The trouble with idealism

I sort of want to be an idealist. Philosophically speaking, that is. I certainly don't want to be a materialist, and idealism is the main alternative to materialism (though dualism and neutral monism are other options).

The problem I have with idealism, though, is that it doesn't quite make sense to me. It doesn't quite click into place. According to idealism, consciousness creates the world. All the physical things around us, even our own bodies, are actually manifestations of consciousness.

This means, of course, that our brains are created by consciousness. After all, brains are part of the physical world, and idealism ascribes all of the physical world to consciousness.

But here's the rub. Clearly our own particular consciousness is tied to our own particular brain in very obvious ways. We see only through our own eyes, smell only through our own noses. We cannot see what someone in China is seeing, and he can't see what we see.

Our brains, then, seem to constrain our consciousness. They provide sharp limits to what we can know and perceive. These limits may not be absolute; remote viewers apparently can see places that their physical eyes have not gazed on; but such exceptions are rare and still controversial. For most of us, most of the time, our consciousness functions in lockstep with our brain.

But if the brain is only an illusion created by consciousness, then how can this be?

How can a mere appearance (the brain) constrain a fundamental reality (consciousness)? How can an object within consciousness constrain and delimit consciousness itself?

If this is too abstract, consider a slightly more "scientific" version of this idea. Karl Pribram and David Bohm developed the theory that the physical world is a holographic illusion projected out of a substrate of wave patterns. Only the wave patterns are real; everything else is appearance, a mere image. What projects this complex illusion? What makes wave patterns look like tables and chairs and palm trees and Sno-Cones? Well, it's the brain, we're told. The brain is the projector that transforms the wave-pattern substrate into the illusion of physical reality.

But wait. The brain is itself a physical object - which means, according to the theory, that it's a holographic illusion. So do we have one holographic illusion (the brain) projecting the rest of reality as a holographic illusion?

In actual holography, the image may be unreal (in the sense that it is only the appearance of the object portrayed), but the projecting beam of laser light that reconstructs the image is quite real. But in the holographic brain theory, we seem to have unreal brains producing (how?) an equally unreal cosmos.

In either case - whether the purely philosophical argument or the somewhat more scientific argument offered by Pribram and Bohm - there seems to be a fallacy at the heart of the story. Essentially, it's circular reasoning (or begging the question). There doesn't seem to be any place to start, which means there is no solid ground to stand on. Or at least that's how it's always seemed to me.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Ally Eden]

Its All about perception is all there is. If we didn,t have language to illustrate what is on our mind, we would still fnd another way to communicate. And waves are just a mechanism that resonates to its receiver. example;
if you burn your finger holding a to hot glass from a pot of hot water boiling on a stove, you would still feel the same sensation from microwaved hot water, only the terminology changes to identify the same cause, being the atoms and their motion in a media.

[Alex]

Bohm wasn't an idealist by any stretch of the imagination. His ideas were closer to neutral monism.

Here is how I think of things.

There are two frameworks, a mental and a physical reality. In physical reality time functions linearly, cause and effect. In mental reality (NDE reality) time is circular (or non-existent). The focuses are different, physically our focus is narrow, it must be because energy is organized as space because of the nature of physical time. In mental reality the present is "spacious" because our focus is not individualized because space and time do not exist.

These two realities exist simultaneously, one does not cause the other, they are simply different points of reference. However, physical reality is ultimately mental. There must be consciousness present for it to be a reality. So, the only possible physical world is one which contains life, physical reality must be structured a certain way. From the perspective of mental reality the moment of life and consciousness in the physical world is instant but translated physical this means 13 billion years of cosmic evolution and some million years of biological evolution.

Mind (mental reality) does not "create" the physical reality, create implies cause and effect, it implies that time is the rule. Again, from the physical perspective life formed and consciousness supervened but from the mental perspective it all happened in an "instant" of ideation. The physical world is simply an expression of mind, it envelops the whole of time and space, our current existence is simply one tiny the manifestation of the physical expression.

I'm really tired. I hope that made some sense.

[Nobody]

Here is how I think of things.

There are two frameworks, a mental and a physical reality. In physical reality time functions linearly, cause and effect. In mental reality (NDE reality) time is circular (or non-existent). The focuses are different, physically our focus is narrow, it must be because energy is organized as space because of the nature of physical time. In mental reality the present is "spacious" because our focus is not individualized because space and time do not exist.

