Mind in a whirl

Bernardo Kastrup's new book, combatively titled Why Materialism Is Baloney, makes a case for monistic idealism - the philosophical position that everything is ultimately part of consciousness, and that there is no dualistic divide between physical reality and the mind. It's a brisk, compelling read, written in a user-friendly style and making use of a series of metaphors or analogies to advance the argument.

What I'd like to do here is convey the style of the book and the gist of its message through some excerpts. I've previously quoted from Kastrup's defense of the filter/receiver theory of the brain, and I won't rehash that material in this post. But the book covers a lot of other ground. Let's look at some highlights.

Before we get unto the meat of the book, I want to cite an interesting anthropological detail about the downside of believing in an afterlife. Kastrup:

Take, for instance, the Zuruaha tribe in the Brazilian Amazon: their worldview entails the belief that the soul ('asoma') reunites with lost relatives after physical death. This belief is so deeply internalized that, in the period between 1980 and 1995, 84.4% of all deaths among adults – defined as people over 12 years old – in their society was caused by suicide. As a result, a population known for excellent health and very few diseases has an average life expectancy of only 35 years. Faced with what you and I would consider completely ordinary crises and frustrations – like disputes of ownership, control of female sexuality, periods of low self-esteem etc. – many Zuruaha simply choose to rejoin their lost loved ones in the afterlife. They don't do it for heroic status, or for religious and sociopolitical causes – like the phenomenon of martyrdom – but simply as an attempt to improve their personal situations. To you and me, it would be like choosing to move to another town.

As far as physical survival is concerned, maybe it's just as well that most of us are not quite as sure of an afterlife as the Zuruaha!

Now for the book's more philosophical content. Kastrup begins by pointing out the weaknesses of the strict materialist case. For instance, he takes aim at the notion that the activation of a few specific neurons, while unmeasurable by instruments, is enough to generate complex subjective experiences:

Materialists often take the notion of specificity to extremes, especially when trying to explain cases of Near-Death Experiences wherein the subject has no detectable brain activity. They basically suggest that specificity allows for a handful of neurons, whose activity is too faint to be measurable, to hypothetically explain lifetimes of complex and coherent experiences. Resuscitation specialist Dr. Sam Parnia’s candid rebuttal of this suggestion seems to frame it best: 'When you die, there is no blood flow going into your brain. If it goes below a certain level, you can't have electrical activity. It takes a lot of imagination to think there's somehow a hidden area of your brain that comes into action when everything else isn't working.' But even if we grant that there is hidden neuronal activity somewhere, the materialist position immediately raises the question of why we are born with such large brains if only a handful of neurons were sufficient to confabulate unfathomable dreams.… Moreover, under ordinary conditions, it has been scientifically demonstrated that we generate measurable neocortical activity even when we dream of the mere clenching of a hand! It is, thus, incoherent to postulate that undetectable neural firings – the extreme of specificity – are sufficient to explain complex experiences.

Fron here, he moves on to the filter/receiver theory, which is actually a steppingstone to a less familiar model that he develops later. Here's how he introduces the filter idea:

If consciousness is primary and irreducible, it cannot be the case that the brain generates it. How can we then explain the empirical observation that, ordinarily, mind states correlate well to brain states? The hypothesis I submit is that the function of the brain is to localize consciousness, pinning it to the space-time reference point implied by the physical body. In doing so, the brain modulates conscious perception in accordance with the perspective of the body. When not subject to this localization and modulation mechanism, mind is unbound: it entails consciousness of all there is across space, time, and perhaps beyond. Therefore, by localizing mind, the brain also 'filters out' of consciousness anything that is not correlated with the body's perspective.

