Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[seeds]

Alexis, you’re confusing “historical origin” with “epistemic justification.” Just because people once explained morality and justice through metaphysical stories doesn’t mean those values depend on those stories to be valid or functional today. That’s like saying modern medicine owes its authority to bloodletting because people once believed illness came from imbalanced humors. Nice historical footnote—not a foundation.

You say ethics, morality, justice, and compassion “all have mystical foundations.” No—they had mythical narratives, sure. But their actual utility, their evolutionary role, and their social function are grounded in the biology of cooperation, the psychology of empathy, and the structure of human relationships. These are not gifts from some metaphysical ether—they are adaptive, causal, and explainable features of our species.

You argue they “cannot stand as values” because they are “no part of nature.” That’s absurd. They’re not floating in the clouds—they’re human phenomena, produced by brains,...

Yes indeedy, "brains" that were shaped by the deterministic processes of "evolution" which had to have had the most unfathomably ordered and stable setting firmly in place before it (evolution) could even begin to carry out the incremental steps that led to the manifestation of brains.

Just like all hardcore materialists, BigMike offers absolutely nothing in the way of explaining how such a prerequisite level of order could have come about.

Uh-oh, I am unable to resist repeating one of my favorite Terence McKenna quotes, not because of my old age senility as was once hinted at by AJ,...

...but because it seems to perfectly encapsulate BM's take on reality:

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”

Indeed, with a minor change in the script where you leave off that "Modern science" bit and simply start it with this...

"...Give me one free miracle and I'll explain the rest..."

...BigMike should have that entire quote tattooed on his chest, calf, or neck (or at least printed on a t-shirt).
_______

[Atla]

Luckily, all we have to do is explain the one free miracle with an even bigger free miracle, right? Problem solved

[accelafine]

Alexis, you’re confusing “historical origin” with “epistemic justification.” Just because people once explained morality and justice through metaphysical stories doesn’t mean those values depend on those stories to be valid or functional today. That’s like saying modern medicine owes its authority to bloodletting because people once believed illness came from imbalanced humors. Nice historical footnote—not a foundation.

You say ethics, morality, justice, and compassion “all have mystical foundations.” No—they had mythical narratives, sure. But their actual utility, their evolutionary role, and their social function are grounded in the biology of cooperation, the psychology of empathy, and the structure of human relationships. These are not gifts from some metaphysical ether—they are adaptive, causal, and explainable features of our species.

You argue they “cannot stand as values” because they are “no part of nature.” That’s absurd. They’re not floating in the clouds—they’re human phenomena, produced by brains,...

Yes indeedy, "brains" that were shaped by the deterministic processes of "evolution" which had to have had the most unfathomably ordered and stable setting firmly in place before it (evolution) could even begin to carry out the incremental steps that led to the manifestation of brains.

Just like all hardcore materialists, BigMike offers absolutely nothing in the way of explaining how such a prerequisite level of order could have come about.

Uh-oh, I am unable to resist repeating one of my favorite Terence McKenna quotes, not because of my old age senility as was once hinted at by AJ,...

...but because it seems to perfectly encapsulate BM's take on reality:

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”

Indeed, with a minor change in the script where you leave off that "Modern science" bit and simply start it with this...

"...Give me one free miracle and I'll explain the rest..."

...BigMike should have that entire quote tattooed on his chest, calf, or neck (or at least printed on a t-shirt).
_______

Why wouldn't the brain evolve like anything else, say the eyes? It took hundreds of millions of years to reach the human level of sophistication but it still evolved, obviously. Where do you think it came from?

[seeds]

Why wouldn't the brain evolve like anything else, say the eyes? It took hundreds of millions of years to reach the human level of sophistication but it still evolved, obviously. Where do you think it came from?

It's not a question of whether or not evolution was involved in the manifestation of brains (or eyes, or whatever), for I concede that evolution is no doubt how they reached their current forms.

No, it is a question of how the absolute "perfect setting" upon which evolution could do its thing, came about?