These two realities exist simultaneously, one does not cause the other, they are simply different points of reference. However, physical reality is ultimately mental. There must be consciousness present for it to be a reality. So, the only possible physical world is one which contains life, physical reality must be structured a certain way. From the perspective of mental reality the moment of life and consciousness in the physical world is instant but translated physical this means 13 billion years of cosmic evolution and some million years of biological evolution.

Mind (mental reality) does not "create" the physical reality, create implies cause and effect, it implies that time is the rule. Again, from the physical perspective life formed and consciousness supervened but from the mental perspective it all happened in an "instant" of ideation. The physical world is simply an expression of mind, it envelops the whole of time and space, our current existence is simply one tiny the manifestation of the physical expression.

I'm really tired. I hope that made some sense.

[Michael H]

This is a well articulated argument, Michael, and I’m sure it’s along the lines of the thought processes most experience when considering the suggestion of idealism. It also illustrates the futility of understanding idealism through a philosophical approach; it always turns into circular reasoning, continually folds back in upon itself.

This also points to the challenge faced by those who have discovered the truth of idealism. Understand idealism must go beyond an intellectual grasp, there needs to be an experiential aspect to the understanding; it needs to be realized. It is the experiential aspect that conveys the certainty, and part of the understanding is that without the experience one cannot arrive at the certainty. So the challenge of communicating to others goes beyond simply explaining what the idealist now understands to be true, they need to devise some way to lead their listener to the experience itself. When I consider all of the extraordinary people throughout history who have had a much more advanced understanding than I do, I have serious doubts that there’s anything I can say that hasn’t been said already, but I’ll try anyway.

I’ve concluded that the reason people fail to see the truth of idealism is precisely because they try to understand it from an intellectual or philosophical standpoint. Doing so inevitably runs us around in circles – we can’t think our way to understanding it. The discipline that can lead us to the truth of idealism is not philosophy, but psychology, which is the discipline interested in states of mind.

All of us are perceiving reality moment-to-moment from a given level of consciousness. In order to understand idealism from an experiential standpoint, which is the only way to fully grasp it, we have to undergo a shift in our own consciousness. Here’s the rub, though. Before we can experience a shift in our level of consciousness, we need to become cognizant of our own consciousness; we need to recognize that we are operating at a particular level, and that there are other levels available to us.

We already recognize that our own level of consciousness shifts over time – we call them moods. Most of us spend our lives within a relatively narrow range though, and never consider that there are additional ranges of conscious experience that we can access. We all have our ‘story’, our clearly defined idea of who we are, and because we believe our story (it all happened dammit!), we innocently trap ourselves at a given level, and don’t even recognize that there are levels, let alone that we’re living on one.

I’ve written plenty here in the past few months about how we need to see beyond beliefs, to see ourselves as the ‘thinker’, to learn to see thought as thought. I keep repeating this because it has been my experience that doing so is the key to becoming cognizant of our own level of consciousness. If we can see the storyteller who’s telling us our story, we’ll discover that we aren’t locked at a level at all – we just believed we were. The other thing that I discovered was that just recognizing that we’re at a level of consciousness will cause our level to begin to rise – the default setting seems to be to drift upward. (I've found that trying to shift higher is counterproductive).

MP titled a recent post “The Sliding Scale”, which I think might be a useful analogy. We’re all operating at varying levels of consciousness, every moment. At the low end are the homeless, the destitute, the alcohol and drug dependent. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, generally OK, maybe a bit stressed. Discovering levels of consciousness begins to really pay off when we first move above the stress line – it is at these levels that we begin to access deeper, unconditional feelings. The tremendous feelings of unity, compassion and unconditional love expressed by the mystics are simply how reality is perceived from the very highest levels of consciousness. It’s that simple.

The difficulty in understanding idealism is that since consciousness is primary, everything is about perception and levels of consciousness. But until someone has realized at least a minor shift in their own level of consciousness, along with the associated shift in their perception, the suggestion of idealism will appear hopelessly irrational. It’s perfectly hidden within, concealed by our belief that it can’t possibly be true.

[william]

The underlying reality of all that is: is consciousness. Awareness is primary with consciousness as secondary. Only thru “unawareness” can pure infinite awareness express its potential in individual manifestations. We are a conscious expression of that potential. Kind of a scary thought when we look at politics in America.

To quote my favorite “intelligence” coming through George Wright the medium.

“It is cosmic consciousness that is aware of its own Being. It is intelligent universal integral in its essence and in its manifestations. It is coherent indivisible and a complete Whole that expresses its potentialities in a diversity of individual manifestations.”…

“The appearance or manifestational universe is thus the dynamic phase of the Underlying Reality or Cosmic Consciousness.”….

