Tag Archives: idealistic philosophy

PART I. Integrating Science and Spirituality

The turmoil in today’s world is reaching critical levels. Our faith in the spiritual components of life—in the living reality of consciousness, values, and God—is crumbling under the relentless attacks of scientific materialism. On the one hand, we welcome the benefits that science provides, which presupposes a materialistic worldview. On the other hand, this dominant worldview cannot satisfy our intuitions about the meaning of life.

Over the past four centuries we have gradually come to believe that science can only be built on the idea that everything is made of matter – so-called atoms in the void. We have come to dogmatically accept materialism, despite its inability to explain the most common experiences in our daily lives. In short, we have an inconsistent worldview. Our situation has created the need for a new paradigm—a unifying worldview that integrates mind and spirit into science. However, no new paradigm has emerged.

This book offers such a paradigm and shows how we can develop a science that accepts the world’s religions, working with them to understand the whole of human existence. The basis of this paradigm is the recognition that modern science confirms the ancient idea that the basis of all things is not matter, but consciousness.

The first part of the book introduces new physics and the modern version of the philosophy of monistic idealism. On these two pillars I will try to build the promised new paradigm – a bridge across the gap between science and religion. Let communication be possible between them.

CHAPTER 1. THE Abyss and the Bridge

I see a strange, torn caricature of a man beckoning me towards him. What is he doing here? How can it exist in such a fragmented state? What should I call him?

As if reading my thoughts, the distorted figure says: “What significance does a name have in my condition? Call me Guernica. I’m searching for my consciousness. Don’t I have the right to consciousness?”

I recognize this name. “Guernica” is a brilliant painting created by Pablo Picasso as a protest against the fascist bombing of a small Spanish town of the same name.

“Okay,” I answer, trying to calm him down, “if you tell me what exactly you need, then maybe I can help.”

“You think? — His eyes light up. “Perhaps you can speak in my defense?” He looks at me hungrily.

“In front of whom? Where?” – I ask, puzzled.

“Inside. They gathered there while I was left here unconscious. Perhaps if I find my consciousness, I will be whole again.”

“Who are they?” – I ask.

“Scientists, those who decide what is real.”

“Yes? Then the situation can’t be that bad. I am a scientist myself. Scientists are open-minded people. I’ll go talk to them.”

The people at the party are divided into three separate groups, similar to the islands of the Bermuda Triangle. After a moment’s hesitation, I resolutely head towards one of these groups – they don’t go to someone else’s monastery with their own rules, and all that. There is a lively conversation between them. They talk about quantum physics. They must be physicists.

“Quantum physics makes predictions about experimentally observed events, and nothing more,” says an aristocratic-looking man with barely noticeable gray hair. “Why make unfounded assumptions about reality when talking about quantum objects?”

“Aren’t you tired of this position? It seems that a whole generation of physicists has been conditioned to think that an adequate philosophy of quantum physics was developed sixty years ago. This is simply not true. Nobody understands quantum mechanics,” says another with noticeable sadness.

These words go almost unheard when another gentleman with a wild beard declares with unquestionable authority: “Listen, let’s speak directly. Quantum physics states that objects appear as waves. Objects are waves. And waves, as we all know, can be in two (or more) places at the same time. But when we observe a quantum object, we find it entirely in one place—here, not there, and certainly not here and there at the same time.”

A bearded man waves his arms excitedly. “So what does this mean in layman’s terms? “Here you are,” he says, looking at me, “what do you say?”

I get lost for a moment, but quickly come to my senses. “Well, apparently our observations, and thus ourselves, have a profound influence on quantum objects.”

“No. No. No, the questioner exclaims angrily. – When we observe, there is no paradox. When we are not observing, the paradox of an object being in two places at the same time returns. Obviously, the way to avoid the paradox is to vow never to talk about the location of the object between observations.”

“But what if we, our consciousness, actually influence quantum objects?” – I persist. Somehow it seems to me that the consciousness of Guernica has something to do with this hypothesis.

“But this means mind over matter,” all the people in the group exclaim in unison, looking at me as if I had uttered heresy.

