Omnipresence: Philosophy of Philosophies Pt.II

I have decided to take a stand on what I believe the nature of consciousness is and its place in space, by analyzing David Chalmer’s The Character of Consciousness and, Anand Vaidya and Purushottoma Bilimoria, A&P’s Advainta Vedanta and Mind Extension Hyphothesis alongside some excerpts from other thinkers that stuck to me personally. I presume that what consciousness is, cannot be identified for several reasons whereas, consciousness has to exist outside of time; whereas, if consciousness exists outside of time then we do not have the capacity to comprehend what it is as a fundamental fact through scientific theory. However, we can presume that it is the fundamental truth of reality. Functionalism and Physicalism does not answer the hard problem of consciousness and thus, are incorrect in its definition of what consciousness is and the landscape it exists in. Functionalism and physicalism, instead, offer us explanations of how consciousness is used. I conclude that in this reality, the only fundamental truth is consciousness, but truthfulness can be demonstrated and exercised through introspection of non-truths. Introspection requires a sense of self. I will be following the panpsychism understanding that either everything is conscious or the ingredients of consciousness are to be found at the fundamental levels of explanations, but like many things in the world that are  up for discussion, I must start at the beginning. 

What is the Hard Problem of Consciousness?

Consciousness is the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. The hard problem of consciousness addresses how and why physical states and processes give rise to phenomenal consciousness or experience. A solution to this hard problem would theoretically involve an account of the relation between physical processes and consciousness explaining on the basis of natural principles how and why it is that physical processes are associated with states of experiences. This area of questioning often deals with the subjective experiences of consciousness derived from physical processes and states that are otherwise the same for every recipient.  David Chalmers broke down several materialist and reductionist arguments for this case, and came ultimately down to 2 possibilities, whereas consciousness is a fundamental feature of the world like space-time and mass. If so, phenomenal properties are fundamental; and whereas, consciousness itself is necessitated by some more primitive fundamental feature X that is not itself necessitated by physics. Chalmers then led his argument so that he was able to present views from Monism and other non-reductionist and non-materialist views. It is through this that he presents a challenge: it is widely accepted in science that physical processes have no correlation to phenomenal experiences; in that there is no space for phenomenology in science. This, I believe, is a case that is due to the common practice of measurability and imagination. In science and physics, almost everything is measurable except for what is clearly labeled “intrinsic science”, in that it has already been accepted as fundamental, with or without measure. In science, you can not imagine something to be real without measurability, explanation or evidence. So we ask the question, could it be that the reality we deal with in science is just not what we think it is? It is not that science is wrong, it's that science does not acknowledge anything that may constitute the objective reality, without some form of measurability as a backdrop in mind. 

Advaita Vedant and the Mind Extension Hypothesis provide some explanation. In their model for inference and perception, they draw out 2 distinct processes, inference made based on causal knowledge and connections, and perceptions made first hand when presented right in front of the recipient. AV makes its claim on the backdrop of panpsychism, whereas everything is conscious or that the ingredients that constitute consciousness are to be explained at fundamental levels of explanation. This somewhat aligns to Chalmers previous 2 possibilities before he introduced other views on the backdrop of functionalism. AV offers little explanation as that each object of reality has low or high grade level consciousness, human beings being high grade level consciousness. This poses another question. If we follow the panpsychism views of consciousness, theoretically, we have to consider another possibility. Consciousness exists outside of time. For the universe to be created or anything to be created for that matter, there had to have been something at the beginning before time existed, something eternal. So when other secular groups refer to a god, they are referring to a concept similar to what has just been described, that also happens to fit Chalmers point of a feature X that is not necessitated by physics. If all things came from a great Consciousness that stands outside of time, it is not odd to presume that all things are to some level, conscious. One of the 2 main points that were brought up in discussing AV’s panpsychism is the point of landscape: how can anyone claim that the mind can literally go out, extend out? For physicalists, materialists and others, this makes Panpsychism a hard concept to grasp, much less accept. For this, I maintain, that in order to even take a first step into the studies of theories on the backdrop of Panpsychism, we must challenge normal ideas of what we think reality is, that is physical reality is a limitation that already in its definition, would not have space for Panpsychism. Einstein’s model of space and gravity might also fit into this discussion, in that the 4 dimensional blanket of space is not observable from the physical dimension. Therefore, we must challenge those notions. In terms of space, I have to add a final thought. When we remember our memories, are we not already extending our consciousness into a different space? The past is a dimensional space that is otherwise accepted, inaccessible to us. When I think of the process of remembering, retaining, referencing as me accessing knowledge from the past- dimensional space takes on a whole new meaning. My consciousness, if by the standards of physicalists and materialists, should not be able to jump through time the way my body also can’t. Yet, it can. It can jump through time to the past, it can envision possibilities into the future, and it is active even when my body is sleeping. I have yet to understand and grasp how perception is the mental state for which Panpsychism is a backdrop. I am more likely to believe instead, that panpsychism holds highly possible, if not true. 

Is the self real?

I had initially thought to address first person experience in terms of Panpsychism, but I realized it might prove counter-intuitive. Therefore, I must start here. In the backdrop of Panpsychism, the self is not real. It is only a function that helps us construct our realities and first-person experiences. It delegates our ability to exist in a physical world amongst other consciousness supposedly separate from us. In the backdrop of Panpsychism, I hold that perhaps the self has more to do with our physical processes than our consciousness on the highest level. I hold that on the highest level, there is only consciousness and nothing else. This would then fall in line with the Buddhist views on the self as well as panpsychism.  If the functions of a self has more to do with physical processes, it would also explain the construction of the ego- our first-person-ness and agency over our experiences and thoughts. Its not that its not real but more that its mislabelled, misinterpreted. To say that the self is not real is equivalent to saying subjectivity is not real. The self then becomes just a function of reality, a mode of medium, a partition or agent. It exists counterintuitively to its definition as the object of introspection or reflexive action. It exists as the representative of our vessel to ourselves, because if it didn't- then all we would be is pure consciousness at the highest level, theoretically. I imagine that the physical aspect of death is death of the body that is tied to the self, ergo death of the self. I, as an individual, would then die because my self-hood no longer exists. The energy and consciousness that used to inhabit me and allowed me to situate myself in the physical reality, would not die- it would simply go back to its pure form- the same form that existed before the universe; it would also no longer be “mine,” in the sense that what used to give me the function of agency no longer exists. 

In the backdrop of panpsychism, the self, as an entity, does not exist. I am no more my own consciousness as the next person or the dead person, but when I am a person, I will still feel like I am my own person as an inadvertent consequence of self function. I think that in order for Panpsychism to have a space in normative science, there must be theories of dimensional space as to explain the potential levels of consciousness there is, as far as inanimate objects to living beings to living conscious (by its popular definition) beings, and ultimately, to higher beings whose existence would be made possible by these theories. 

The Only Truth is Consciousness

The only concrete and absolute aspect of the observable reality is consciousness. This does not negate science. Science is merely interpretations of reality the same way religion is. It provides some functionalist explanations of aspects of reality, but not into the intrinsic elements of reality. On the level of subjectivity, truthfulness can be demonstrated but truth itself becomes subjective. If truth is subjective, then it is flawed as fundamental truth. Therefore, everything that constitutes reality becomes a nontruth, in that case. The only non-debatable aspect is that we are conscious. In the same way that Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum”  justified his existence to himself, the fact that I am negotiating these concepts and theories is proof that I indeed, have a consciousness at least. 

JVL