“Since it is the concrete expression of an unfolding universe and evolving reality it must exist in varying degrees and planes.”….

The compulsion of urge to manifest and express itself is an inherent necessity of the Cosmic Consciousness. The awareness of Being becomes an awareness of Becoming. The process of manifestation results in the fulfillment and Self-realization through experience.”

[Larry Boy]

My own problem with idealism, I guess, is that it doesn't seem to explain where this all-encompassing, fundamental consciousness comes from in the first place. As for the individualization of consciousness though, as you were talking about Michael, I think there might be a solution. I like to think of it as a process of focusing. If you're using binoculars, you will be able to see a limited number of things very clearly, but you won't see the big picture. I think it may be the same with consciousness; that is, we have the One Consciousness looking at itself from various angles, creating the illusion of separate selves. Some of the angles are narrow, but some are very wide, explaining why some people experience more profound states of consciousness.

[Sojourner]

I ran across this someplace (heck, could have even been here) and copied/kept it:

The actual relationship between consciousness and physical reality is mysterious. Physical reality may be a manifestation of conscious thought (idealism), or consciousness may arise from physical antecedents (materialism), or consciousness and physical reality may both arise from a common source (neutral monism), or consciousness and physical reality may arise independently of each other and interact somehow (dualism).
What is equally unclear is the nature of the interaction of the two. Does consciousness merely perceive reality or does it create reality or does it modify a pre-existing reality? And when we talk about consciousness, do we mean the consciousness of the individual or of the human species or of all living things or of God? If consciousness creates or modifies reality, is this reality a whole or partial product of individual consciousness or of collective consciousness or of divine consciousness? And so on.

Sometimes I wonder, does it really matter? I mean, what if we knew the answer? What then? These things may be "veiled" from us for a reason. Perhaps we should just sit back and enjoy the ride sometimes. Or, maybe (re)discovering the answer is the whole point anyhow, and once we do realize it, we just do it again.

You wrote: " I certainly don't want to be a materialist, and idealism is the main alternative to materialism (though dualism and neutral monism are other options)."

The problem with philosophy is in it's difference from mathematics. A mathematician can do her work with a pencil, paper, and a waste basket, but a philosopher only needs a pencil and paper.

Try Spiritualism instead.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Perhaps I’m thinking about this too simplistically, but it seems to me that we could liken the distinction between physical things and consciousness to the distinction between matter and energy, which are not distinct at all but the same substance in different forms.

[Jime]

Basically, I think there are good arguments against materialism. Philosopher Peter Williams has some good ones:

http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_whynaturalistsshouldmind.htm

Also, NDEs (and other afterlife research) have interesting implications against materialism.

However, the idealist version is problematic. It's hard to think in all the implications of an idealist (and spiritualist) worldview.

[Michael H]

My own problem with idealism, I guess, is that it doesn't seem to explain where this all-encompassing, fundamental consciousness comes from in the first place.

Larry Boy's analogy of One Consciousness looking at itself from various angles is a good one. I would equate this suggestion to the difference in perception that is experienced as one changes their level of consciousness. As our consciousness rises, our awareness expands. At the same time, the line I've quoted above represents what happens to us when we try to grasp idealism intellectually - we have conditioned ourselves to think in linear terms, yet the direct experience of the primary consciousness involves understanding eternity as timeless - it just is. If we try to grasp timelessness from an intellectual standpoint, we fail. The only way to understand it is to perceive it, and the only way to perceive it is to experience a higher level of consciousness. Thus the ineffability.

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 4

As Stephen Mitchell explains in his endnotes: "There is no God when there is nothing but God."

[MarkL]

We're all missing something. Mind affects matter. Matter affects mind. Are they different or the same thing? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We're arguing mental constructs which we believe map reality but I believe we just don't know enough to make accurate models of this reality. Maybe we have to "move up" in our consciousness first, as Michael H says. Maybe we never can, with our limited minds.

[william]

“Maybe we have to "move up" in our consciousness first, as Michael H says. Maybe we never can, with our limited minds.”

Never is a long time. Our limited minds become unlimited as we move to pure awareness. The journey is long and with much struggle and suffering but the mystics who get insights in this pristine awareness most call God tell us the journey was well worth it.

The moving up is the journey of consciousness back to perfect awareness. How else could God express itself without consciousness?

Consciousness lacks perfect awareness if it did not then any expression from this infinite perfect awareness would be duplication or cloning not expression. (I.e. expression would be nonexistent) duplication and cloning are inaccurate terms used to make a point hopefully.