According to this 'filter hypothesis' of mind-brain interaction, no subjective experience is ever generated by the brain, but merely selected by it according to the perspective of the body in space-time… This selection process is akin to a 'filtering out' of conscious experience: like a radio receiver selecting, from among the variety of stations present concurrently in the broadcast signal, that which one wants to listen to, all other stations being filtered out and never reaching the consciousness of the listener. The brain activation patterns that ordinarily correlate with conscious experience reflect the filtering process at work: they are analogous to the circuit oscillations in the radio's tuner, which correlate tightly to the sounds the radio emits.

As I said, his actual view is monistic idealism, not dualism, so eventually he moves away from the filter analogy to a different metaphor: the mind as a whirlpool in the midst of a broader stream of consciousness, which Aldous Huxley called Mind at Large.

My hypothesis is that mind is a broad and continuous medium unlimited in either space or time; a canvas where the entire play of existence unfolds, including space and time themselves. Your egoic mind – that limited awareness you identify yourself with – is, in this context, merely a segment of the broad, universal canvas of mind. Your impression that your mind is separate from all the rest is… the result of a 'filtering' process induced by a specific, localized topological figure of the canvas of mind.

Just as a whirlpool is part of a stream but distinguishable from it, so the egoic mind is part of the vast current of Mind at Large. What makes it seem separate from "external" reality? The ego's self-awareness. Kastrup explains:

The ability to turn conscious apprehension itself into an object of conscious apprehension is what fundamentally characterizes our ordinary state of consciousness. In fact, my claim is that this is what defines what psychology calls the 'ego': the ego is the part of our psyches that is recursively and self-referentially aware.…

There is a very intuitive way to visualize this process of recursive, self-referential awareness: two mirrors facing each other. Each mirror reflects the image of the other, including its own image reflected on the other.… Each reflection can be seen as a step in the recursion of awareness, wherein an image becomes in itself part of another image of a higher level, and that image part of another image at a yet higher level, and so forth. Each image is both awareness at its own level and an object of awareness at a higher level. I submit to you that egoic consciousness is analogous to these two mutually-facing mirrors: our ordinary awareness is recursively self-reflective.

Because of this, any content of mind that falls within the field of self-reflectiveness of the ego becomes hugely amplified.… Any experience that falls within the scope of the ego is recursively reflected on the mirrors of awareness until it creates an unfathomably intense mental imprint. I submit to you that most things you are ordinarily aware of, like the book or electronic reader in your hands right now, are amplified like that.…

Now, if this is so, what happens to the experiences flowing in the broader medium of mind that do not fall within the scope of the ego? They do not get amplified at all. Therefore, from the point-of-view of the ego, they become practically imperceptible! This, in my view, is how we've come to speak of and 'unconscious' segment of the psyche. There is no unconscious; there are only regions of the medium of mind whose experiences, for not falling within the field of egoic self- reflectiveness, become obfuscated by whatever does fall within the scope of the ego.

Here is another analogy to help you develop an intuition for this. When you look up at a clear sky, at noon, you only see blue. You can't see the stars that, at night, would be unmistakably there. Yet the stars are all still there and their light is still reaching your eyes, just like it would at night. You can't see them because they become obfuscated by the much stronger glare of the sun reflecting on the atmosphere.… My view is that the 'unconscious' experiences flowing along the broader stream of mind are all still there in consciousness, at all times, interspersed throughout the amplified contents of egoic awareness, just like the photons from distant stars at noon.

Still later, he develops yet another metaphor - mind as membrane. In this analogy, the vast field of Mind at Large is likened to a broad membrane. Within the membrane there are folds, bumps, and loops, which constitute individual things (all entities and events being subjective experiences). Kastrup:

There is nothing to reality but the medium of mind itself. There exists nothing but the membrane. When the membrane is at rest, there is no experience as such, but only the potential for experience. After all, the membrane can start vibrating. When the membrane does vibrate, then experience arises. But what is a vibration other than the medium that vibrates? There is nothing to a vibrating guitar string but the string itself. As such, experiences – the 'contents' of mind – are nothing but mind itself, manifesting a certain behavior in the form of vibration.… This membrane is not something outside mind; it is not 'stuff'; it is mind itself as witness. And the witness witnesses its own vibrations.