“But, but…” I stammer, refusing to be tamed, “suppose there is some way to reconcile the primacy of mind over matter.”

I tell them about Guernica’s predicament. “Look, you have a responsibility to society. You have known for sixty years that the normal, objective way of doing physics is not suitable for quantum objects. We get paradoxes. And yet, you pretend to be objective, and the rest of society misses the opportunity to learn that we – our consciousness – are intimately connected to reality. Can you imagine how it would affect the worldview of the average person if physicists explicitly recognized that we are not separate from the world, but on the contrary, we are the world and must be responsible for it? Perhaps only then could Guernica—indeed, all of us—return to wholeness.”

The important gentleman intervenes: “In the dead of night, and when no one is around, I would admit that I have doubts. But my mother taught me that when in doubt, it is much better to feign ignorance. We don’t know anything about consciousness. Consciousness belongs to psychology, to those guys over there.” — He gestures to the corner.

“But,” I persist, “suppose we define consciousness as the factor that acts on quantum objects, making their behavior perceptible. I am sure that psychologists would take this possibility into account if you agreed with me. Let’s try to change our separatist worldview right now.” Now I am completely confident that Guernica’s chance of gaining consciousness depends on whether I can unite these people.

“To say that consciousness has a causal effect on atoms is to open Pandora’s box. This would turn objective physics on its head; physics would cease to be self-sufficient, and we would lose all confidence.” There is finality in the speaker’s voice. Someone else says in a voice I’ve heard before: “Nobody understands quantum mechanics.”

“But I promised Guernica that I would ask for his consciousness! Please listen to me.” I protest, but no one pays any attention. I became non-existent for this group – a non-consciousness, like Guernica.

I decide to try my luck with psychologists. I recognize them by the cluster of rat cages and computers in their corner.

A woman, looking knowledgeable, explains something to a young man. “By assuming that the brain-mind is a computer, we hope to break the vicious circle of behaviorism. The brain is the hardware of the computer. In reality, there is only the brain; this is what is real. However, brain hardware states perform independent functions over time, similar to computer software. It is these states of hardware that we call mind.”

“Then what is consciousness?” – the young man asks.

Oh, how timely. That’s exactly what I came here to find out – what psychologists think about consciousness! They must be the ones who control the consciousness of Guernica.

“Consciousness is like a central processing unit, the command center of a computer,” the woman answers patiently.

The questioner, not satisfied with this answer, energetically continues: “If we, at least in principle, can explain all the relationships of our inputs and outputs in terms of the activity of computer circuits, then consciousness seems absolutely unnecessary.”

I can’t help myself: “Please don’t refuse to acknowledge consciousness just yet. My friend Guernica needs it.” I tell them about the Guernica problem.

As if echoing my recent physicist acquaintance, the neatly dressed gentleman casually remarks: “But cognitive psychology is not yet ready for consciousness. We don’t even know how to define it.”

“I can tell you how a physicist defines consciousness. It has to do with quantum.”

That last word gets their attention. First I explain that quantum objects are waves that can exist in more than one place, and how consciousness can be a factor in focusing the waves so that we can observe them in one place. “And this is the solution to your problem,” I say. —You can take the definition of consciousness from physics! And then you may be able to help Guernica.”

“Aren’t you confused? Don’t physicists say that everything is made of atoms – quantum objects? If consciousness also consists of quantum objects, then how can it causally influence them? Think for yourself.”

I feel a slight panic. If these psychologists know what they are saying, then even my consciousness is an illusion, not to mention the consciousness of Guernica. But psychologists are right only if everything that exists, including consciousness, really consists of atoms. Suddenly another possibility occurs to me! And I blurt out: “You are completely wrong! You cannot be sure that everything in existence is made of atoms – this is just an assumption. Suppose instead that everything that exists, including atoms, is made of consciousness!”

My listeners seem stunned. “Look, there are some psychologists who think so. I admit it’s an interesting possibility. But it is not scientific. If we want to elevate psychology to the status of a science, we must eschew consciousness—and especially the idea that consciousness might be the ultimate reality. Sorry, buddy.” The woman who says this actually sounds quite sympathetic.