Stated another way ignorance (unawareness) is mandatory for the expression of the infinite to occur. The origin of that ignorance has its dwelling in innocence. Actually many religions have this one correct we are always in the grace of God as our true nature (spirit) is innocence.

The evolutionary process of consciousness allows this expression to occur.

[william]

Maybe I need to explain why cloning and duplication are inaccurate terms. Infinite Oneness cannot (ie never) clone or duplicate itself.

Oneness is always oneness there is no other. There is only the perception of other and that is the role of consciousness: but oh what a perception!

[Art]

"For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion." - excerpt from The Holographic Universe, http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html#zine

Article about Emmanuel Swedenborg:
http://www.soultravel.se/2004/040907-swedenborg/index.shtml

Riding The Dragon:
http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=expom&id=00070&ss=1

[Ross W]

Michael, you ask, "How can a mere appearance (the brain) constrain a fundamental reality (consciousness)?"
How can an object within consciousness constrain and delimit consciousness itself?"

I wouldn't say that the brain constrains consciousness. The brain can't possibly contain it. Consciousness is not actually inside a human mind. It only seems to be. How can Consciousness be inside something that is an illusion?

In order to experience, Consciousness is obliged to project itself like a movie. It can only do that by imagining separation. This idea is what appears to constrain the Infinite. As imaginary, separate beings, we are given the appearance of independence - separate bodies, separate brains, separate perception, separate perspective. To maintain the illusion, we have to be able to believe we have free will, so a whole scientific framework is projected along with us. But we are just celluloid characters, giving Consciousness some entertainment. This might seem cruel...until you realise that our real selves are the same Consciousness that is projecting itself on to the screen of life.

Circular, yes. Circular in the sense of self-referential. But in desiring experience, what else could ‘The One’ be? What else could it refer to?

[Michael Prescott]

>and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions,

That's a good quote, Art. It's precisely the point that bothers me. How can a hologram create other holograms? Does the brain create itself? It seems like one of those drawings of a snake swallowing its own tail. There is an argument about how you can escape the circularity of the logic by invoking a "tangled hierarchy" which produces a "strange loop," but I don't really get it.

As Alex said, I was probably wrong to equate the Pribram-Bohm theory with idealism. Both approaches seem to have a similar "circular reasoning" issue at their core, though.

[Ryan]

I'm a bit too busy to provide a substantial comment on idealism. But I can suggest some further reading.

One contemporary philosopher to write a defence of idealism was the late T.L.S. Sprigge in his The Vindication of Absolute Idealism. It is also worth reading the great A.N. Whitehead and other process philosophers who - to oversimplify, and put it crudely - talk of reality being constructed out of occasions of experience.

Readers of this blog may also be interested in Kitaro Nishida's An Inquiry into The Good, in which he constructs a philosophy of pure experience.

[pmprescott]

Of course there is always Berkeley's argument, that we are all just a figment of God's imagination.

[Leo]

Yes true Idealism has it's own set of problems I prefer dualism

[Leo MacDonald]

There is also two other supporters of idealism one is Richard Conn Henry you published an article in nature and the journal for scientific exploration called the mental universe. Also their is a cognitive scientist called Donald D Hoffman who has supports another form of idealism called conscious realism.

[Hope Rivers]

How does one explain bi location then? I was told one story from a reliable source about a church pastor experiencing an astral intrusion in her home by a senior member of a coven around the corner from their church.

She had a relative staying over who made the discovery and who also had no idea who this person was. She got up to go to the bathroom passing a room where the pastors husband (senior pastor) was sleeping on the couch and she saw this man standing over him as solid as human and she screamed and he vanished. Now this satanist had been sending these people threat letters and even mentioned he had powers and mentioned he could just "appear" when they least expect. The lady described this individual exactly without even knowing anything about him or the threats.

Now there are other cases similar, Padre Pio, Carlos Mirabilli, the Polish guy (Klunski) and no doubt many others who have managed to project another "holographic" solid human body.

These projections make the average OBE people look like kindergardener's ;-)

[DMDuncan]

Michael, first, I think there's an important distinction to make between "our" consciousnesses, and Consciousness. You are using them interchangeably. Second, the brain does not project reality, Mind does, and Mind is not traceable to any part of the brain or the whole of the brain itself. The brain is equally as much a projection/creation of Consciousness as any other part of the physical universe. Whatever is an object of our awareness is a creation of Consciousness, and it doesn't matter where that object is located. Ultimately, what I think you are trying to get at is whether mind arises out of physical processes, or the physical processes of the universe we observe and are a part of arise out of Mind. Idealists and materialists are both monists, but they disagree about the single substance of which the universe is made.