How did this all come about?

I like to imagine the cosmological history of mind in the following way: in the very beginning, the membrane of mind was at rest. It didn't move or vibrate. Its topography and topology was as simple as possible: an entirely flat membrane without any bumps, protrusions, or loops of any sort. As such, not only was there no reflectiveness, but also no experience, since experience consists in the vibrations of the membrane. Only an infinite abyss of experiential emptiness existed; the deep, dreamless sleep of nature. Yet, such unending emptiness was not nothing, for there was inherent in it the potential for something.

At some point, some part of the membrane moved, like in an involuntary spasm. Instantly, this movement was registered by the one subject of existence as a very faint experience. There is a significant sense in which an experience concretizes – brings into existence – its very subject. The membrane realized, at that moment, that there was something. It is not difficult to imagine that such a realization could lead to a kind of surprise and agitation that immediately translated into more expansive modern movements, more experiences. Shortly the membrane of mind was boiling with vibrations.…

But since there were still no loops in the medium of mind, there was no self-reflective awareness. Existence was still a confusing maelstrom of instinctive experiences in which the subject was completely immersed.…

At some point, the thrashing about of the membrane caused a small part of its surface to fold in on itself, closing a hollow loop. Suddenly, there was a hint of self-reflective awareness. And it was enough: the idea of 'I am' arose in the mind for the first time.

But what about the empirical evidence for a vast period of history beginning with the Big Bang, in which the universe was devoid of any conscious entities? Kastrup notes that, according to idealism, the universe is in mind, not the other way around. Mind was always there, and what we call the universe grew out of its vibrations and fluctuations. But why do we perceive an order to the universe - patterns predictable enough to be called laws of nature?

Why do the patterns and regularities of experience suggest, by extrapolation, a complex past that precedes self-reflective awareness? That history could be the very cosmological history imagined above: there was indeed a past in which mind still had no loops or folds. The abstracted partial image of this cosmological past, as reconstructed by the human ego according to the preferred symbols of a particular culture or time, takes the form of a Big Bang, or a collision of hyper-dimensional membranes in M theory, or the pulling apart of father Sky from mother Earth, or of many other creation myths. Indeed, any historical account of a remote cosmological past is, fundamentally, a self-referential symbol in mind for the history of mind itself.

This, to me, was one of the less persuasive parts of the book. As I look at it, the universe seems to have come into existence with the rules already laid out. It doesn't appear to have been making up the rules as it went along in a series of random, spasmodic fluctuations. In other words, I would see the Big Bang as somewhat akin to booting up a computer program - the program is already written, and the boot-up simply gets it started. Of course, this leaves open the question of who wrote the program and where it is stored ...

Another aspect of Kastrup's argument that I found a bit unsatisfactory was his attempt to link the membrane hypothesis to string theory. He notes that one variation of string theory describes reality as essentially a single membrane vibrating in ten dimensions, a viewpoint that is at least consistent with his own model. But string theory remains controversial, empirical support for supersymmetry is so far lacking, and some physicists believe the whole approach may be a dead end. Even Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory has given up on it!

Moreover, if we're going to use physics models to bolster philosophical models, we probably need to explain such conundrums as wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement, which Kastrup doesn't specifically address. To my way of thinking, the notion of the universe as (ultimately) pure information, with physical phenomena as expressions of algorithmic transformations, is more compelling. See the website The Bottom Layer for a detailed look at how wave-particle duality and other paradoxes melt away when viewed in informational terms.