We're talking about a setting that was somehow "magically equipped" with every possible ingredient that the processes of evolution would need to not only cause life, mind, and consciousness (in multifarious forms) to effloresce from the very fabric of the setting itself,...

...but a setting that seems to have been, again, "magically equipped" with everything that the innumerable lifeforms could possibly need to evolve and flourish for billions of years into the future.

And the point is that until that mystery is resolved, it is naïve and downright foolish of the BigMike's of the world to attempt to push a theory whose tenets rely on the pre-existence of an unthinkable level of order of which BigMike makes absolutely no effort to explain.

(And I'm sorry, but I pity the fool who believes that the order is a product of "chance." Yeah, yeah, I know, the feeling is mutual towards those who believe in "intelligent design.")
_______

[accelafine]

Why wouldn't the brain evolve like anything else, say the eyes? It took hundreds of millions of years to reach the human level of sophistication but it still evolved, obviously. Where do you think it came from?

It's not a question of whether or not evolution was involved in the manifestation of brains (or eyes, or whatever), for I concede that evolution is no doubt how they reached their current forms.

No, it is a question of how the absolute "perfect setting" upon which evolution could do its thing, came about?

We're talking about a setting that was somehow "magically equipped" with every possible ingredient that the processes of evolution would need to not only cause life, mind, and consciousness (in multifarious forms) to effloresce from the very fabric of the setting itself,...

...but a setting that seems to have been, again, "magically equipped" with everything that the innumerable lifeforms could possibly need to evolve and flourish for billions of years into the future.

And the point is that until that mystery is resolved, it is naïve and downright foolish of the BigMike's of the world to attempt to push a theory whose tenets rely on the pre-existence of an unthinkable level of order of which BigMike makes absolutely no effort to explain.

(And I'm sorry, but I pity the fool who believes that the order is a product of "chance." Yeah, yeah, I know, the feeling is mutual towards those who believe in "intelligent design.")
_______

That old chestnut. Is it even worth arguing? Try to think for a little bit. Perhaps life is just a cancerous blip that appears on a quantum wave. Why do you think we are so marvellous? How do you know we aren't just a cancerous growth?

[Alexis Jacobi]

That old chestnut. Is it even worth arguing?

In your case it is far less a question of what you might argue, and much more a question of what your mind cannot conceive.

[BigMike]

Alexis, quoting pages of Catholic metaphysical theory doesn't make your position any more grounded—it just makes the smoke thicker. All you've done here is offer a sanctified restatement of the same dodge: that there's something else—something suprasensuous, spiritual, and unprovable—operating behind the scenes. And when pressed, all you can say is: “I can’t explain it, but it’s real.”

Being a reasonable man, I certainly understand what you are driving at. Please “make no mistake about this” as people say these days. We all must understand that a former description-system collapsed. Scholasticism essentially, right?

The Catholic metaphysic that expresses the sense in intellectus is, to be more precise, an even older idea. It happens to still have some life in Catholic traditionalism. No one on this forum seems to have been influenced by Catholic thought, however for me it is really an agglomeration of earlier European thought. And yes, I do understand what happened to the former metaphysics when the 17th century rolled around.

It is that ensuing devastation (encroaching nihilism) that Nietzsche spoke about that became an on-going process, and like a huge wave that would crash over people.

Inevitable, perhaps even necessary.

So, and only if you are interested, I am a counter-nihilist and — I state this plainly — someone with amphibious (intellectual) characteristics. That is why, despite rationalism’s assault, I feel it fair to resort to poetic description (and this irks you to no end).

You come here like a conquering warrior with the intention of overturning what you have decided are mistruths with the raw, irreducible physical facts of existence. Obviously, your first assault will be any of those clinging like desperate children to the religious myths that you have the sharpened sword to cut to shreds.

But my position is that all Stories are concocted descriptions that are receptacles of idea-values. Let the images flickering on the wall of the cave-screen dance and change, in this sense it is all the same. Yet behind the appearances is that which has set all appearances in motion. And it is my view that “intuition” is some part of the key to deciphering what stands behind appearances.

