The question of morality brings us to the apex of our consideration. The hard problem of consciousness is not merely a quibble for academics to perennially organise conferences around. Instead it is an expression of the deepest spiritual questions of our age, which no “single vision” has the faintest hope of adequately addressing.
And twofold always.—May God us keep
From single vision, and Newton’s sleep! 
To suppose physics can be divorced from metaphysics is an error we have attempted to illustrate in this investigation, sometimes exchanging these terms for “evidence” & “paradigm,” “fact” & “theory,” or “science “ & “philosophy” while retaining roughly the same meaning. We must also affirm that science (and physics, and metaphysics, etc…) cannot be divorced from ethics without conceding our confidence in the former’s ability to tell us about the world or the latter’s ability to tell us how to live in it:
And threefold in soft Beulah’s night,
Morality is a question of how to live in the world, and it is a question which cannot even be posed unless we know what sort of place the world is. “Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos.”  In other words, a continual mindfulness of our operative paradigm confronts us not only as a scientific, but as a moral imperative. Indeed, that these two appear divisible is, in the first place, an immediate function of interpreting the question through the very paradigm that methodologically divides them. The same paradigm that ignores gradients of qualitative value as a methodological tenet has nothing to offer one who with concerns in this respect, and we all have concerns in this respect, since “Sorge (“care” or “concern”) is the structure of Dasein itself.”  Thus, when Metzinger asserts that “there is a new image of man emerging out of genetics and neuroscience…It is strictly unmetaphysical,”  he is not merely making a scientific statement. Indeed, he acknowledges that the “self-knowledge” that modern science has delivered challenges traditional notions of the human being, Western or otherwise. Metzinger himself seems intuitively aware of the implications as he continues:
[Neuroscience suggests that] “There is no such thing as a soul,” and “You are basically a gene-copying device,” and it is not clear what that will do to us. A chasm will open between the rich, educated, and secularized parts of mankind on the planet and those who for whatever reason have chosen to live their lives outside the scientific view of the world, and outside the scientific image of man.
In this light, what may have hitherto struck the reader a confusion of issues between the hard problem of consciousness, the history of science and philosophy, and human nature itself will justify itself in this revelation of implicit unity. The hard problem is a single facet of something for which one finds no suitable name. A naïve realism supposes there is a world on one side and consciousness on the other, but we have already revealed the superstition inherent in this manner of thinking. Given there exists no plausible explanation for the emergence of consciousness from unconscious processes (or qualia from non-qualitative stuff etc…), one were better off not to posit it in the first place. It is arbitrary to posit a world outside of consciousness. Instead, they are correlative. The hard problem of consciousness, therefore, is a problem of the world itself.
While Dennett and Metzinger insist on “facing up” to hard problem of consciousness from within the paradigm of modern science and are bound, therefore, to bear witness against themselves by denying the existence of the very thing which they enlist for the denial (i.e. what would an unconscious denial consist in?), Chalmers and Nagel argue for an alternative approach. The title of a 2012 work by the latter, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False conveys Nagel’s standpoint in no uncertain terms. Both Chalmers and Nagel have sympathetically considered the notion of panpsychism, which amounts to a resolution of the hard problem not by questioning the notion of a conscious mind, but that of inert, unconscious matter. Panpsychism is, in fact, a doctrine that is as old as the hills, and Chalmers’ and Nagel’s position is notable for its historical context more than its content. Indeed, Plato’s “likely account” of cosmogenesis from the Timaeus conveys the spirit of panpsychism in the most expressive manner:
The Demiurge (Architect)…engendered lōgos (λόγος ) within psyche (ψυχή), and psyche within soma (σῶμα) as He fashioned the All, that so the work He was executing might be of its nature most fair and most good. Thus, then, in accordance with the likely account, we must declare that this Cosmos has verily come into existence as a Living Creature endowed with psyche and lōgos owing to the providence of God. (28a)
The philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead, embracing the project of philosophy as a “series of footnotes to Plato,” opted for a panpsychist metaphysics to develop a comprehensive paradigm to reconcile science with immediate experience. In the early hours of this exploration, we also offered a brief treatment of approaches by Berkeley, Leibniz, and Spinoza. Thus, it is apparent that insisting that consciousness be explained in terms of unconscious processes is not the only way to face up to the hard problem. Personally, the most sensible approach to me seems to be (in the lineage of Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, J. W von Goethe, Rudolf Steiner, Owen Barfield, and many other eminent thinkers of the Realist tradition before the scientific revolution rendered that term became synonymous with Materialist, but rather when Realism retained its natural connection with res and with rhei; when it referred to the original identity of thinking and being, the spiritual unity whereof thinking and being are two facets—in the words of the goddess: “for the same can be thought as that can be”) that consciousness is the obverse of the external world.