When you are confused about how a physical thing, the brain, could be a projector of reality, it is because you are either holding tightly to dualism or trying to hold on to both forms of monism at the same time, trying to understand both how what arises out of physical reality creates physical reality. The answer, of course, is that Mind does NOT arise out of physical reality. If you assume that it does you will naturally be confused about how that which arises from physical processes projects those same processes.

The reason, and it's a good reason, why the idealist variety of monism is more likely to be correct is because Consciousness is irreducibly subjective and there is no material explanation for this subjective aspect of reality. It is therefore unlikely that science will ever explain how consciousness "emerges" from material processes because it is a non emergent property of being. Sooner or later the materialists will have to accept this, as they will that all facts are experienced, subjective facts. "Objective" does not mean there are unobserved facts, but that there are multiple subjects aware of those facts generated by Consciousness.

Many people fear this leads to solipsism, but it does not. Each of us forms in society. We only come to know ourselves in contrast to others. We couldn't possibly individuate ourselves without an awareness of others who are not ourselves. So that others contribute an indispensable service to us by helping us to know ourselves. We are only as real as they are. If they are not real, then neither are we.

[Ross W]

True, I am Infinite and Eternal and Changeless. True, I am just myself. Awareness, Consciousness. The thought occurs: What’s it like to be unconscious? Could I fall asleep? If I fell asleep, could I dream I was someone else?

That thought starts a finite dream, which runs in a simulation of time and space.

Zillions of other thoughts can now occur: If I am omnipotent, why are there things I can’t do? How can things be impossible? Why can’t I change? Why can’t I be less than One? Why can’t I be many? I’m always feeling this love and bliss thing. Why can’t I cry? Why can’t I die?

These thoughts are explored in other dreams.

I am exploring the limits of my power and capabilities. Characters in my dreams see the dreamscapes as real. But they’re not the real deal. When the dream ends, waking reality returns. Dreams can be escaped and transcended. Objective reality could not.

A thought occurs: this Entertainment of mine is more Woody Allen than Walt Disney.

[Michael Prescott]

the brain does not project reality, Mind does, and Mind is not traceable to any part of the brain or the whole of the brain itself.

Yet there is a very close correlation between brain states and mental states. Correlation isn't causality, but in this case I doubt it's a coincidence either.

My basic question is: why would one's particular consciousness be restricted to the senses and nervous system of a particular body, if the body, senses, and nervous system are just illusory mental creations in the first place?

When you are confused about how a physical thing, the brain, could be a projector of reality, it is because you are either holding tightly to dualism or trying to hold on to both forms of monism at the same time, trying to understand both how what arises out of physical reality creates physical reality. The answer, of course, is that Mind does NOT arise out of physical reality.

I'm not sure that an "of course" is warranted here. These matters are far from obvious. I doubt there is anyone who really knows the nature of ultimate reality (though some may believe they know).

My best guess - which is only a guess - is that Mind does give rise to the physical cosmos, and that in some mysterious way our own individual minds are minuscule offshoots of this larger Mind.

Here's an image: There is a tree deeply rooted in good soil, with a profusion of leaves on its branches. Soil, roots, trunk, branches, and leaves are all one system, and when the leaves drop off they will return to the soil as nutrients. The soil is Universal Consciousness, the ground of being. The roots the means of translating the soil's stored energy into the form of a growing tree (i.e., translating Mind into physicality). The tree trunk and branches are the physical world. The leaves are our own individual consciousnesses, separate from each other, but grouped together, and fed by the same root system that supports the whole tree. And our ultimate fate is to drop from the branch, lose our form, rejoin the soil, and merge with the ground of being.

[nobody special]

Wow, everyone on this blog cuts down 'philosophy' yet that's exactly what everyone is doing...giving philosophy. William cuts down beliefs yet he constantly projects his own beliefs. We are all an 'imaginary illusion'? Does anyone like this idea? Or that they will dissolve into consciousness after they die? I don't know if I like this idea, it sounds inhumane. Could people be more than an illusion? Perhaps you guys need to lighten up your reading a bit..maybe surf some porn or something for awhile. Incidentally, I notice no one wants to take on Hope's question regarding the story of bilocation of the satanist, etc. I also look into this Hope, and there is another case of bilocation as well, I just saw it here http://www.stjeromecroatian.org/eng/frsudac.html for anyone who cares to tackle this. The other people Hope mentioned are certainly documented.