For you nothing “stands behind” anything at all! For you, and in this sense, the idea of “meaning” and meaningfulness — certainly in the metaphorical sense — is a useless, erroneous idea. You cannot conceive that your ideas are just a concretization of a selected set of facts. In that sense another variant of Story. But I do not deny the physical facts of science, but rather the message in the contrived Story of your scientistic religiousness.

But do you notice how your chosen and preferred conversation attracts so many? Your adamancy, driven by what looks like neurosis, puts into relief the situation we are all in.

A godless world really. A world that should be directed by a coherent intelligence but which has now been defined as random, senseless, or driven by motive factors (determinism) that has literally no sense to it at all.

I do not care very much if you understand the term “intellect” as having ground or not Mike. And I understand that you really & truly believe that you can reduce Existence to 4 fundamental physics facts! And that you can develop an explanation-system that displaces and supplants all others.

It is for this reason that you interest me and also why I see your ideas as immature and dangerous.

Alexis, if you’re still listening—and I think you are, because despite all the posturing, you care about meaning—I want to tell you something that may surprise you.

You talk about the collapse of the old metaphysics as if it left nothing but ruin behind. As if, when we stripped away the divine scaffolding, we were left with a cold, senseless universe—a nihilistic wasteland where meaning shrivels and dies. That’s the fear. I get it. It’s powerful. And I don’t mock it.

But you’re wrong about what rises in its place.

Because from determinism—from that so-called “cold,” causally complete universe—something breathtaking emerges. Not emptiness. Not despair. But a new kind of beauty. One rooted not in illusion, but in understanding.

See, when we accept that everything is caused—that every thought, every action, every crime, every kindness—is the result of an intricate, interconnected chain of events stretching back to the beginning of time, something remarkable happens: we stop pointing fingers. We stop pretending people “could have done otherwise” in some magical vacuum. And we start asking why they did what they did. We shift our focus—from blame to cause. From punishment to prevention.

That’s not the death of morality. That’s its evolution.

If a man commits violence, we no longer cry out “Evil!” and throw him into a dungeon because he failed some metaphysical test of will. We ask: what led him here? Poverty? Trauma? Neurological damage? Social decay? And then we ask: what can we fix? What can we change?

That’s morality, Alexis. Not blind retribution, but collective responsibility. Not divine command, but human compassion built on understanding.

This isn’t the flattening of meaning. It’s the grounding of it—in the real, physical, breathtakingly complex world we all share. Where every act echoes outward, and every cause can be traced, studied, and altered. Where our job is not to punish individuals, but to fix the conditions that produce suffering.

You see senselessness in determinism because you’re still looking for an author behind the story. But the story writes itself, Alexis. And it’s far richer, far more moving, than anything we could invent.

It’s not random. It’s connected. Everything flows from what came before. And we, with our minds and our tools and our empathy, can bend those flows—not through will, but through understanding.

That is what gives life meaning.
Not mythology. Not metaphysics.
But this moment, right now—where we see clearly, and choose compassion not because we’re told to, but because we finally understand why it matters.

You called me a conquering warrior. I’m not.
I’m just someone who no longer believes we need magic to make life sacred.
We just need truth. And the courage to face it.
It's not immature. It's not dangerous. It's the facts. It's the truth.

Take care.

[Belinda]

Alexis, quoting pages of Catholic metaphysical theory doesn't make your position any more grounded—it just makes the smoke thicker. All you've done here is offer a sanctified restatement of the same dodge: that there's something else—something suprasensuous, spiritual, and unprovable—operating behind the scenes. And when pressed, all you can say is: “I can’t explain it, but it’s real.”

Being a reasonable man, I certainly understand what you are driving at. Please “make no mistake about this” as people say these days. We all must understand that a former description-system collapsed. Scholasticism essentially, right?

The Catholic metaphysic that expresses the sense in intellectus is, to be more precise, an even older idea. It happens to still have some life in Catholic traditionalism. No one on this forum seems to have been influenced by Catholic thought, however for me it is really an agglomeration of earlier European thought. And yes, I do understand what happened to the former metaphysics when the 17th century rolled around.

