Which would Occam Choose?
Which is fundamental: the ‘Material World’ or ‘Consciousness’?
The ‘Material World’ is theorised to be composed of energy/matter/space/time (which is theorised to have ‘popped’ into existence some 13.8 billions years ago). At base, it is assumed to be without Consciousness. ‘Dead’ in its very nature.
To be Conscious is to be Alive… to Sense-sensations (See-colours, Hear-sounds, Feel-feelings, Taste-flavours, Smell-odours) and Know-ideas (number, form and meaning).
Consciousness requires no theory or belief…
Plainly it ‘is’ here now :)
How to reconcile the ‘Dead Nature’ of the theorised Material World with the ‘Lived Experience’ of Consciousness?
Some call this the ‘Hard Problem of Consciousness’ — though it’s not really that hard :)
No one knows (or can ever know) what ‘Energy/Matter/Space/Time’, or ‘Consciousness’ is in ‘essence’, nor how they come to be.
To know the answer to these mysteries, Consciousness would have to be able to directly observe ‘outside’ itself. This essay explores why that is impossible.
These mysteries still leave open two questions:
Does ‘consciousness’ momentarily arise within the matrix of Dead Energy/Matter/Space/Time (whatever it is) when an infinitesimal part of the the matrix is temporarily formed into ‘a functioning complex brain’; with the specific consciousness then dissipating forever when the bit of the matrix that gave rise to it dissolves? Or…
Does the momentary appearance of energy/matter/space/time arise within Eternal Immaterial Living Consciousness (whatever it is)?
In absolute terms, the answer does not matter all.
And yet, on one scenario death is real. On the other it is not :)
So, for no other reason than a bit of fun, let’s explore the alternatives.
When we do, it soon becomes clear that from either the ‘Material perspective’, or the ‘perspective of Consciousness’ itself, the perceived world is a world of illusion.
Starting with the material world, the hypothesis is that individual consciousness arises as an ‘epiphenomenon’ (illusory experience) of ‘material activity’ inside ‘material brains’ as a result of ‘material interactions’ with an ‘external material world’, mediated by ‘material processes’ within the ‘material body’ housing the ‘material brain’. Phew!
Remarkably, on the material hypothesis, the neuronal activity in the brain is not perceived by the neurons themselves as the electro-chemical processes measured by third parties, not even as random sensations (patterns of colours, sounds, feelings, odours and flavours). Instead, the electro-chemical activity is said to somehow create patterns of sensations that appear as the experience of being ‘conscious of things, events and relations’ that apparently exist outside of, and separate from, the consciousness-sensations-ideas generated by the neuronal activity.
It’s as though the pixels on a computer screen were able to perceive not simply their own switching, but the combined switching of all the pixels all at once. And not simply as individual flickering points of light, but as though there is a specific entity perceiving a set of fleeting ever-changing coherent images that appear to be ‘things, events and relations’ occupying 3D space beyond the apparent entity, which has no direct awareness of the pixels or the screen that is the source of its awareness. Phew again!
But that’s not all.
Based on the material hypothesis, to ensure that ‘consistent brain states’ operate to create consistent ‘imagery’ within the one brain over time, and between different (though similar) brains, a set of unknown (and unknowable) ‘perceptual laws’ would need to exist to usually faithfully represent (as ‘sensory images’) the form, qualities and meaning of the material objects assumed to exist outside the brain within the range of the body’s senses. (Though no one has even postulated the existence of such laws, nor suggested how else coherent imaging is possible across space and time!)
Without such ‘perceptual laws’, the ‘apparent world’ created within each brain would be no different to a ‘random dream’ and communication between brains would be impossible as the ideas arising in one brain could not be reliably conveyed to another.
To be consistent across all conscious entities throughout space and time, the ‘perceptual laws’ (governing the transition from ‘physical brain states’ to ‘emergent immaterial consciousness of sensations representing external material objects and their meaning’) would have to be ‘embedded’ into the energy-matter-space-time matrix from the moment of the ‘Big Bang’, along with the ‘physical laws’.
From the human perspective, no one knows, or can ever know, how the ‘transition’ from ‘neural activity’ to the ‘perception of sensations and ideas as things, events and relations’ occurs, nor the nature or essence of the ‘perceiving-sensations-ideas’ itself — as they can never be objectively measured. No surgeon can open a brain to directly observe the ‘perceiving-sensations-ideas’ that are assumed to exist inside the head of another person.
