skip to main |
skip to sidebar
And don't you forget it.
Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind
What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects -- the particles, electrons, quarks etc. -- cannot be thought of as "self-existent". The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is merely "empirical reality".
This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of . . . Of what? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either.
(Via DIP's Dispatches from the Imagination Age.)
10 comments:
Well there are at least three models - monistic materialism, monisitc idealism, or dualism. Monistic materialism is that everything is material, including consciousness which is an illusory epiphenomenon. For the moment, this remains the prevailing view amongst most working scientists. Monistic idealism states that yes everything is ultimately the same stuff, but instead it is consciousness that is primary, and material reality that is the epiphenomenon. Finally there is dualism, that mind and matter are separate but distinct things. Although dualism is a view common amongst the general population, it is no longer taken seriously by most thinkers today.
If there is a fourth perspective that is beyond mind and matter, I'd like to know about it.
My take is that idealism stands on better philosophical and experiential grounds. When increased levels of consciousness are experienced, many so-called solid material phenomenon are revealed to be deep constructs of cosmic consciousness. As many mystics say, there comes a point where you become a co-creator of the universe.
Paul
I would have to disagree with your belief that monistic idealism stands on either better philisophical or particularly experiential and evidencial grounds.
Based on evidence and experiments involving aspects of quantum mechanics derived from Bell's inequality theorem, and growing proof of the fact that conscious thought, will, and action derives from material energetic and subconscious precursor brain activity, the idea that either reality is a state of mind, or that "underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable 'ultimate reality', not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either" is an essentially mistaken solipsistic notion. It attempts to construct an answer to the question of what is reality without any substantial foundation. We simply don't know as yet, and to presume an answer or the nature of reality as d'Espagnat would suggest is just that, presumption. This is a slippery philosophical slope, when one posits a theorem without any genuine evidence.
To put it another way, mind derives from matter (consciousness being an epiphenomenon arising from the material aspects of brain structure), not the other way around. And while matter itself is a form of energy on the sub-atomic level of quarks and below (E=mc2) in the strange world of quantum mechanics, where even the subcomponents of energy that make up matter have been found to not be discrete, as they exist more as entangled Heisenbergian potentialities, which would hint as some greater or more complex (and as yet not clearly understood) reality underlying cosmological or macro reality, this does not establish that any form of consciousness, human or otherwise, is the basis for the slowly emerging awareness that reality is not what it is commonly perceived as.
What evidence is there that when "increased levels of consciousness are experienced, many so-called solid material phenomenon are revealed to be deep constructs of cosmic consciousness"?
Monistic idealism is more a metaphysical or ontological theory which holds that consciousness, not matter, is the basis of all being. As such, it's more of a spirtual belief construct, such as the tenets of Vedantic philosophy.
The quote this post links to is from Bernard d'Espagnat, who just won the annual Templeton prize, which is awarded for "an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works." Until 2001, it was called the "Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion."
Corrections:
philisophical --> philosophical
evidencial --> evidential
solipsistic --> anthropocentric
[*blush*]
The comment above was a preliminary draft that was accidentally posted. Now I know that double clicking the preview text window somehow mysteriously submits the comment. Spooky action at a distance? 8^}
Further thoughts later, but it would seem to me Bernard d'Espagnat's "non-conceptualisable" comment, though, is inherently self-contradictory.
So I take it for you think only material evidence counts as evidence? If true, then this is like saying only evidence which supports a materialist paradigm is evidence - anything that does not support a materialist paradigm is merely an ontology, philosophy, or worse delusion.
What I find astounding as then even if we remain within a materialist paradigm, the truth as brain scientists will state, is that our experience of reality, which includes all of our understanding of science and the material world, is an elaborate 'echo', 'ghost' or 'simulcra' *inside* our minds.
So if you're looking for evidence of monistic idealism, including becoming aware of just how much our perception of so-called "solid reality" hinges on on deep subconcious processes, then try a powerful psychedelic or ask any number of thousands of mystics or shamans around the world who all report the same thing independent of the culture in which they are from.
As for as quantal or microtubule origins of consciousness as promulgated by people like Stuart Hameroff, his evidence, if you can call it that, is very flimsy, and has not stood up to experimental scrutiny. Ironically, the very nature of consciousness, since it is entirely an inner experience of qualia, is beyond the study of objective science. Why? Because it is a subjective phenomena. Solipism has nothing to do with it.
Can you state with any degree of certainty anything that you know that is not a product of your own consciousness? How do you know it's not all entirely inside your own head, or simulated by something wholly other?
I already know the answer... you can't.
What I find astounding as then even if we remain within a materialist paradigm, the truth as brain scientists will state, is that our experience of reality, which includes all of our understanding of science and the material world, is an elaborate 'echo', 'ghost' or 'simulcra' *inside* our minds.
So if you're looking for evidence of monistic idealism, including becoming aware of just how much our perception of so-called "solid reality" hinges on on deep subconcious processes, then try a powerful psychedelic or ask any number of thousands of mystics or shamans around the world who all report the same thing independent of the culture in which they are from.