It is that ensuing devastation (encroaching nihilism) that Nietzsche spoke about that became an on-going process, and like a huge wave that would crash over people.

Inevitable, perhaps even necessary.

So, and only if you are interested, I am a counter-nihilist and — I state this plainly — someone with amphibious (intellectual) characteristics. That is why, despite rationalism’s assault, I feel it fair to resort to poetic description (and this irks you to no end).

You come here like a conquering warrior with the intention of overturning what you have decided are mistruths with the raw, irreducible physical facts of existence. Obviously, your first assault will be any of those clinging like desperate children to the religious myths that you have the sharpened sword to cut to shreds.

But my position is that all Stories are concocted descriptions that are receptacles of idea-values. Let the images flickering on the wall of the cave-screen dance and change, in this sense it is all the same. Yet behind the appearances is that which has set all appearances in motion. And it is my view that “intuition” is some part of the key to deciphering what stands behind appearances.

For you nothing “stands behind” anything at all! For you, and in this sense, the idea of “meaning” and meaningfulness — certainly in the metaphorical sense — is a useless, erroneous idea. You cannot conceive that your ideas are just a concretization of a selected set of facts. In that sense another variant of Story. But I do not deny the physical facts of science, but rather the message in the contrived Story of your scientistic religiousness.

But do you notice how your chosen and preferred conversation attracts so many? Your adamancy, driven by what looks like neurosis, puts into relief the situation we are all in.

A godless world really. A world that should be directed by a coherent intelligence but which has now been defined as random, senseless, or driven by motive factors (determinism) that has literally no sense to it at all.

I do not care very much if you understand the term “intellect” as having ground or not Mike. And I understand that you really & truly believe that you can reduce Existence to 4 fundamental physics facts! And that you can develop an explanation-system that displaces and supplants all others.

It is for this reason that you interest me and also why I see your ideas as immature and dangerous.

Alexis, if you’re still listening—and I think you are, because despite all the posturing, you care about meaning—I want to tell you something that may surprise you.

You talk about the collapse of the old metaphysics as if it left nothing but ruin behind. As if, when we stripped away the divine scaffolding, we were left with a cold, senseless universe—a nihilistic wasteland where meaning shrivels and dies. That’s the fear. I get it. It’s powerful. And I don’t mock it.

But you’re wrong about what rises in its place.

Because from determinism—from that so-called “cold,” causally complete universe—something breathtaking emerges. Not emptiness. Not despair. But a new kind of beauty. One rooted not in illusion, but in understanding.

See, when we accept that everything is caused—that every thought, every action, every crime, every kindness—is the result of an intricate, interconnected chain of events stretching back to the beginning of time, something remarkable happens: we stop pointing fingers. We stop pretending people “could have done otherwise” in some magical vacuum. And we start asking why they did what they did. We shift our focus—from blame to cause. From punishment to prevention.

That’s not the death of morality. That’s its evolution.

If a man commits violence, we no longer cry out “Evil!” and throw him into a dungeon because he failed some metaphysical test of will. We ask: what led him here? Poverty? Trauma? Neurological damage? Social decay? And then we ask: what can we fix? What can we change?

That’s morality, Alexis. Not blind retribution, but collective responsibility. Not divine command, but human compassion built on understanding.

This isn’t the flattening of meaning. It’s the grounding of it—in the real, physical, breathtakingly complex world we all share. Where every act echoes outward, and every cause can be traced, studied, and altered. Where our job is not to punish individuals, but to fix the conditions that produce suffering.

You see senselessness in determinism because you’re still looking for an author behind the story. But the story writes itself, Alexis. And it’s far richer, far more moving, than anything we could invent.

It’s not random. It’s connected. Everything flows from what came before. And we, with our minds and our tools and our empathy, can bend those flows—not through will, but through understanding.

That is what gives life meaning.
Not mythology. Not metaphysics.
But this moment, right now—where we see clearly, and choose compassion not because we’re told to, but because we finally understand why it matters.

You called me a conquering warrior. I’m not.
I’m just someone who no longer believes we need magic to make life sacred.
We just need truth. And the courage to face it.
It's not immature. It's not dangerous. It's the facts. It's the truth.