But I still have not moved towards Guernica consciousness. In desperation, I turn to the last group – the third vertex of the triangle. They happen to be neuroscientists (brain researchers). Perhaps their opinion actually means something.

Brain researchers are also debating consciousness, and my hopes are rising. “I argue that consciousness is the causal entity that gives meaning to existence,” says one of them, turning to an older and rather thin man. “But it must be an emergent phenomenon of the brain, and not separate from it.” After all, everything is made of matter; there is nothing besides her.”

The thin gentleman, speaking with an English accent, objects: “How can something made of something else cause a causal effect on the thing of which it is made? It’s the same as if television advertising is repeated, affecting the electronic circuits of the television. God forbid! No, to have a causal effect on the brain, consciousness must be a separate entity from it. It belongs to a separate world outside the material world.”

“But then how do these two worlds interact? The spirit cannot influence the machine.”

Rudely interrupting them, a third man with his hair tied in a ponytail laughs and says, “Both of you are talking nonsense. All your problems arise from trying to find meaning in an inherently meaningless material world. Look, physicists are right when they say that there is no meaning, no free will, and everything that exists is a random play of atoms.”

The English proponent of a separate world of consciousness responds sarcastically: “And you think that what you said makes sense? You yourself are a game of random, meaningless movement of atoms, yet you make up theories and think that your theories mean something.”

I’m interfering in the dispute. “I know how meaning can be made even in the play of atoms. Suppose that everything is not made of atoms, but of consciousness. What then?

“Where did you get this idea?” – they demand.

“From quantum physics,” I say.

“But there is no quantum physics at the macroscopic level of the brain,” they all say authoritatively, united in their objection. — Quantum physics — for the micro level, for atoms. Atoms form molecules, molecules form cells, and cells form the brain. We work with the brain every day; there is no need to invoke quantum mechanics of atoms to explain the macroscopic behavior of the brain.”

“But you don’t pretend to have a complete understanding of the brain, do you? The brain is not that simple! Didn’t someone say that if the brain were so simple that we could understand it, then we would be so simple that we wouldn’t be able to do it?”

“That may be true,” they concede, “but how does the idea of ​​quantum help us understand consciousness?”

I tell them that consciousness affects the quantum wave. “You see, it’s a paradox if consciousness consists of atoms. But if we reverse our idea of ​​what the world consists of, then this paradox is very satisfactorily resolved. I assure you, the world is made of consciousness.” I can’t hide my excitement and even pride – this is such a big idea. I ask them to join me.

“The sad thing,” I continue, “is that if ordinary people really knew that the link connecting them to each other and to the world is consciousness, and not matter, then their views on war and peace, environmental pollution, social justice, religious values ​​and all other human aspirations would undergo a radical change.”

“This sounds interesting, and believe me, I share your feelings. But your idea also sounds like something from the Bible. How can we accept religious ideas as science and continue to have credibility?” The questioner’s voice sounds as if he is talking to himself.

“I ask you to give consciousness its due,” I reply. “My friend Guernica needs consciousness to become whole again.” And from what I heard at this party, he’s not the only one. How can you still argue whether consciousness even exists? Surely the existence of consciousness cannot be disputed, and you know it.”

“I see,” says the man with the ponytail, shaking his head. – My friend, there was a misunderstanding. We are all chosen to be Guernica; you have to be if you want to do science. We have to assume that we are all made of atoms. Our consciousness has to be a secondary phenomenon – an epiphenomenon of the dance of atoms. This is required by the obligatory objectivity of science.”

I return to Guernica and tell him about my experience. “As Abraham Maslow once said, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you start treating everything as if it were a nail.” These people are accustomed to perceiving the world as consisting of atoms and separate from themselves. They consider consciousness an illusory epiphenomenon. They can’t give you consciousness.”

“But what about you? — Guernica is looking at me intently. “Are you also going to hide behind scientific objectivity or are you going to do something to help me restore integrity?” Now he’s shaking me.

