apologia of theism3 of 5
As an example there are these two basic qualities of experience that we do not understand andcannot fit in the existing computational-representational understanding of mind (CRUM). One is theintegrity (subjectivity) of experience, and another is the sensorial / emotional quality (qualia) of ourexperience. God can bridge this gap and grant our experience these two qualities without violatingany physical laws or itself acquiring any of the physical qualities. Since all gaps have essentially thesame non-cognitive, inexplicable / indescribable nature - otherwise they would not be gaps - wecannot differentiate between them and then this God becomes the metaphorical / metaphysical sub-stratum on which the “phenomenon” stands. It becomes the Ground of Being.Since God is causally isolated, It is non-falsifiable. Theologian may decide to inject theistic coloursof omniscience, omnipotence and nobility into God though the Scientist will not accept this color-ation due to lack of evidence. Scientist however cannot reject apophatic God (of Gaps) since shehas already accepted inadequacy of science in respect of the above two out four Gaps. The thirdGap is subject to anthropic interpretation and the fourth one is veering towards irreducibility andnon-computability as will be seen in Part-2.
When Theologian says that there exists an epistemic gap - a gap in understanding the phenomenonof consciousness - what does she mean?(a) The consciousness is "irreducible" - it cannot be reduced to the "Laws of Physics" as expressedby mathematical equations.(b) The consciousness is "non-computable" - it cannot be simulated by using primitive recursivefunctions or recursively written programs.(c)It cannot be simulated on non-organic machines - on the present day silicon computers, how-ever complex they may be or powerful they may be.What do these three points imply?(a) Ordinarily science attaches great importance to physics and mathematically expressed physicallaws. We think that since brain at the lowest level is made of elementary classes of particles likefermions and bosons and since they are governed by physical laws (quantum physics, relativity, andstandard model) the working of brain and emergence of consciousness can be ultimately reduced to(explained by) these laws formulated as mathematical equations. Theologian disputes this positionsaying that consciousness is a biological phenomenon that cannot be reduced to physics. Implicit inthis stand is the assumption that there are no universal laws which are applicable across the fullspectrum of phenomenal world. (cf. Searle 1996, 2000; Roth 1996, 2012).(b) and (c) states that consciousness cannot be generated "algorithmically" - it is non-computable.What it means is that we cannot write a computer program - a program written recursively usingavailable basic language instructions - to simulate consciousness on a silicon machine. Theologianmay argue that though formation of life forms is Turing computable on a DNA based organicapparatus,
simulation of consciousness is not possible on synthetic machine made exclusively ofnon-organic material. That is to say, we cannot use present day technology - however powerful we
3This Turing computability is the biological analog of general principle of storage, coding, and transmission of digitalinformation commonly seen in today's electronic computers. In the living organisms however, it is fleshed out withentirely different set of processes (mitosis, meiosis), which are error-prone and may cause random changes in genes(genetic mutations) forming the basis of 'heritable variation' in the Biological Evolution.