Take care.

But it's not the case that "everything flows from what came before".

Seeds is the only contributor who has tried to answer the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'.Seeds posits miracle/God as sufficient and necessary cause/reason for existence itself, and whether or not one agrees with Seeds's description/explanation, at least Seeds addresses the question which you do not. Determinism is sufficient and necessary for how things exist but not for what lies outside or beyond existence itself.
Determinism also fits civilised morality as you describe.

[BigMike]

But it's not the case that "everything flows from what came before".

Seeds is the only contributor who has tried to answer the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'.Seeds posits miracle/God as sufficient and necessary cause/reason for existence itself, and whether or not one agrees with Seeds's description/explanation, at least Seeds addresses the question which you do not. Determinism is sufficient and necessary for how things exist but not for what lies outside or beyond existence itself.
Determinism also fits civilised morality as you describe.

Belinda, I appreciate your reply—and the way you gently bring things back to the biggest question of all: Why is there something rather than nothing?

You're right to say that determinism, as a framework, doesn't (and can't) answer that question. It doesn’t try to explain why existence is—only how it unfolds. But that’s not a weakness. It’s honesty.

Because truthfully, no framework—scientific, religious, or philosophical—has ever answered the question of existence in a final or demonstrable way. Saying “God did it” or calling it a “miracle” isn’t an answer. It’s a pause. It pushes the mystery back one step, but never resolves it. Why would a god exist rather than nothing? Why that god? Why that miracle? We're still staring into the same abyss.

So I don't pretend to know why there is something rather than nothing. And I don’t dress that mystery in metaphors and call it understanding. What I do know is that, once this universe is—once it exists—what happens within it is not random, and it is not magical. It’s causal. It’s structured. It’s governed by relationships we can observe, model, and act upon.

And from that simple, powerful idea—that everything has a cause—we get more than just physics or chemistry. We get the tools to build a more compassionate world. Not because we know why the universe is here, but because we know how suffering happens. And that knowledge allows us to change it.

So no—I haven’t answered “why is there something rather than nothing.” But I don’t think anyone has. And rather than invent answers, I choose to stand in awe of the question, while doing what we can do: using the reality we do understand to make this brief existence better, kinder, and more just.

That’s where I think meaning lives—not in the mystery, but in what we do with it.

Thanks again for the thoughtful challenge.

[Atla]

How does a perpetual afterimage of things that have already happened, "do" anything?

[Belinda]

But it's not the case that "everything flows from what came before".

Seeds is the only contributor who has tried to answer the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'.Seeds posits miracle/God as sufficient and necessary cause/reason for existence itself, and whether or not one agrees with Seeds's description/explanation, at least Seeds addresses the question which you do not. Determinism is sufficient and necessary for how things exist but not for what lies outside or beyond existence itself.
Determinism also fits civilised morality as you describe.

Belinda, I appreciate your reply—and the way you gently bring things back to the biggest question of all: Why is there something rather than nothing?

You're right to say that determinism, as a framework, doesn't (and can't) answer that question. It doesn’t try to explain why existence is—only how it unfolds. But that’s not a weakness. It’s honesty.

Because truthfully, no framework—scientific, religious, or philosophical—has ever answered the question of existence in a final or demonstrable way. Saying “God did it” or calling it a “miracle” isn’t an answer. It’s a pause. It pushes the mystery back one step, but never resolves it. Why would a god exist rather than nothing? Why that god? Why that miracle? We're still staring into the same abyss.

So I don't pretend to know why there is something rather than nothing. And I don’t dress that mystery in metaphors and call it understanding. What I do know is that, once this universe is—once it exists—what happens within it is not random, and it is not magical. It’s causal. It’s structured. It’s governed by relationships we can observe, model, and act upon.

And from that simple, powerful idea—that everything has a cause—we get more than just physics or chemistry. We get the tools to build a more compassionate world. Not because we know why the universe is here, but because we know how suffering happens. And that knowledge allows us to change it.