Getting back to the book, Kastrup tackles the question of life after death, writing:

It is reasonable to assume that the mental process we call physical death 'makes the unconscious more conscious,' because it eliminates a source of obfuscation; namely, the egoic loop. After all, physical death is the partial image of the process of unraveling of the egoic loop. As such, it is reasonable to expect that it causes us to remember all that we already know but cannot recall. From the ego's perspective, this may seem like receiving all kinds of new answers. But it won't fundamentally add any original insight to mind. The sense of novelty here is merely the illusion of an ego going through dissolution. Once the ego is gone and all is remembered, the sense of novelty will disappear.…

The question, of course, is whether self-reflective awareness disappears completely upon physical death.… If the ego is the only loop in the human psychic structure, then physical death indeed eliminates all self-reflectiveness. But it is conceivable that the psychic structure entails an underlying, partial, not-so-tightly-closed loop underneath the egoic loop. I say this because many Near-Death Experiences seem to suggest that a degree of self-reflectiveness and personal identity survive death. In this case, the ego would be a tight loop perched on top of another partial loop. Assuming that physical death entails the dissolution of only the egoic loop on top, then our awareness would 'fall back' onto the underlying partial loop, preserving a degree of self-reflectiveness. The result would be more access to the 'unconscious' – due to less obfuscation – but we would still maintain a sense of separate identity. This, of course, is highly speculative.

In this connection, it's worth noting that some mediumistic communications claim that, upon dying, the unconscious mind takes the place of the conscious mind. That is, the material ordinarily screened from our conscious attention becomes readily available, resulting in a much wider range of awareness. It's also worth noting that in the channeled book The Unobstructed Universe, the communicator insists that all of reality consists of vibrations of consciousness, a view that has much in common with Kastrup's membrane model.

Why are anomalous experiences more prevalent in traditional societies, such as the Zuruaha, than in the developed world? Kastrup:

Unlike all traditional cultures, Western civilization has reached a degree of technological and social advancement that allows for unprecedented levels of physical health and comfort.… In contrast, members of traditional societies were often exposed to the weather, to malnutrition, to extreme physical exertion, and to chronic health conditions. I suggest that such level of exposure would have compromised brain function sufficiently to induce non-ordinary states of consciousness on a regular basis. To put it simply, traditional people would be regularly exposed to what they called 'the otherworld,' a part of reality otherwise filtered out by well-functioning brains. Their nonlocal, transcendent experiences wouldn't be merely personal and idiosyncratic, but validated at a collective level, since most members of the society would also experience them.… Their ontology wasn't based on superstition, but on shared empirical observation recorded, thereafter, according to allegorical images and narratives peculiar to each particular culture.

Finally, what does it all mean, and how much can we ultimately hope to understand?

Since the eye that sees cannot see itself directly, mind can never understand itself literally. A literal – that is, direct – apprehension of the nature of existence is fundamentally impossible, this being the perennial cosmic itch. The vibrations of mind – that is, experiences – can never directly reveal the underlying nature of the medium that vibrates, in the same way that one cannot see a guitar string merely by hearing the sounds of produces when plucked. Yet, the vibrations of mind do embody and reflect the intrinsic potentialities of their underlying medium, in the same way that valid inferences can be made about the length and composition of a guitar string purely from the sound it produces. The sound of a vibrating medium is a metaphor for the medium's essential, underlying nature.…

As such, consensus reality is nothing but a metaphor for the fundamental nature of mind. Nothing – no thing, event, process or phenomenon – is literally true, but an evocative vehicle.… The plethora of phenomenon we call nature and civilization holds no more reality than a theatrical play.…

A metaphorical world isn't a less real place; on the contrary! Is a world where only essential meanings are ultimately true. It is a world of pure significance and pure essence.… All phenomena are suggesting something about the nature of mind.… A job loss, a new romantic relationship, a sudden illness, a promotion, the death of a pet, a major personal success, a friend in need… What is the underlying meaning of it all in the context of our lives? What are all these events saying about our true selves? These are the questions that we must constantly confront in a metaphorical world.

Though I remain more comfortable with a quasi-Kantian model of a noumenal realm of pure information and a phenomenal realm of "rendered" images perceived subjectively, I have to say that Kastrup's book has made me think. He's a good writer and a provocative thinker, and I recommend both his book and his blog.