Nor can anyone perceive their own ‘neural activity’ as ‘neural activity’!
Occam is already getting himself in a bit of a knot :)
But it gets worse.
These laws must regularly breakdown, as quite often there appears to be a disconnect between the inner and assumed outer worlds, as in the case of ‘mistaken identity’ or ‘optical illusions’; or no connections at all with the assumed material world, as in the case of ‘dreams’ and ‘hallucinations’.
And that’s not the end of it.
From the ‘perspective of the observer’, the ‘immaterial sensory images’ are normally experienced as ‘the material world’ itself. Which is to say, from the perspective of most readers, the computer upon which these words are now appearing (and all else now apparent from the perspective of the reader) are seen as being composed of ‘matter’. As if the material world is directly perceived.
Yet, that cannot be.
From the scientific perspective, there is no ‘little person’ inside the head looking out through the eyes into the assumed ‘material world’.
On this view, it is impossible for anyone to get outside Consciousness to observe the actual existence of the assumed material world… ever.
This is not to deny the tenets of science, nor the apparent relationship between brains and conscious experience. But that is a whole other topic.
For the sake of the present inquiry, it is sufficient to recognise that good science is based on rigorous mathematics.
Through the processes of ‘science’, mathematical relations are apparently discovered that describe the theoretical behaviour of theoretical fields (quantum, electo-magnetic, etc) and theoretical entities (eg. quarks, photons, electrons, atoms and molecules… all the way up to stars, galaxies and super clusters) that have certain theoretical properties (charge, spin, mass, wavelength, temperature, pressure, etc).
The theories are said to reflect ‘reality’ when the theoretical behaviour of theoretical entities maps or predicts the observed behaviour of apparent forms.
There is often a long chain of calculation required (including the mathematics embodied in any scientific equipment used) to connect the observed measurements of the theoretical properties and behaviour of the theoretical entities (eg fields and atoms and molecules, etc) with the observed behaviour of observed forms (eg an apparent body’s response to an apparent stimulus).
The questions that science answers relate only to how apparent things ‘behave’.
Science says nothing (and can never say anything) about ‘essence’ or ‘being’, or the leap from ‘behaviour’ to ‘Awareness of behaviour’… or of ‘emotions and smells and flavours and feelings and colours and sounds’… or of the ‘ideas’ that give ‘number, form and meaning to it all’!
In science, there is no coefficient of pain for an atom. The ‘laws of science’ cannot describe (let alone ‘be’) what it is to love or hate, or to be free or enslaved, what it is to feel the wind on your face, or to eat a pie at the footy with friends, or an argument with the boss, or the delight of a symphony, or the sunrise across the desert, or the loss of a child, or cleaning your teeth… or anything else.
Plainly, about perceiving and perceptions, science is entirely silent. So silent that in some cases ‘hardened materialists’ apparently deny the existence of sensations and perception as being anything but neuronal activity!… looking at you, Mr Dennett :)
But that is all theory…
Simple introspection confirms that both the mathematical theories of science and the behaviour of apparent forms, together with their meaning, are observed in and by Consciousness (whatever it is).
Plainly, only Consciousness Knows-ideas and Senses-sensations.
Plainly, Consciousness alone perceives the ‘lived experience’ which is inseparable from it.
Or to put it another way: the Observer and Observed are One.
Interestingly, this is a tenet of many religions that hold Reality is ‘non-dual’ (One) and the world is an ‘illusion’ :)
To test this hypothesis, let’s take a scientific approach and do a bit of ‘observing’.
Notice that any and all ‘apparent landscapes’ are ‘illusory’.
Notice they appear as 2D projections of Known-3D forms, distorted by ‘perspective’.
This is clear when looking at a cube.
The Known-cube has six sides all the same and never changes. This cube can never be Seen.
Notice that any apparent cube shows only 1–3 sides which all seem to change shape, depending on the viewing angle.
Notice too, the shape appears as if the visible vertices of the Known-cube have been projected onto a flat sheet, with the edges drawn to a set of ‘vanishing points’ creating a sense of ‘perspective’. That is, every apparent cube appears as a 2D projection of the Known-3D cube. If this was not the case, no apparent 3D object could appear realistic when imaged on a flat surface.
The thing that appears to change (the apparent cube as it is viewed from different angles), cannot be the thing that does not change (the Known-cube). The apparent object can only appear to ‘be’ a cube as the idea of the cube is associated with the changing image. Such appearance is by definition an illusion.