His persistence awakens me from my sleep. Gradually the desire to write this book is born.

* * *

Today we are faced with a great dilemma in physics. In quantum physics—the new physics—we have found a theoretical framework that works; it explains a myriad of laboratory experiments. Quantum physics has led to extremely useful technologies such as transistors, lasers and superconductors. And yet, we cannot understand the meaning of the mathematics of quantum physics without offering an interpretation of the experimental results, which many people can only look at as paradoxical and even impossible. Take a look at the following quantum properties:

• A quantum object (such as an electron) can be in more than one place at the same time (
wave property).

• A quantum object cannot be said to manifest itself in ordinary space-time reality until we observe it as a particle (
wave collapse).

• A quantum object ceases to exist here and simultaneously begins to exist somewhere else; however, we cannot say that he passed through the space separating these places
(quantum leap).

• The manifestation of a quantum object caused by our observation simultaneously affects its correlated counterpart object – no matter how far apart they are
(quantum action at a distance).

We cannot relate quantum physics to experimental data without using some kind of interpretive scheme, and interpretation depends on the philosophy we apply to the data. For centuries, science has been dominated by the philosophy of physical, or material, realism, which assumes that only matter—composed of atoms or, at most, elementary particles—is real; everything else is secondary phenomena of matter, simply the dance of the atoms that form it. This worldview is called realism because objects are assumed to be real and independent of the subjects—us—or how we observe them.

However, the idea that everything that exists is made of atoms is an untested assumption; it is not based on any direct evidence for all things. When new physics confronts us with a situation that appears paradoxical from the point of view of material realism, we tend to overlook the possibility that the paradoxes may arise because our untested assumption is wrong. (We tend to forget that a long-held assumption does not thereby become a fact, and we even become indignant when we are reminded of this.)

Today, many physicists suspect that something is wrong with material realism, but are afraid to rock the boat that has served them so well for so long. They do not realize that their boat is adrift and needs new navigation under the guidance of a new worldview.

Is there an alternative to the philosophy of material realism? Material realism, despite all its efforts and all its computer models, fails to explain the existence of our minds, especially the phenomenon of causally efficient self-awareness. “What is consciousness?” Material realism tries to shrug off this question by arrogantly answering that it doesn’t matter. However, if we take any seriously all the theories that the conscious mind constructs (including those that deny it), then consciousness still matters.

Ever since René Descartes divided reality into two distinct realms—mind and matter—many people have attempted to rationalize the causal efficacy of conscious minds within the framework of Cartesian dualism. However, science provides compelling reasons to doubt the validity of dualistic philosophy: for the worlds of mind and matter to interact, they must exchange energy, but we know that the energy of the material world remains constant. This means, of course, there is only one reality. It becomes a catch-22: if the only reality is material reality, then consciousness cannot exist except as an anomalous epiphenomenon.

So the question arises: is there an alternative to material realism, in which mind and matter are integral parts of one reality, but a reality that is not based on matter? I am convinced that there is. The alternative I propose in this book is monistic idealism. This philosophy is monistic, not dualistic, and it is idealism, since the main elements of reality are considered ideas (not to be confused with ideals) and their awareness, and matter is considered secondary. In other words, instead of asserting that everything (including consciousness) is made of atoms, this philosophy postulates that everything (including matter) exists in consciousness and is controlled from consciousness. Note that this philosophy does not say that matter is unreal, but only states that the reality of matter is secondary to the reality of consciousness, which itself is the basis of all that exists – including matter. In other words, in response to the question: “What is matter?”, a monistic idealist would never say, “It is immaterial.”

This book shows that the philosophy of monistic idealism provides a paradox-free and logically consistent satisfactory interpretation of quantum physics. Moreover, when the mind-body problem is reformulated in the general context of monistic idealism and quantum theory, mental phenomena such as self-awareness, free will, and even extrasensory perception are given simple and satisfactory explanations. This reformulated picture of the mind-brain allows us to understand ourselves entirely in a manner consistent with what the great spiritual traditions have taught us for thousands of years.