Comments

[no one]

I am planning on reading this book soon, when I take a vacation.

In the meanwhile I have perused Kastrup's blog and a few other places his ideas are presented. I have to say that I really like what he says and how he says it. Far more comprehensible and sensible than Sudduth, IMO.

However, as much as his idealism has a certain appeal, being a practical guy, I just can't sign off on it. It makes sense on one level and then, on another, I'm forced to discard it. A couple of reasons why; for one, spirit communications via mediums or spontaneous almost always involve the deceased personality very much as it was when embodied on earth and often concerned with earthly matters pertaining to its late ego. So the ego is still there, intact, to some extent; perhaps a large extent.

For another, dualism just seems to correlate better with what we experience. The whole whirlpool metaphor is cool, but I have I hard time understanding how explaining that the brain is *in* consciousness versus producing it or aside from it enhances our understanding - or is even accurate.

If someone is shot in the head by a high powered rifle they will be "dead". The receiver/filter is thoroughly destroyed. Now I am convinced that their spirit, their information, energy, karma and knowledge, even their personality (or at least a remembered approximation of it) will exist in some other very real dimension, but their dead body is lying there on the ground as an objective thing that can be observed by others. So the receiver model seems right as does duality.

Sure, if we say that we are all one mind and all is a representation of mind, then Kastrup's ideas make sense. The dead body is a metaphorical representation of the fact that a whirlpool of mind has been interrupted. Again, I sort of intuit that there is something correct about that at some level. My problem with it is that it just isn't useful and that there's a nagging sense of a semantic gaminess to it.

[Matt Rouge]

Great post, Michael! Nice choice of quotes, and I agree with your analysis.

I also agree with no one's astute additions here.

I think Bernardo is a very smart guy, and I think he's doing great, needed work--but at the same time I rarely find his specific explanations compelling.

First, I don't think mind is primary in the Universe, since mind does not have the power to alter the fundamentals of math and logic. Mind cannot make 2 + 2 =5. I believe there is a base reality that is existentially prior to consciousness.

Further, I am leery of explanations like Bernardo's and Grof's in which a top-down Mind or Consciousness or Source makes everything happen and ignorance is chosen by us, or at least for us.

I think it makes much more sense to see consciousness as both emergent and self-directed. I.e., working "forward" from Void and "backward" from Plenum simultaneously.

Personally, I don't find the whirlpool metaphor compelling as either a metaphor or even as a clue to what's going on. A whirlpool is chaotic and dynamic. Based on this metaphor, I would expect to be having all kinds of crazy transcendental experiences all the time: worlds leaking into worlds. All kinds of visions and insights all the time.

Yet what is interesting about mind is that while we do have such experiences, especially if we seek them out, everyday mind is very consistent and mundane. Day after day, year after year, we wake up in the morning as ourselves and continue in our same patterns, for better or worse. Change is typically slow and difficult--even if we are spiritual seekers.

I think the reason for this is that we are *not*, fundamentally, Source crammed down into human form, barely containing our ignorance, but instead what we appear to be: intelligent primates that evolved on this planet due both to physical and spiritual forces. We are both the builders and beneficiaries of the Plenum. We are here not for the heck of it but for a deeply meaningful reason.

I don't think the idea is viable that the brain is merely receiving and filtering some external soul, group mind, Source, etc. There is no accounting for human nature or individual personalities in such a scheme.

I think many of the difficulties are solved with the information-as-fundamental rubric Michael and I talk about. The brain both generates and receives information, and the spirit/soul *is* information, so there is no need even to worry about how the soul relates to the body, since the body is also information.

[Barbara]

“ spirit communications via mediums or spontaneous almost always involve the deceased personality very much as it was when embodied on earth and often concerned with earthly matters pertaining to its late ego. So the ego is still there, intact, to some extent; perhaps a large extent.”