So no—I haven’t answered “why is there something rather than nothing.” But I don’t think anyone has. And rather than invent answers, I choose to stand in awe of the question, while doing what we can do: using the reality we do understand to make this brief existence better, kinder, and more just.

That’s where I think meaning lives—not in the mystery, but in what we do with it.

Thanks again for the thoughtful challenge.

Ditto your thoughtful reply. Despite that nobody can answer the ultimate question may we not describe, but not explain, what we like best? Describing but not explaining is what scientists often do when they answer non-scientists' questions. My suggestion is psychological really, not philosophical, as it is about attitudes to ideas about existence.

I think that determinism too is best described but not explained. It's not possible to provide any empirical explanation of determinism, as determinism is so much more than pushmepullyou of billiard balls , statistics , and quantification.

[BigMike]

How does a perpetual afterimage of things that have already happened, "do" anything?

Atla, exactly.

Consciousness—as we experience it—is a perceptual echo, a constructed afterimage of physical processes already in motion. It doesn’t initiate those processes—it reflects them. Just like a rearview mirror doesn’t steer the car, consciousness doesn’t direct the brain; it displays the ongoing activity after it's already underway.

So when someone claims their “I” begins causal chains, it’s like claiming the mirror causes the car to turn.

What we call “decisions” are neural outputs resulting from complex inputs—sensory data, memories, emotions, environmental context—all churning below awareness. Consciousness shows up late to the party and takes credit for decisions it didn’t author. It’s a brilliant illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

How does an afterimage “do” anything? It doesn’t. It just follows.

[Atla]

How does a perpetual afterimage of things that have already happened, "do" anything?

Atla, exactly.

Consciousness—as we experience it—is a perceptual echo, a constructed afterimage of physical processes already in motion. It doesn’t initiate those processes—it reflects them. Just like a rearview mirror doesn’t steer the car, consciousness doesn’t direct the brain; it displays the ongoing activity after it's already underway.

So when someone claims their “I” begins causal chains, it’s like claiming the mirror causes the car to turn.

What we call “decisions” are neural outputs resulting from complex inputs—sensory data, memories, emotions, environmental context—all churning below awareness. Consciousness shows up late to the party and takes credit for decisions it didn’t author. It’s a brilliant illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

How does an afterimage “do” anything? It doesn’t. It just follows.

Ok Mike now try to play close attention to what I'll point out again:

According to science, physics, determinism, there is no such thing in nature as a true "echo" / "reflection" / "displaying" / "illusion", that isn't simply made of more physical stuff. And is therefore part of causal chains, is technically just as much a cause as it is a consequence.

So how can you say, how can you know that consciousness is just a consequence?

[BigMike]

How does a perpetual afterimage of things that have already happened, "do" anything?

Atla, exactly.

Consciousness—as we experience it—is a perceptual echo, a constructed afterimage of physical processes already in motion. It doesn’t initiate those processes—it reflects them. Just like a rearview mirror doesn’t steer the car, consciousness doesn’t direct the brain; it displays the ongoing activity after it's already underway.

So when someone claims their “I” begins causal chains, it’s like claiming the mirror causes the car to turn.

What we call “decisions” are neural outputs resulting from complex inputs—sensory data, memories, emotions, environmental context—all churning below awareness. Consciousness shows up late to the party and takes credit for decisions it didn’t author. It’s a brilliant illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

How does an afterimage “do” anything? It doesn’t. It just follows.

Ok Mike now try to play close attention to what I'll point out again:

According to science, physics, determinism, there is no such thing in nature as a true "echo" / "reflection" / "displaying" / "illusion", that isn't simply made of more physical stuff. And is therefore part of causal chains, is technically just as much a cause as it is a consequence.

So how can you say, how can you know that consciousness is just a consequence?

Good—this is a sharper point, Atla.

You’re absolutely right that in physics, there’s no metaphysical divide between “real” things and their “echoes.” If something exists—an image, a reflection, an electrical impulse—it’s physical, and it’s part of the causal chain. So yes, the processes we label “consciousness” are themselves physical phenomena. I don’t deny that at all.