How we perceive is one thing; the external reality is something else altogether. The effects of psychedelics only indicate that certain chemicals found in nature react with the chemicals in our brains, resulting in a distortion or distancing of our perceptions from what's actually going on around us. I think the evidence weighs heavily in favor of our sense perceptions having been sharpened via evolutionary process to closely engage the external world -- for our own good and survival. Think: What happens if we consume psychedelics without proper safety precautions? We risk injury or even death, because our faculties of awareness have been impaired. Also consider that the effects of psychedelics are not that different from neurological disorders which land people in mental hospitals, lest they harm themselves and/or others. Take persons with schizophrenia, for instance.
Moreover I think that the experience of nirvana or absorption into the Godhead as described by mystics can best be explained psychologically. Certain postures and breathing exercises, taken beyond a certain point, can allow us to tap into areas of the psyche which are dormant -- thus triggering a "mystical" experience. Such experiences tell us more about the mind and body, as well as the interrelation of both, rather than about metaphysics.
Can you state with any degree of certainty anything that you know that is not a product of your own consciousness? How do you know it's not all entirely inside your own head, or simulated by something wholly other?
Sure, everything I know can be a mere product of my own consciousness. But think about what's at stake if we seriously adopt such a viewpoint.
Ken Y.
Such experiences tell us more about the mind and body, as well as the interrelation of both, rather than about metaphysics.
This again is a materialist bias, and thus your opinion. It could just as easily be explained that drugs or breathing/body postures alter the "brain as filter" thus opening ourselves up to experiencing a different and/or expanded perception of reality that was heretofore unavailable to our "accidental" inheritance in the fitness landscape. On a side note, since these experiences are new, then of course we wouldn't be adapted to it (yet). But for those of us who have been there often, this is less and less the case. As for non-drug, non-ordinary states of consciousness, I personally have experienced very high states of samadhi while remaining very competent in interfacing with consensus reality. We are evolving and so is our consciousness. To state that any experience beyond consensus reality is merely a brain state or delusion is an extremely biased, some would say mundane, perspective on your part.
Sure, everything I know can be a mere product of my own consciousness. But think about what's at stake if we seriously adopt such a viewpoint.
This is a common misperception of monistic idealism, based on your choice of pronouns. Firstly, everything 'you' know is not a product of 'your' consciousness. It is a product of consciousness itself. The 'you' is but one infinitesimal part of the infinite consciousness which is the ground of all being. You, me, and anyone are simply part of this greater whole. When a person is able to transcend their ego state, and go into transpersonal states, they realize what they called "them" is but one small part of a greater whole. In these transpersonal states people can became aware of the unity and connection between all things None of this contradicts quantum non-locality by the way.
Cheers,
Paul
So, Paul, I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion that monistic idealism, or generally that "infinite consciousness" is the ground of all being.
I think part of the difference of opinion here is based on how differing definitions of terms, or assertions preceding a clearer explication of the basis for conflicting points of view, which might be considered a bias from both sides of the question of just what reality is, or how it originates, is interfering with a more productive exchange.
It seems you posit that consciousness is a general, cosmologically distributed attribute of the universe, and that individuals are part of that greater whole, if I understand you correctly.
Furthermore, that what we perceive on what seems a material level is some kind of creation, product, or epiphenomenon of both the individual and greater scales of consciousness that we are only a part of, and do not independently or externally exist, or are separate from mind. Is this correct, or would you care to detail your statements in another and hopefully more detailed way?
Since your original first two comments, I've spent considerable time looking into some of the terms you have used, such as qualia for example, and have been researching and reading about some of the philosophical bases for what you have stated, such as monistic idealism, and have thus held off any prior follow-up comment, but it occurred to me that in the relatively brief exchanges above, some better definition of terms might be useful in advancing this discussion.
I would like to respond to some of your statements in more detail, but would like to get a better idea of the concepts, and how you understand them, that you have noted. Among the questions I have are do you think consciousness existed prior to humanity or the formation of our solar system, and if so, how and why. Do you think each individual's perceived consciousness or ability to know persists after death? Are you an adherent to any particular spiritual or religious practice or belief system?
If mind does not arise from processes of the material brain, and that consciousness itself creates perceived reality, then in the act of having our consciousness altered by the use of psychedelics, is the drug itself immaterial and a further creation of mind? You mentioned that "mystics or shamans around the world who all report the same thing independent of the culture in which they are from" and that "these experiences are new." What is this "same thing" you refer to, and how do you mean "new"?
What role or significance do you think quantum entanglement and non-locality suggest in this debate over monistic idealism vs. materialism? Is it possible you are wrong, or both of us, or that as d'Espagnat may be implying, without it being clearly stated or perhaps just not comprehensible to us as yet, if ever, might both materialism and idealism be wrong in the sense that they are incomplete beliefs, or theorems, and that due to the implications of Bell's inequalities theory, non-locality, and entanglement, that a "fourth way" may underlie what we term reality, and that neither standard materialist or idealist views are adequate?