No probs if the ego is just a retrievable memory in Mind (or if you like the computer/information metaphor, a program stored in a database).

“I don't think mind is primary in the Universe, since mind does not have the power to alter the fundamentals of math and logic. Mind cannot make 2 + 2 =5. I believe there is a base reality that is existentially prior to consciousness.”

A third aspect to reality apart from Mind or Matter? Not very parsimonious, I think Bernardo would say.

[Juan]

My hypothesis is that mind is a broad and continuous medium unlimited in either space or time; a canvas where the entire play of existence unfolds, including space and time themselves. Your egoic mind – that limited awareness you identify yourself with – is, in this context, merely a segment of the broad, universal canvas of mind.

Everyone seems to agree that there is a reality independent of our ego that keeps the continuity of the world. But if the materialists identify that reality with matter, the idealists identify that reality with meta-mind. Now, in general the mind is usually identified with the egoic mind, so how can we justify that reality is similar to our mind to be considered mental? I think we can not, so I'm agnostic about the nature of this independent reality.

Kastrup first explains his metaphysical stance and then presents a line of empirical evidence, in this case, near death experiences. In my opinion, the right thing is to proceed backwards: first empirical evidence, then the metaphysical stance. And the near death experiences are not the only kind of evidence about a personal afterlife: apparitions and mediumship are also lines of empirical evidence that indicate that the human personality survives after biological death, subsumed in a greater whole that seem to be the unconscious.

Nothing – no thing, event, process or phenomenon – is literally true, but an evocative vehicle.…

But I think Kastrup considers that idealism is literally true... contradiction.

[Matt Rouge]

Barbara,

||A third aspect to reality apart from Mind or Matter? Not very parsimonious, I think Bernardo would say.||

Interestingly, it is not an aspect or a thing. These truths (which are not really plural, although we may perceive them that way), are a priori part of the nature of all things potential or actual.

[Barbara]

"But I think Kastrup considers that idealism is literally true... contradiction."

Not so! Consciousness is not any of these:
"thing, event, process, phenomenon". It is Mind. These subsidiary qualities (thing, event, process, phenomenon) are vehicles for Mind.

[Michael Prescott]

Barbara wrote, "No probs if the ego is just a retrievable memory in Mind ..."

Except that mediumistic communiques involve more than memory. They often show signs of intention. This is especially true of drop-in communicators, but also true of some more "ordinary" communicators. NDEs also involve the continuation of intention, purpose, and sense of self; NDErs may resist being returned to the body, or ask questions, or make judgments, while in the NDE state.

"A third aspect to reality apart from Mind or Matter? Not very parsimonious, I think Bernardo would say."

This approach belongs to a philosophical tradition called neutral monism, which suggests that everything arises from a common source beyond both mind and matter. Kant's ontology is one example; Plato's realm of Forms may also qualify (unless the Forms are understood as being in the mind of God - I've never been clear on that).

As for parsimony, two points: 1) parsimony is not the be-all and end-all. A parsimonious explanation will fail if it doesn't cover all the facts or requires too much special pleading. Materialism is more parsimonious than dualism, but it doesn't explain anomalous states of consciousness, or consciousness itself.

2) Neutral monism is arguably as parsimonious as any other approach, since it claims that everything arises from a single source. Yes, both mind and matter emerge from that source, but any ontology will posit emerging properties. Idealism says that the physical world emerges from consciousness; materialism says that consciousness (or the illusion of such) emerges from physical processes.

[no one]

Upon further reflection I'm going to walk back some of my criticism of Kastrup's idealism.

I think his ideas can lead to an explanation of some paranormal events that are, otherwise, baffling. I'm thinking about PK, poltergeist phenomena and apportments; maybe even some forms of synchronicity. How does a non-physical entity, a human mind/thought/intent or that of a spirit(s)effect physical objects without physical contact?

Well if mind is primary and, in fact, all is mind and nothing more and physical objects are merely symbols or metaphors, then I can see how a mind with the proper knowledge or perspective could cause objects to move.

