Consciousness and Genesis

1300 words, 6 minute read

In Consciousness and/or Free Will we presented a new model of consciousness, emphasizing the ‘observer role’ of consciousness and removing it from the ‘agentic process’ because… It doesn’t do anything! Yet we argued that separating consciousness from agency did not compromise free will. Admittedly, it was a tough sell; but then again, it’s a difficult topic.

Now suddenly our model has confirmation and it’s from an unexpected but unimpeachable source…and it’s been hiding in plain sight for more than 2500 years:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the abyss, and the Spirit was hovering over the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light.”

Yup, that’s right, these are the opening verses of the Book of Genesis (1: 1-3), the first book of the (Old Testament) Torah, codified c. 500 BCE but traditionally attributed to YHWH via Moses. Good pedigree; good chain of custody.

But what on earth does this have to do with consciousness and free will? Well, dear reader, if you’ll grant me just three things, I think I’ll be able to demonstrate the validity of our model to even your skeptical satisfaction:

(1)    God exists and the universe is his creative act,

(2)    God has free will,

(3)    God is conscious.

For many these assumptions are non-starters but for most theists in the Western tradition, they pretty much go without saying. Either way, they offer a model  of consciousness that is consistent with our understanding of the phenomenon, so let’s break it down:

We begin with a dark, empty, formless abyss. Theologians have long argued over the precise nature of such a cosmic state, but modern cosmology suggests that apparently competing interpretations may be denotatively synonymous (e.g. ex nihilo = chaos; Big Freeze = Big Crunch).

Confronting the primal existential state (above), God does not deliberate; he acts. Note: In both testaments and in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, ‘to speak’ is  ‘to make be’, as in:

“What there is for speaking and knowing, there is for being.” (Parmenides, On Nature, Fragment 6)

“In the beginning was the Word (logos)…(and) through him (logos) all things were made.” (Gospel of John, 1:1-3)

Presumably, if God acts, God acts freely. What could compel him? He acts in ways that are consistent with his omnibenevolent nature (Good) but otherwise, everything is possible. God is potentiality per se, omnipotentia as well as omnipotentem. If it is possible and willed, it is done: factorem caeli et terrae. (Nicene Creed)

Confronted with darkness, God freely wills light, “and there was light.” In doing so, he reveals a divine value (light). Willing light, God calls it into being. So far, we have God, being aware of the state of things, applying values, willing, speaking, creating. But we have no warrant to assume that God is conscious.

It makes sense that he would be conscious, but so far we have no testimony to that effect. And then we do! “God saw that it was Good.” (Genesis 1: 4)

Only now are we sure that the left hand knows what the right hand has done. God perceived the world as it was, judged it according to his essential values (Good), and proposed (will) to change it (act) in accordance with those values.

So far, God is just like us. We perceive the world, we apply values and, guided by those values, we judge. Then based on that judgment we propose changes intended to reflect our values and we act to make the proposed actual.

So far, but no farther! We work like crazy to implement our proposed changes and the result is always very far from what we intended. God, on the other hand, ‘speaks’ and it is so, with nary a blip from lip to sip. God said,

“Let there be Light,” and there was Light.

“God saw that the light was good…” Initially, God perceived the Void, judged it according to his values, and corrected what he saw. Rinse and repeat. God judges what he has created and proceeds based on that assessment:

“…And he separated the light from the darkness.” (Genesis 1 : 4) In other words, (1) he judged his work favorably, (2) he accepted it, and (3) he acted to make it permanent and universal. God acts to make Light a fixed feature of all future Actual Worlds. John offers this  commentary:

“Light shines in the darkness and darkness has not overcome it.” (John 1: 5)

Finally, God uses the naming function of language (namo) to codify this ‘new world order’: “He called the light day, and the darkness he called night, and there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” (Genesis 1: 5) God’s creative act is now part of the historical record.

Returning to our thesis, Creation begins with Perception, Valuation, and Will, none of which require consciousness. Consciousness is both the engine and the artifact of recursion. The original ‘creative algorithm’ is reapplied to the initial result and consciousness, awareness of differance (Derrida), emerges.

Consciousness is an emergent aspect of experience. It is preceded, ontologically, by awareness, valuation, will, and action. Consciousness is the product of these primary acts. It is what happens when the creative process is applied to its own product, i.e. when God evaluates what he has created. Likewise, we are conscious when we reflect on our acts, on ourselves in the world.

But that does not make consciousness inert, or de trop. God’s conscious valuation of the consequences of his actions becomes catalyst for each new application of the process. As does ours! Once launched, the process repeats indefinitely, but at each iteration, valuation, will, and act precede conscious awareness.

In fact, the same process, expressed via the same formula, occurs 5 more times, just in the first chapter of Genesis. God continues the process of separating and gathering, making the one many and the many one, and finding the results good. In each case, conscious assessment follows awareness, will, and action.

However, we are not God. Unlike you and me, God cannot create something that is less than wholly good. Therefore, the concept of moral responsibility doesn’t really apply. Would that we could say the same about our actions!

The idea that we are morally responsible for actions we undertake before we are conscious of deciding to do them seems illogical…and unfair. One is reminded of Through the Lookingglass where the King’s Messenger, “…is in prison now, being punished, and the trial doesn’t even begin till next Wednesday, and of course, the crime comes last of all.”

Consider, however, that we perform dozens of acts every day with ‘marginal’ conscious intent but for which we are at least partly responsible. The actions I’m talking about are traditionally parceled out into several bins: genetic predisposition, instinct, reflex, habit, conditioned response, duress (physical, psychological or emotional), intoxication, etc. 

Only when one is compelled to commit an act involuntarily can responsibility be entirely mitigated. That is certainly not the case for actions we undertake preconsciously. Plus our conscious evaluation of our preconscious actions becomes part of the ‘private record’ and thereby influences future preconscious decisions. So, our ‘crazy’ model is mainstream after all. It is embedded in the West’s best known creation narrative. It makes sense to view our own experience through this lens.