But the key difference here is not whether consciousness is part of the causal chain (it is), but whether the experience of being conscious—the narrative “I”—is the source of action or simply a byproduct of prior brain activity.

Yes, the conscious state is physical. But it’s assembled after the fact by subconscious systems that have already made the decisions and launched the actions. We know this from experiments in neuroscience—from Libet onward—that show the brain begins preparing actions before we’re aware of “deciding.” Your conscious mind is notified after the machinery has already moved.

So when I say consciousness is an “afterimage,” I mean this: the felt experience of “I chose” is post hoc. It’s real as a physical process. But it's not the driver. It’s the story the brain tells to make sense of what it already did.

Think of it like this: the news report is real. It’s made of electrons, screen pixels, sound waves. But it doesn’t cause the events it reports. The causal arrow goes the other way. That's the mistake people make with consciousness. They treat the report as the engine.

So yes, consciousness is made of “physical stuff.” But it’s not the origin of action. It’s the witness. The observer. The explainer. Not the initiator.

And that’s the whole point: being physical doesn’t mean being in control. The brain’s deeper processes steer the ship. Consciousness is the spotlight, not the steering wheel.

[Atla]

Atla, exactly.

Consciousness—as we experience it—is a perceptual echo, a constructed afterimage of physical processes already in motion. It doesn’t initiate those processes—it reflects them. Just like a rearview mirror doesn’t steer the car, consciousness doesn’t direct the brain; it displays the ongoing activity after it's already underway.

So when someone claims their “I” begins causal chains, it’s like claiming the mirror causes the car to turn.

What we call “decisions” are neural outputs resulting from complex inputs—sensory data, memories, emotions, environmental context—all churning below awareness. Consciousness shows up late to the party and takes credit for decisions it didn’t author. It’s a brilliant illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

How does an afterimage “do” anything? It doesn’t. It just follows.

Ok Mike now try to play close attention to what I'll point out again:

According to science, physics, determinism, there is no such thing in nature as a true "echo" / "reflection" / "displaying" / "illusion", that isn't simply made of more physical stuff. And is therefore part of causal chains, is technically just as much a cause as it is a consequence.

So how can you say, how can you know that consciousness is just a consequence?

Good—this is a sharper point, Atla.

You’re absolutely right that in physics, there’s no metaphysical divide between “real” things and their “echoes.” If something exists—an image, a reflection, an electrical impulse—it’s physical, and it’s part of the causal chain. So yes, the processes we label “consciousness” are themselves physical phenomena. I don’t deny that at all.

But the key difference here is not whether consciousness is part of the causal chain (it is), but whether the experience of being conscious—the narrative “I”—is the source of action or simply a byproduct of prior brain activity.

Yes, the conscious state is physical. But it’s assembled after the fact by subconscious systems that have already made the decisions and launched the actions. We know this from experiments in neuroscience—from Libet onward—that show the brain begins preparing actions before we’re aware of “deciding.” Your conscious mind is notified after the machinery has already moved.

So when I say consciousness is an “afterimage,” I mean this: the felt experience of “I chose” is post hoc. It’s real as a physical process. But it's not the driver. It’s the story the brain tells to make sense of what it already did.

Think of it like this: the news report is real. It’s made of electrons, screen pixels, sound waves. But it doesn’t cause the events it reports. The causal arrow goes the other way. That's the mistake people make with consciousness. They treat the report as the engine.

So yes, consciousness is made of “physical stuff.” But it’s not the origin of action. It’s the witness. The observer. The explainer. Not the initiator.

And that’s the whole point: being physical doesn’t mean being in control. The brain’s deeper processes steer the ship. Consciousness is the spotlight, not the steering wheel.

1. Depends on how you define yourself. Another definition of "I" is that you are the brain, including those preparing actions which are parts of you, even if other parts of you get affected by it with a delay.

2. Once the volitional I you talk about does get assembled, how do you know that it doesn't become an actor in itself? It's literally a psychological mechanism of volition.

I think you're basing your philosophy on a very lopsided interpretation of the Libet experiments.