In any case, following this exploration, we must conclude that the methods of modern science are unsuited to solve the hard problem of consciousness because it is precisely the paradigm that the former assumes that creates the latter in the first place. We have attempted to trace trace the aetiology of this conception and to understand its implications. One is left to affirm the impossibility of explaining consciousness from anything other than itself because any explanation presupposes it. An explanation implies consciousness because an unconscious explanation is a contradiction in terms. It is possible to write it, or say it, or argue for it at a conference or an opinion piece, etc…but it is impossible to mean it. Any theory that not only fails to account for, but literally denies to one, the ability to theorise, is a theory in need of improvement.
Now I a fourfold vision see,
And a fourfold vision is given to me;
’Tis fourfold in my supreme delight,
And threefold in soft Beulah’s night,
And twofold always.—May God us keep
From single vision, and Newton’s sleep!
*** Finis ***
Thank you to my readers who have joined me in this Odyssey.
 William Blake, “Letter to Thomas Butt,” 22 November 1802. Quoted in Geoffrey Keynes (ed.), The Letters of William Blake (1956).
 “By their fruits shall ye know them…” Matthew 7:20.
 Heidegger, The History of the Concept of Time, 293.
 From Susan Blackmore, Conversations of Consciousness. “Interview with Thomas Metzinger in Conversations on Consciousness,” Oxford University Press, 2006, 150.
The full paragraph from Metzinger is quoted as follows:
There is a new image of man emerging out of genetics and neuroscience, one which will basically contradict all other images of man that we have had in the Western tradition. It is strictly unmetaphysical; it is absolutely incompatible with the Christian image of man; and it may force us to confront our mortality in a much more direct way than we have ever before in our history. It may close the door on certain hopes people have had, not only scientists and philosophers but all of us, such as that maybe somehow consciousness could exist without the brain after death. People will still want to believe something like that. But just as people will actually still think that the sun revolves around the earth—people whom you basically laugh at and don’t take seriously any more. So there’s a reductive anthropology that may come to us, and it may come faster than we are prepared for it; it may come as an emotionally sobering experience to many people particularly in developing countries, who make up 80% of human beings, and still have a metaphysical image of man, haven’t ever heard anything about neuroscience, don’t want to hear anything about neural correlates of consciousness, want to keep on living in their metaphysical world-view as they have for centuries.
 My laborious translation of the goddess’ affirmation to Parmenides: “τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ νοεῖν ἔστιν τε καὶ εἶναι.” (DK 28 B 3)
Special recognition to:
Barfield, Owen. “Form in Art and in Society.” The Golden Blade, 1951, 88-99.
— “Form in Poetry.” The New Statesman 15 (7 Aug. 1920): 501-502.
— “The Form of Hamlet.” Anthroposophy: A Quarterly Review of Spiritual Science 6.3 (Michaelmas 1931): 245-265.
— “Goethe and Evolution.” Text of talk given on the BBC’s Third Programme. The Listener 42 (1 Dec. 1949): 945-946.
— “Goethe and the Twentieth Century.” The Golden Blade, 1949, 37-51.
— “Greek Thought in English Words.” In Essays and Studies 1950, collected for the English Association by G. Rostrevor Hamilton. New series, vol. 3. London: John Murray, 1950. 69-81.
—History in English Words. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1926.
“Matter, Imagination, and Spirit.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 42.4 (Dec. 1974): 621-629.
— “The Meaning of the Word ‘Literal’.” In Metaphor and Symbol. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium of the Colston Research Society, held in the University of Bristol March 28th – March 31st, 1960, edited by L. C. Knights and Basil Cottle. London: Butterworth and Co., 1960. 48-57.
— “Philology and the Incarnation.” The Gordon Review 8.4 (Spring 1965): 131-139.