[DMDuncan]

I think the use of the word "illusion" to describe reality is more metaphorical than literal. This "illusion" is one that breaks your bones, can kill you, and harm you in a thousand other ways if you do not respect it. I myself do not refer to reality as an illusion. I understand the metaphor, but I also think too many people have taken the use of that word literally.

And much of what we call "knowledge" is what we think we know. If we wanted to be strict about it and say knowledge is that about which we cannot be mistaken, then we'd have a mass conversion of known things into believed things.

And the "of course," Michael, simply means that the conciousness-as-non-emergent-property answer is the answer that leads away from that confusion. It wouldn't be the type of question that is ever settled until each person settles it for him and herself.

It isn't science that gives up that answer, though it may contribute to it——it's a fundamentally "religious" personal effort that will never be found in a peer reviewed journal. Science deals with empirical issues, but Consciousness is not and will not be in the future an empirical issue. It is the force behind empiricism, and can never be explored by it. It would be like trying to see your face without ever having a reflective surface.

As for the restriction of particular minds to particular bodies, well, we are here interested in anomalies like the NDE, and I think we are also aware of evidence which suggests that this restriction is false. That is, it may be hard to overcome the apparent restriction, but not impossible. The biggest restriction may be our own beliefs about what is and is not possible to do at a very deep reflexive and subconscious level. But who really knows? It's a great mystery.

I know that Tibetan monks can dry wet towels on their backs in the freezing Himalayas in 15 - 20 minutes. I don't think that is an ability unique to Tibetans, but I certainly don't know how to do it or how they do it. So who knows really what is and is not possible for us to do?

And I wouldn't be the first who suggested that the brain is a receiver rather than a generator of mind. That also would explain a correlation without either causation or coincidence. And by the way, that "receiver" idea might have to apply to all matter itself, which would I think be the only way to explain how higher conscious forms can evolve from "non" conscious forms.

[Leo MacDonald]

What does everyone think about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Arguments_against_dualism

A famous case that can help illustrate such an example is that of Phineas Gage, who was struck in the face with a projectile iron pole, carving a hole into his frontal lobe. Gage survived the accident, but was left with a severe and irreversible deterioration of his personality and social life. Thus, one may conclude that the accident caused the change of mental states. A physical event, the destruction of parts of the brain caused a change in the mind. This shows a correlation between brain states and mental states. Moreover, in more modern experiments, it can be easily demonstrated that the relation is much more than simple correlation. By damaging, or manipulating, specific areas of the brain repeatedly under controlled conditions, for example on monkeys, and obtaining the same results in terms of changes in mental state each time, neuroscientists have shown that the relation between damage to the brain and mental deterioration is irrefutably causal.

[Art]

That's a good quote, Art. It's precisely the point that bothers me. How can a hologram create other holograms? Does the brain create itself? - Michael Prescott
--------------------------------------------

I think we are a projection inside the mind of God. God's dream? God's mind works holographically and so does ours. A hologram embedded in a hologram embedded in a hologram. Our brain tricks us into believing everything around us is real. We are limited by our five senses, but there is way more to the Universe than what our five senses can see, hear, taste, smell, or feel. Even our "seeing" is very limited. We only see a very small narrow fragment of the entire light spectrum. The same is true for sound, and may be true for taste and smell as well. Dogs can obviously smell things that we don't have a clue what they are. The other day my dog, a little terrier, jumped and dug up a mole and killed it. He heard it underground.

[Art]

neuroscientists have shown that the relation between damage to the brain and mental deterioration is irrefutably causal. - leo
--------------------------------------------

If I spill a coke on my computer and it quits picking up the internet what does that prove? Which part of my computer generates the internet?

[DMDuncan]

Leo, this "irrefutably causal" kind of thinking is also why evidence of survival beyond the body of consciousness, as credible cases of intelligent hauntings provide, is ignored. If evidence of consciousness survival exists, the "irrefutably causal" idea is just wrong.

We could also argue that by damaging the speaker of a radio and observing how the music stops, that the relation between speaker damage and music production is irrefutably causal.

But anyone who knows anything at all about the entire broadcast/reception process knows that it's a lot more complicated than that speakers "cause" the music.

We may not hear the music without the speaker, but it does not follow that the speakers are that which causes it.

[Peter D]

Re: the materialism/idealism/or any other ism debate...what about asking the question in a different way? What happens when you ask, what IS REAL? In other words, what REALLY IS?

Only that which is present is real, for only that which is present really is.

The following may at first sound like it's getting off track, or a semantical argument, but it's not. There's a point.

Certainly, the Present is present. You have to agree, because if you disagree, how do you come to be present to disagree? What's more, only that which is present can be present.