Similarly, as you look along a straight road, the converging edges are thought of as ‘parallel’, as the idea of parallel is associated with the converging image. A thing that converges cannot be a thing that is parallel. That it appears so is an illusion.
Or, hold the ‘thumb’ close to the ‘eye’. Notice that it appears to be larger than things Known to be orders of magnitude bigger than it. A thing that is smaller than another thing cannot also be larger than it, it can only appear so. A thing appearing to be other than it is, is the definition of illusion.
Notice that the impression of ‘depth of field’ is created by a number of visual tricks, such as perspective, shadowing, parallax and occlusion; combined with variations in ‘feeling’ and ‘sound’.
There are many other simple tests that demonstrate the illusory nature of the visual field. See if ‘you’ can discern them :)
But first, observe that who ‘you seem to be’ (the person) is an apparent object (formed of sensations and ideas), masquerading as the subject… appearing in and to Consciousness.
Look straight ahead.
Notice the visual field appears like a circle with and indefinite edge.
Without moving the ‘head or eyes’, notice beyond the edge is neither black nor white… simply nothing.
Notice no body is apparent.
Now ‘look down’.
Notice only the front of the torso and limbs are apparent, foreshortened so the hands appear about the size of the feet.
Bring a foot up to a hand and notice how the foot appears to grow much bigger, the closer they come together.
Again, a thing that is Known to be larger than another thing cannot also be the same size. Nor can a thing that has a fixed shape and size change… except as it is an illusion.
Plainly, everything apparent in the visual field is illusory… no different to a dream
As for ‘your head’, see if it can be found.
Place one hand around the front of the head and the other hand around the back.
Notice neither the feeling, nor the idea (that the feeling is my hands holding my head), is an actual head.
Notice both the feeling and idea are in Consciousness.
As such, Consciousness cannot be inside any head, as every head and every body (including the head and body referred to from the first person perspective as ‘my head and body’) appears in Consciousness!
This visual field is the Eye of Consciousness. It is the only Eye there is.
Now, instead of looking at the ‘objects of perception’, See if the ‘Seeing’ itself can be Seen?
Stop reading and observe!
Go wider.
Can the capacity to Sense any sensation or Know any idea be located?
Can its form or substance be discerned?
From simple introspection, it is plain that Consciousness itself has no form or substance.
Plainly, Consciousness is ‘immaterial’. This is not to say ‘what’ Consciousness ‘is’, or how it arises… only what it is not (material).
Plainly, without form or substance, Consciousness cannot be directly perceived in ‘others’.
Objectively, Consciousness appears as if it is not.
Subjectively, without theory or doubt…
It ‘is’.
Science is the route through which Consciousness reveals to ItSelf the incredible depth and breadth of the (apparent) universe on every scale.
Speaking of ‘scale’, notice how everything appears very different, depending upon the scale at which it is observed.
The mountain seen from afar appears very different to standing at its foot, and different again upon the peak, or from an aircraft. Which is the ‘true object’?
In Truth, in and of itself, the ‘universe’ does not extend in space or time. It has no ‘scale’, nor any ‘bits’. It is what it is :)
As a metaphor, the ‘nature’ of the Universe is more like an ‘unchanging computer program’ that determines appearances within the ‘visual field of Consciousness’, rather than ‘a collection of ever-moving entities’ separate to Consciousness.
To put it another way, the Universe exists in its entirety from beginning to end as a set of unchanging ideas… manifested in (and inseparable from), Consciousness. It appears as fleeting ever-changing sensory images that represent an infinitesimal facet of it in 2D (projected to appear as 3D) at a specific place and time, looking in a specific direction, viewed from the perspective of a specific creature at a specific scale, subject to that creatures specific biology and the use of any apparent devices (such as telescopes or microscopes)!!!
While all objects appear and feel ‘physical’, they are, as Shakespeare once said: “such stuff as dreams are made on” :)
In this Unity that is Consciousness, there is only ever One experience arising now, whatever it is…
As these words are read (from whichever perspective they now appear to be read), no other experiences are happening any ‘where’ or any ‘when’ else, for there is no where but ‘here’ and no when but ‘now’.
Which is to say, there are not ‘multiple consciousnesses’, nor is Consciousness split into bits (some for ‘you’ and some for ‘me’)… Consciousness is One… seeming to be each ‘me’, experiencing the apparent world from the perspective of each creature in it, each ‘in turn’… as in a game.