—Poetic Diction: A Study in Meaning. Second edition. London: Faber and Faber, 1952.
—The Rediscovery of Meaning, and Other Essays. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1977.
—Romanticism Comes of Age. London: Anthroposophical Publishing Co., 1944.
—Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry. London: Faber and Faber, 1957. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965.
—Speaker’s Meaning. Middletown, CT. Wesleyan University Press; London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1967. Reprinted by Rudolf Steiner Press, 1972.
—Worlds Apart (A Dialogue of the 1960’s). London: Faber and Faber, 1963.
Bortoft, Henri. Taking Appearance Seriously: The Dynamic Way of Seeing in Goethe and European Thought, Floris Books, 2012.
—The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe’s Way toward a Science of Conscious Participation. Hudson NY: Lindisfarne, 1996.
Lehrs, Ernst. Man or Matter. Man or Matter, London 1951; Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main 1953; 3rd edition 1987.
Steiner, Rudolf. Nature’s Open Secret: Introduction to Goethe’s Scientific Writings. Translated by John Barnes and Mado Spiegler (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 2000); German Bibl. Nr. 1.
—Goethe’s World View. Translated by William Lindeman (Spring Valley, NY: Mercury Press, 1992); originally published in German in 1897; Bibl. Nr. 6.
—The Science of Knowing: Outline of an Epistemology Implicit in the Goethean World View. Translated by William Lindeman (Spring Valley, NY: Mercury Press, 1988); originally published in German in 1886; Bibl. Nr. 2.
—The Philosophy of Freedom. Originally published in German in 1894 as Der Philosophie der Freiheit (Bibl. Nr. 4), this book has been translated into English a number of times under different titles:
- The Philosophy of Freedom, translated by Michael Wilson (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2000).
- The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, translated by Rita Stebbing (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1993).
- Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path, translated by Michael Lipson (Great Barrington, MA: Anthroposophic Press, 1995).
Talbott, Stephen L. The Future Does Not Compute: Transcending the Machines in Our Midst. Sebastopol CA: O’Reilly and Associates 1995. Available at http://netfuture.org/
Also the Corpus Aristetotelicum in St. Thomas’ translations, an invaluable resource, available at: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/
And the Corpus Platonicum, another invaluable resource, available at:
Abram, David. The Spell of the Sensuous. Vintage Books, 1997.
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 1993.
Bacon, Francis. (1620/2000). The New Organon and Other Philosophical Works, L. Jardine and M. Silverthorne, Translators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackmore, Susan. Conversations of Consciousness. “Interview with Thomas Metzinger in Conversations on Consciousness,” Oxford University Press, 2006.
Blanke, O. & Metzinger, T. (2009). “Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (1), 7-13. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.003
Burtt, Edwin Arthur. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, Angelico Press, 1951
Crick, Francis. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, New York, Schribner’s, 1994.
Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, “Letter to Copernicus.” http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html
Chalmers, David (1995). “Facing up to the problem of consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219
— (1997) “Moving Forward on the Problem of Consciousness.” Published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies 4(1):3-46.
— “On the Search for the Neural Correlate of Consciousness” In Hameroff, Stuart; Kaszniak, Alfred; Scott, Alwyn. Toward a Science of Consciousness II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Churchland, Patricia. Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain (MIT Press, 1986)
— “Of Brains & Minds: An Exchange Patricia Churchland, reply by Colin McGinn” The New York Review of Books. June 19, 2004. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/06/19/brains-and-minds-exchange/
Dawkins, Richard (2006). The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: W. W. Norton. First edition published in 1996.
—The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Originally published in 1976.
Dennett, Daniel C., Consciousness Explained, Little/Brown, 1992.
— (1971). Intentional systems. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 87-106.
— (1984). Elbow room. The varieties of free will worth wanting. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
— (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
— (1991). Consciousness explained. New York, NY: Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company.
— (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Edited by Andrew Bailey. Translated by Ian Johnston. Broadview Press, May 2, 2013
— Passions of the Soul. Translated by Jonathan Bennett. October 2010.
— Principles of Philosophy. 1644/1647. Trans. Valentine Rodger Miller and Reese P. Miller. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1984.
Drake, Stillman (2003). Galileo at Work: His scientific biography. USA: Courier Dover. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-0-486-49542-2.
