.

So again, our consciousness must therefore be unchanging and immaterial - existing "apart from" the material brain.

There is only one explanation for the existence of conscious minds that are immaterial, unchanging, and universal: We are made in the image of an immaterial, unchanging, universal God!

Objections Addressed

In this section, I'll address objections to the "Information: Proof Of Immaterial Consciousness" argument...

Objection 1: Consciousness/awareness is not unchanging. Consciousness is the awareness or perception of something by a person. Our perceptions are constantly shifting as we age. "When I was a child, I spoke as a child..."

Response 1: This is a simple misunderstanding of what "unchanging consciousness" refers to...

Certainly, no rational person would claim that human beings are born with specified mathematical knowledge, for example. In the same way, I'm not aware of the precise distance to the sun from where I'm sitting as I write... But does my overall conscious state of awareness change if I should happen to learn the exact distance? ...Of course not! It simply means I learned a new fact; I gained knowledge. If a computer were conscious, would we consider it "more conscious" upon uploading more information to its hard drive? ...No. Instead, we'd consider it more knowledgeable. Was Einstein ever said to be "more conscious" because he was more knowledgeable than most? ...Again, of course not. Knowledge and consciousness are different.

By "unchanging consciousness," and/or "information awareness," I'm referring to the human ability to consciously perceive when something is objectively logical and true - which points squarely to an "objective backbone" of human awareness.  If consciousness itself were triggered upon learning something, as opposed to learning something because we have an underlying awareness of logic and truth, how would we know when we've learned something new? How would we sense when we've arrived at a logical conclusion, as opposed to nonsense? We certainly don't learn things when we're unconscious, and detached from logic and truth...

Children understand that 1 plus 1 equals 2 without being taught the underlying mathematical logic. Children understand that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time, without being taught the law of non contradiction. Etc. So clearly there exists an underlying, UNCHANGING consciousness/awareness that enables human beings of all ages to "acquire" facts and information.

Part of the problem of consciousness is that we don't understand its (immaterial) properties well enough to properly define it! The objection and accompanying definition raised here apply better to knowledge. Knowledge changes. And certainly we become "aware" of new things. But again, this is entirely different from the unchanging, objective aspect of human consciousness to which I refer.

Objection 2: The perception of information is hardwired into the neural structure of our brains; we are
"built to believe" that 1+1=2. The immateriality of consciousness is not required.

Response 2: This objection reduces to absurdity. We're all aware of the truth that 1+1=2 is unchanging. Similarly, we're individually and collectively conscious of the fact that a brain damaged person who claims that 1+1=3, is dead wrong! To argue otherwise, one must concede that the brain damaged individual is potentially correct in his assertion - which defies rationality.

If one argues that perhaps the information itself is objectively true (while our awareness changes), this is equivalent to suggesting that knowledge is unchanging while awareness of knowledge is not. It's like saying we know what we know but may not know it. It's simply a contradictory notion! How can one identify unchanging knowledge without an objective standard of awareness that the knowledge is indeed unchanging?

Objection 3. The argument says that because some information has a particular characteristic, then consciousness must also have that same characteristic, which is simply not true.

Response 3: The argument says that in order for certain types of information (e.g., mathematical logic, the law of non contradiction, etc.) to be known as universal and unchanging, requires an underlying conscious awareness that is also universal and unchanging at its "core." If this weren't the case, the things that we currently identify to be true (i.e., that which we're aware of) could change! Knowledge itself would be illusory.

The argument is NOT that we'll always have conscious awareness of "x"; the argument is NOT that we'll always have "access" to a conscious state of mind (which is where the person making this objection is clearly confused). The argument is that when we do have consciousness, it's unchanging; the argument is that there is an objective backbone to human consciousness/awareness, which universally applies when we're "engaged" in matters of identifying and acquiring knowledge and information.

In order to formulate a worthy objection here, one would have to demonstrate how "valid information recognition" is possible without objective consciousness/awareness. For example: It's universally known (or knowable) that 1+1=2 is true - but how would this be possible if the foundational awareness that enables recognition of such information weren't unchanging?

...If awareness of information is not founded on objectivity (if it is subject to CHANGE), it would mean that right now we're all potentially fooled into thinking that 1+1=2, when in reality, 1+1=3 (or other)! The notion of subjective consciousness (such as that based on ever-mutating brain matter) would mean that perhaps our "awareness" of even simple mathematical logic is WRONG.

...Does the individual making this objection honestly not trust his own consciousness when it comes to such information? If so, in order to remain consistent, he must REJECT absolute truth. He must REJECT any and all true knowledge and information! So here again, the objection is reduced to absurdity.

Click here for more.