What is apparently done to another is indeed experienced by this same Consciousness as the person doing and the person to whom it is done… hence the ‘Golden Rule’ :)
What!
How can ‘I’ experience ‘life’ from the perspective of each creature and not know it?
Notice there is no Awareness of Knowing anything at all until the number, form and meaning of the ‘thing, event or relation’ is imaged via sensations:
Sea grass!
Until this instant was there any Awareness of Knowing or not-Knowing the meaning associated with the words?
Plainly, the meaning is not in the symbols, else it would be impossible for one word to have many different meanings, or for many words to have the same meaning, or no meaning at all (when viewed from the perspective of an illiterate person).
Notice that meaning is only apparent in and to Awareness as it is associated with some ‘fleeting sensory image’ that appears as a ‘word’ (referencing a thing/event/relation), or ‘image’ (picture/drawing, etc of a thing/event/relation), or the apparent ‘thing/event/relation itself’.
The past is Known only in the instant it is imaged as some thought or other imagining in the present, as is the future.
Consciousness alone is Aware… now and now and now… without end.
As with any game, the player (Consciousness) is only bound by the rules while playing this ‘game of life’… as evidenced by ‘nightly dreams’ and ‘hallucinations’ that obey no rules at all :)
The essence of Consciousness is Omniscience (it alone Knows and Senses all), Omnipresence (in and to it alone all things appear) and Omnipotence (by it alone do all sensations arise to image the ideas that give number, form and meaning to all experiences).
Regardless of any ‘explanation’, the nature of Reality itself is completely unknown and unknowable… for all explanations consist of ideas ‘about’ Reality and no idea can ‘be’ Reality.
At best, words can ‘point attention’ to the Reality they reference. Instead of trying to understand them (which only invokes ideas), look instead to where they point.
As an example, the words Seeing-colour point ‘out of this page’ towards the ‘clear space’ which is now Seeing them… and back to the images that are inseparable from this Seeing :)
With this Consciousness, consider:
‘Reality’ is either:
A dual reality comprising matrix of energy/matter/space/time which gives rise in very specific circumstances to an immaterial apparent world composed of sensations (colours and odours and flavours and feelings and sounds) and ideas (number form and meaning) that somehow becomes aware of itself (not as a flux of fundamental fields and particles inside the material brain, or even as a disparate set of sensations), but as an apparent ordered world comprising things, events and relations perceived from the perspective of a specific creature ‘in’ the apparent world, as though looking out its eyes and experiencing the body, thoughts, feelings and surroundings of the creature as ‘my body’ and ‘my thoughts’ and ‘my feelings’ and ‘my surroundings’… as in a consistent dream, where the images are held to be a rough approximation (sometimes erroneous) of other bits of energy matter within the range of its physical sense organs, where the body and brain evolved out of inanimate energy-matter-space-time that popped into being some 13.8 billions years ago (evolving through space and time according to certain ‘fundamental laws’, including specific ‘perceptual laws’ governing the emergence of consciousness, sensations and ideas inside brains so as to reasonably faithfully mimic the material forms outside the brains); which body/brain/consciousness has no control over events (consciousness being a mere epiphenomenon of the processes of the material brain, themselves controlled by the fundamental laws) and which ceases to be when the brain is drugged, or in a coma, or ceases to function. Actual separate consciousnesses temporarily popping into existence purely by chance formed (no one knows how) out of one ‘substance’ (energy-matter) that itself is inanimate, but only when the conditions are ‘exactly right’ (popping out again when they are not). Life out of death (and back to death again)… a miracle indeed!
Or,
As all great religions and introspection confirm:
A non-dual Reality: formless, immaterial, unchanging, Living Consciousness as the eternal ground of being, with Power to manifest an ever-changing flux of immaterial sensations (colours, odours, flavours, feelings and sounds) in accord with specific ideas (number form and meaning) to create within and to its own Awareness an apparent world comprising things, events and relations perceived from the perspective of a specific creature ‘in’ the apparent world, as though looking out its eyes and experiencing the body, thoughts, feelings and surroundings of the creature as ‘my body’ and ‘my thoughts’ and ‘my feelings’ and ‘my surroundings’… as in a dream. Everlasting Life giving rise to the appearance of dead matter!
Given that both conjectures predict the same apparent reality, and the same ‘personal’ experience…
Which would Occam choose?
Which set of words points most directly to this Consciousness that now perceives them?