Only the Present Itself is that which is present. Where only the Present is present (and It is everywhere present), time does not occur. There is no time to be accounted for, and no one to try--for the timeless Present Itself is all that is present.

All such issues about "isms" mistakenly imply the Present is not totally present, not the entirety of Presence. They imply that an absence of the present occurred, called a past time, in which materialism, idealism, and all other isms, holograms, physical brains, holographic brains, opinions, questions, and everything else--came into Being. They never did. All of this stuff, and the "mind" asking the questions, has absolutely no background behind it, no history whatsoever.

The Present is a synonym for pure Consciousness Itself--entirely distinct from all the time-forms one appears to be conscious of. Consciousness isn't conscious of the Present--Consciousness IS the Present. That's why it is always now, the present to you. It's Consciousness being the Present, right there as "you." When was the last time you noticed that the Present was not present?

If one were to ignore the Present (one's own Pure Consciousness) and talk of all the isms, at most it would be a dream-like mental hologram that appears to be projected now, for the first time ever. In the ever-present Present, there has been no prior time. Even what the "mind" would claim to be all prior times, all "history of existing" --not a wisp of it is "way back there in time." It ALL seems to be projected in the thought-hologram being projected now.

There is no history of a human mind, no history of a materialist (or idealist) realm, for even all so called prior histories, even all prior holograms--would appear only in THIS hologram being projected now.

Consciousness, the Present Itself, would have to ignore Its own Total Presence to project or come up with any of this--but can the Present ignore Itself, or not be present? No.

In the Present, and It is ALWAYS the Present, there simply is no history to be accounted for. In fact, as the Present is PRESENT ONLY, It leaves no history of even Itself!

That's the only answer that "clicks." And to Whom? Not a thinking mind, but to pure Consciousness Itself, the only one Present.

[Michael H]

Something else you might want to look at Leo, is the talk given by Jill Bolte Taylor earlier this year. She's a neuroscientist herself, but her interpretation of her experience during a massive stroke (which took her eight years to recover from), strikes me as supportive of the 'receiver' analogy:

"I am an energy being connected to the energy all around me through the consciousness of my right hemisphere."

By the way, DMDuncan, I wholeheartedly agree with your concerns about the term 'illusion'; it's both overused and misinterpreted. We're all experiencing the real - it's our perception that colors our interpretation of what the real is. When someone experiences a higher level of consciousness, they just see a 'realer' real; they see more deeply into the true nature of things.

[Gene Ward Smith]

If idealism is correct, the brain is an aspect of mind. Hence you are asking how an aspect of mind can constrain mind. What else could or would? Moreover, the constraint of attachment to the brain would also be a creation of mind, so the true constraint comes into play earlier, at what we might call a higher level, anyway.

[william]

How Oneness becomes individual minds is still a great mystery.

It appears that nature is the process that allows this to happen.

From a blade of grass with a speck of consciousness to humans with a spark of consciousness to a gods capable of creating things beyond our imagination.

Philosophy? You want all truths and not any philosophy. Those wants lie in the realm of wishful thinking.

You do not want any philosophy; again not wanting can be as difficult to deal with as wanting.

Dr Hora wrote that wanting and not wanting were the sources of most of our mental misery in life. It appears to be so.

For him sincere interest was more beneficial to our life and other’s lives. The more we gave up wanting and not wanting the more we became a beneficial presence in the world. Try it for a day not easy to do.

You are reading the comments on this blog so something is going on. What is it? Fear of death? A search for happiness? Curiosity? Meaning to life? Seeking truths? Overcome doubts? All the above? You are here for a reason as I am as we all our.

[Hope Rivers]

Hey William, the only reason I'm here is because I fancy Michael!! just kidding ;-)

Actually truth be known curiousity is my middle name, so thats my reason.

[william]

Hope I suspect it has to do with many things. Doubt and interest can be powerful motivators. I believe we, as souls will not quit seeking until we reach perfection if that indeed is possible which I suspect it is.

Fear of death, the meaning of life, and the suffering I saw in the world appeared to be big motivators for me.

I never really bought into the fall of humankind as the reason for our suffering. This fall does not pass even the simplest of logic tests.

[Hope Rivers]

Here's what I really think William, if we can begin to live each day in "love", which means living it with a lust for life, and also helping others too live this way, that pretty much is all that matters. We waste way too much time "thinking" and not "living".

Growth comes through relationship with others, so this blog is a great place to grow in "love" isn't it? The fruits of patience, tolerance, compassion and humbleness can be worked on by each and everyone of us. Of course its aolways easier behind a laptop, the ultimate is in our day to day relationships, thats the real place where one can achieve better progress.