The negative impact of material realism on the quality of modern human life is simply amazing. Material realism depicts a universe devoid of any spiritual meaning: mechanical, empty and lonely. For us in the cosmos, this is perhaps all the more alarming because it has become alarmingly common that material realism has triumphed over theologies that posit a spiritual component of reality in addition to the material.

The facts prove otherwise; science shows the advantage of monistic philosophy over dualism – over spirit separated from matter. This book makes a strong case—supported by existing evidence—that the monist philosophy needed in the modern world is not materialism but idealism.

In idealistic philosophy consciousness is fundamental; therefore our spiritual experiences are recognized and affirmed as essential. This philosophy accommodates many of the interpretations of human spiritual experience that have animated various world religions. From this perspective, we see that some of the concepts of various religious traditions become as logical, elegant and satisfying as the interpretation of quantum physics experiments.

Know yourself. This advice has been given throughout the ages by philosophers who fully realized that it is our self that organizes the world and gives it meaning; their overarching goal was self-knowledge along with knowledge of nature. All this changed as a result of modern science’s acceptance of material realism; Instead of unity with nature, consciousness became separated from nature, which led to the separation of psychology from physics. As Morris Berman notes, this material-realist worldview banished us from the magical world in which we lived in the past and doomed us to a world alien to us. Now we live as exiles in this strange land; Who but the exiles would risk destroying this beautiful land through nuclear war and environmental pollution? This feeling of exile undermines our motivation to change our perspective. We are conditioned to believe that we are machines—that all our actions are determined by perceived stimuli and prior conditioning. As exiles, we have no responsibility and no choice; our free will is a mirage.

This is why it has become so important for each of us to carefully examine our worldview. Why am I threatened with nuclear destruction? Why does war continue to be a barbaric way to resolve world disputes? Why is there constant hunger in Africa when only in the US can we grow enough food to feed the world? How did I acquire a worldview (and, more importantly, was it imposed on me?) that dictates such separation between me and my fellow humans when we all share similar genetic, mental, and spiritual endowments? If I abandoned the outdated worldview based on material realism and explored the new/old worldview that quantum physics seems to require, could I be one with the world again?

We need to know more about ourselves; we need to know whether we can change our points of view – whether our mental constitution allows it. Can new physics and idealistic philosophy of mind give us new contexts for change?

The book “The Self-Aware Universe. How consciousness creates the material world.” Amit Goswami

Contents

PREFACE
PART I. The Union of Science and Spirituality
CHAPTER 1. THE CHAPTER AND THE BRIDGE
CHAPTER 2. OLD PHYSICS AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL HERITAGE
CHAPTER 3. QUANTUM PHYSICS AND THE DEATH OF MATERIAL REALISM
CHAPTER 4. THE PHILOSOPHY OF MONISTIC IDEALISM
PART II. IDEALISM AND THE RESOLUTION OF QUANTUM PARADOXES
CHAPTER 5. OBJECTS IN TWO PLACES AT THE SAME TIME AND EFFECTS THAT PRECEDE THEIR CAUSES
CHAPTER 6. THE NINE LIVES OF SCHRODINGER’S CAT
CHAPTER 7. I CHOOSE WITH THEREFORE, I AM
CHAPTER 8. THE EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX
CHAPTER 9. RECONCILIATION OF REALISM AND IDEALISM
PART III. SELF-REFERENCE: HOW ONE BECOMES MANY
CHAPTER 10. EXPLORING THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM
CHAPTER 11. IN SEARCH OF THE QUANTUM MIND
CHAPTER 12. PARADOXES AND COMPLEX HIERARCHIES
CHAPTER 13. “I” OF CONSCIOUSNESS
CHAPTER 14. UNIFICATION OF PSYCHOLOGIES
PART IV . RETURN OF CHARM
CHAPTER 15. WAR AND PEACE
CHAPTER 16. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CREATIVITY
CHAPTER 17. THE AWAKENING OF BUDDHA
CHAPTER 18. IDEALISMAL THEORY OF ETHICS
CHAPTER 19. SPIRITUAL JOY
GLOBAR OF TERMS