Ducheyne, Steffen. (2015). An editorial history of Newton’s regulae philosophandi. Estudios de Filosofía, (51), 143-164. https://dx.doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.n51a09
Edelglass, Maier, Gerbert, Davy. The Marriage of Sense and Thought. Renewal in Science Series. 1997.
Feynman, Richard, Robert B. Leighton and Matthew Sands (1963). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, three volumes. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fodor, Jerry. “The Big Idea: Can There Be a Science of Mind?”, Times Literary Supplement (1992 July 3), p. 5-7.
Galilei, Galileo. The Assayer (1623), as translated by Thomas Salusbury (1661).
Gerson, Lloyd P. Aristotle and Other Platonists. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1995). Scientific Studies (vol. 12 of Goethe: The Collected Works), edited and translated by Douglas Miller. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hawking, Stephen. The Grand Design. New York: Random House, 2010
Heidegger, Martin. (1962). Being and Time, Translated by John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson. London: S.C.M. Press.
— The History of the Concept of Time, translated by Theodore J Kisiel, Indiana University Press, 2009.
Hesiod. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica with an English Translation by Hugh G. Evelyn-White. “Theogony.” Cambridge, MA.,Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1914.
Holdrege, Craig (1996). Genetics and the Manipulation of Life: The Forgotten Factor of Context. Hudson NY: Lindisfarne.
Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Pure Reason. Kemp Smith translation. MacMillan & Co. 1929.
Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Part of Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, Michael Friedman, Stanford University, California, 2004.
Koch, Christof; Massimini, Marcello; Boly, Melanie; Tononi, Giulio (April 2016). “Neural correlates of consciousness: Progress and problems”. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 17 (5): 307–321. doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.22. Retrieved 14 April 2018.
Kuhn, Thomas. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second, enlarged edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. 1690. Edited by Peter Nidditch. Oxford University Press, 1975.
Metzinger, Thomas. (Ed) (2002). Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
— Being No One. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
— What Is the Self? An Interview with Thomas Metzinger, Interview by Michael W. Taft https://deconstructingyourself.com/what-is-the-self-metzinger.html
Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
— “What is it Like to be a Bat?” Philosophical Review, pp. 435–50, 1974.
Nietzsche, F. (1974). The Gay Science. W. Kaufman, Translation. New York & Toronto: Vintage Books. Original work published 1882.
Perl, Eric D. “Esse Tantum and the One.” Quaestiones Disputatae 2 (2011): 185–200.
— “‘The Power of All Things’: The One as Pure Giving in Plotinus.” American
Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 71 (1997): 301–313.
— “The Presence of the Paradigm: Immanence and Transcendence in Plato’s
Theory of Forms.” Review of Metaphysics 53 (1999): 339–362.
— “The Togetherness of Thought and Being: A Phenomenological Reading of Plotinus’ Doctrine ‘That the Intelligibles Are Not outside the Intellect.’ ” Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 22 (2006): 1–26.
— Thinking Being: Introduction to Metaphysics in the Classical Tradition. Brill, 2014.
— “Why Is Beauty Form? Plotinus’ Theory of Beauty in Phenomenological
Perspective.” Dionysius 25 (2007): 115–128.
Pigliucci, Masimo (2013). “What hard problem?” (PDF). Philosophy Now (99).
Putnam, Hilary. Representation and Reality, Bradford, 1988.
Roger Koenig-Robert & Joel Pearson. “Decoding the contents and strength of imagery before volitional engagement” Published: 05 March 2019. Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 3504 (2019
Sacks, Oliver. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat — and Other Clinical Tales. New York: Summit Books. 1985.
Tarnas-Segall, Matthew. Alfred North Whitehead’s Adventure in Cosmology, Third Edition, 2018.
Thompson, Evan. Waking, Dreaming, Being. Columbia University Press, 2017.
— “Précis of Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation, and Philosophy.” Philosophy East & West Volume 66, Number 3 July 2016 927-1000 2016 by University of Hawai‘i Press.
Trevarthen, Colwyn (1987). “Split-Brain and the Mind”, in The Oxford Companion to the Mind, edited by Richard L. Gregory with the assistance of O. L. Zangwill. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 740-47.
Whitehead, A. N. Process and Reality. Free Press 1979. —Science and the Modern World. New York: Macmillan Company, 1925