It seems to me that materialism is absurd on its face. Our concept of reality is formed within three pounds of electrochemical jelly encased in a meat body inhabiting a dust-speck on the outer rim of a no-count galaxy out in the cosmic backwaters.
The human brain is finite, fragile, and fallible. We live no more than 100 years - less than an eyeblink in the cosmic scheme of things. One good blow to the head and it's lights out. And even at our best we make mistakes daily.
And yet we have the audacity to believe that there exists nothing that we are not capable of comprehending?
Silly humans.
Hi Intense,
Wow, how refreshing that you've given them some thought and done the research!
You know we've reached a point where a great deal of time would be needed to continue reasonable and comprehensive discussion as you suggest, and which I would be happy to do.
Because of the limits of time and the forum in which we are talking (comments section), I will only be able to formulate the beginnings of an adequate reply. I would be more than willing to have more in-depth discussion with you via email if you desire. I don't have your email, so perhaps you could contact me via my profile?
I'd be interested in how you came to the conclusion that monistic idealism, or generally that "infinite consciousness" is the ground of all being.
I could spend dozens of pages laying this out, but to be brief it starts with the ultimate origin of all things. I'm not talking about the Big Bang, which even materialist cosmologies now admit is not the beginning, but rather a quantum vacuum fluctuation/perturbation, meaning there are probably infinite numbers of other parallel universes, as well as both an unlimited number of before and after ones. This dogs the question of the ultimate beginning, just as asking "where did God come from?". Either way it's not answered by traditional religion or modern science. But this makes the question no less meaningful or worth asking. There are several possibilities here. Either there was an endless nothing, at which point 'something' occurred to start it all off. Now since time itself is an arbitrary boundary condition of our universe, asking what happened before the beginning might seem absurd, but it in so doing it brings up some VERY interesting ontological possibilities, one of which there is no beginning. Did our entire material universe arise from nothing? If it arose from quantum vacuum fluctuations where did the quantum vacuum come from? And so on it goes. Therefore the idea that something came from nothing is AS ABSURD as the idea that everything already existed. Since we can clearly see the evolution in our own universe from an apparent singularity, both cosmologically, and as seed bacterial life on our own planet, this is easy to see. So instead we could say this "everything" is manifested as potentia, of which we are but one actuality out of an infinite sea.
So what is this infinite sea? Is it material? Well this gets tricky too, and almost all materialist physicists will say it's not actually matter, but vacuum fluctuations of potential energy. Also, the so-called "matter" that makes you and I up is not solid, but van der Walls electromagnetic forces. These forces in turn are based on electron probability waves. These waves or not really "there" in any meaningful sense, but probabilistic possibilities only manifest by a collapsing wave function. These wave functions in turn our manifest via "virtual" particles that come and go (like ghosts) from the quantum vacuum. In other words all the matter we see actually arose out of "nothing" in a sense. Although we imagine the vacuum of space as "nothing" it's not really that, but an infinite sea of Zero-Point energy fields.
Have I lost you yet? I hope not. But I hope you can see where this is heading.
Now we come to the consciousness portion, which according to quantum theory, the observer is an absolutely necessary and entangled component of the collapsing wave function. There are a small number of physicists who are VERY threatened by this idealist implication, and so have devoted their life's work to finding ways around it, including the Multi-Worlds Interpretation, which posits over 10^100 new universes being created every planck moment (10^-47 seconds). And the very next plank moment, each of those 10^100 universe have spawned another 10^100 universes. This would result in 10^(10^47) new universes created every second. This is a number so large that just to write it down would be a 1 followed by 10^47 zeros! Thus having a computer print it out on 8.5 x 11 would result in enough paper to fill a sphere encompassing the entire Solar System out past the orbit of Jupiter. Keep in mind that's just in one second, and only counting the number of new branch universes that are created from the parent universe we are in at this very moment. Imagine that many universe being spawned off from the the seed one you are in now, in less time than it took you to read this sentence. When you compute this over a year, the amount of paper generated just to write the number down would fill quintillions of quintillions of known universes!
So yes, materialist have gone to great (and absurd) lengths to avoid acknowledging consciousness as having anything to do with the universe in any fundamental way. I could give you many other absurd ideas growing out of intense idealist avoidance! :) But that is another discussion.
So back to consciousness. Consciousness is integral and entangled at the very fabric of the zero-point quantum vacuum fluctuations that create our "physical" universe to begin with.
So yes, I suppose you're right, it's still a bias whether you start from an idealist or materialist position. But the idealist position is consistent with quantum theory and does not require any intensely elaborate constructions to defend it. It simply is the result of basic quantum mechanics.
Please keep in mind I haven't even begun to delve into the deep philosophical underpinings, let alone the experiential (subjective consciousness) evidence. I'm wanting you to begin to see there is already compelling evidence of idealism just from within a strictly materialist paradigm (i.e. quantum mechanics).
I've run out of time, as I suspected I would. Please feel free to contact me via email or my website (found on my profile) and we can continue.
Cheers,
Paul
I would agree that an empirical approach is needed. See New Empiricism
Post a Comment