But anyhows as long as people can see this "truth" and not tip the scales and focus on the "fears" the never ending curiosity and thirst for knowledge, they can't lose either way :-)

[Barbara]

Hope Rivers wrote: "Here's what I really think William, if we can begin to live each day in "love", which means living it with a lust for life, and also helping others too live this way, that pretty much is all that matters. We waste way too much time "thinking" and not "living"."

I agree.

Michael, I think it's possible to over-think these matters. Though, if that's something that one likes to do, I see no harm in it. For me it's enough to consider that I switch from one "ism" to another as I need to or as the mood strikes me. For instance, when paying bills or balancing the checking account, I tend to be a materialist, because not being one in that situation can be bad for my physical well-being in the long run. But that's not my normal way of viewing life and reality. It's a learned adaptation to living in a world where people focus on money as an object of importance. But I realize you were writing about the philosophy of materialism, not economic materialism. Isn't it interesting that economic materialism seems to be mostly about money as a representation we use to trade for real goods, rather than the belief that everything is matter. I've never understood either. The exchange of money for matter seems to depend too much on one's status or level of education and how others judge us rather than actual work done, and the belief that everything is matter doesn't even begin to explain the dreams I have at night, or NDEs or that little whisper of the intuition when one is about to make a stupid error.

I suspect that a lot of what we "believe" is actually learned from our culture and its particular indoctrination process. Sitting and balancing a checkbook would've been seen as insane in a culture that doesn't use money and lives very close to nature in a tribal social structure. It would be seen as so removed from the real "material" world as to be absurd as a basis for survival.

Many of what we call our beliefs aren't even really our beliefs or philosophies, but someone else's beliefs that were taught to us and conveniently labeled by them.

I think a large part of the journey we undertake in this life is that of discovering our own beliefs, the true, deep inner beliefs of the Self, whoever and whatever that Self is.

But when I attempt to label myself as an idealist, materialist, dualist, monist, or by any other label, I usually decide after a bit that it's time to get up and move around or take a walk. By the time I've done that, I'm usually over that whole categorizing and labeling episode and ready to get on with actually living. Labels give me a headache anyway.

:)

[Hope Rivers]

Hey Barbara I love your prayer beads, and seems we've journeyed similar roads with astrology, tarot, intuition, dreams, afterlife and religions.

My journey has been far and wide also, there was a time I loathed all religions too. But I agree with you regarding labels, I think the reason labels seem important is because they give one a sense of security and fitting in, humans like to fit things neatly into boxes. I call myself a Christian but fundementally there are things about Christianity that I don't agree with, it's just a label that closely identifies more closely to what I believe.

But not long ago I was a New Ager and before that I had no idea. Anyway I much prefer the label "Children of God" because ultimately thats what we all are, regardless of our experiences, ideas and present beliefs.

[Barbara]

Hope, thanks for your kind words, but I want to point out that nowhere have I said I "loathe" religions. I just don't choose to belong to one. For me they don't feel right. But I have gained a lot of insight from religious writings from many sources, which perhaps would never have been written if not for those religions. I also know and love many people who belong to many faiths. I can't think of a single religion that I would say I loathe in its entirety, though there are many that seem to miss the point of their own core teachings when they carry them out into daily life and the world.

I'm an independent spirit by nature, since birth, and I find that my personal path is best trod outside organized religion. I can also see the harm that some organized religions have done to some people, today through various forms of religious abuse, intolerance and repression, and in the devastation caused by religious and cultural intolerance to native traditions, including many that Thom Hartmann calls Old Cultures in his writings. Many very wise and beautiful teachings, particularly about how to live peacefully, have been lost to us through the missionary and colonial/military actions of organized religions and the dominator cultures tied to them, teachings that perhaps would help us to live better in harmony with nature and this planet. That saddens me a great deal.

[DMDuncan]

It seems to me that "suffering" is a unique type of pain that comes from humanity's ability to self reflect, to ponder one's own difficulties and thereby to magnify them into miseries.

All creatures feel pain when they are injured, but I think only humans reflect on their pains and generate a psychological reverberation that makes things worse.

Seen in this way, humankind's fall from grace is an important metaphor for the rise of that self reflective awareness (self knowledge) out of which misery arises.

In a very important way, the massive woolly bison that trudge snow covered through the winters in Yellowstone are in an "Eden" of their own, however miserable we would be in their place.

[Chris]

Here's another idea to consider.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_dpratt3.htm