Those phenomena must be accounted for and the receiver model fails to do so.

I think poltergeists are sufficiently documented that we can accept their reality. I know I am convinced in part by the higher quality literature and because in the months following my father's passing I experienced such activity in my own home (one time I even challenged the entity to move something and it not only was relocated, but it was relocated in a clever and somewhat humorous manner).I have also witnessed a deliberate display of impressive and undeniable PK on a couple of occasions.

How does it work? Kastrup would seem to be pointing to an answer.

Like I said, as a practical guy I want down to earth theories that answer down to earth questions about these things we witness and experience. A tall order. Probably nobody has the single answer and the answers are probably stranger than we can understand. So Kastrup is making an important contribution to the body of understanding. I'm still looking forward to reading his book.

[no one]

Matt,"First, I don't think mind is primary in the Universe, since mind does not have the power to alter the fundamentals of math and logic. Mind cannot make 2 + 2 =5."

We've covered this ground before, but here is a new twist for you......so, if a poltergeist or someone using PK can move a physical object without touching it, isn't that altering the fundamentals of the math upon which the physics (which says that can't happen) is based?

Not being argumentative because, for one, I don't have what I think is a good perspective; genuinely interested in your thoughts.

[no one]

BTW, nice points, Juan. I agree.

[Leewoof]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for a good article. I find it fascinating that idealism is still very much a live option for thinking people--even if I don't subscribe to it myself.

A few thoughts:

Of course, from a theistic perspective, God is the the third (really, the first) layer of reality beyond matter and mind. However, the nature of God is not well-understood due in part to thousands of years of overlayment with human-derived doctrines that had more to do with confusion or with gaining power than with any genuine perception of divine reality.

I have problems with any system that does not include some substance of which any level of reality is composed, and some specific structures into which that substance is organized. In particular, the idea that consciousness without material constraints simply flows seamlessly into the entire universe of mind seems flimsy and disorganized. If we see mind, or spirit, flowing into complex material structures, isn't it reasonable to presume that mind, or spirit, itself has structures at least as complex? And isn't it also reasonable to presume that the level of mind that we humans have access to (beyond the material universe) also involves structures, boundaries, and limitations in which our particular mind lives?

My view, derived largely from Swedenborg, is that matter and material structures are a reflection and expression of corresponding spiritual substance and structures, which, in turn, are a reflection and expression of corresponding divine substance and structure, which is their source. While spiritual reality has fewer limits than material reality, it still has limits. Only divine reality has no intrinsic limits.

I agree with you, of course, that individual consciousness, and thus individual ego, or sense of self, survives death. Even if it is how we define ourselves rather than some pre-existing defined reality, our self-definition still takes on a reality that then forms itself in the image we have created for ourselves. As an analogy, if we conceive of a building, we can then go on to build the building according to our conception, and then the building takes on an objective and self-subsisting reality that is not dependent on our original idea. In other words, ego creates structures of mind that have a substantial reality that continues into the afterlife.

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

||We've covered this ground before, but here is a new twist for you......so, if a poltergeist or someone using PK can move a physical object without touching it, isn't that altering the fundamentals of the math upon which the physics (which says that can't happen) is based?||

The laws of physics are arbitrary but the truths of math and logic are not. Thus, we can imagine the gravitational constant to be other than it is, but we can't imagine a world in which 2 + 2 = 5.

Fiat reality vs. a priori reality, in other words.

[lynn]

I think it's well written, but then I agree with the monist view point, if we are catagorizing by ists.

I tend to think the basic substrates is all the same whether it's our mind or the universe, and that our egoic mind simply influences the matter around us in a personal way and in accordance with our beliefs. That we are all just "god" really, having a human or individual experience. I don't think there is evidence of information floating around out there, just atoms, molecules etc. Although I do think the past remains, it doesn't pass, if you get my drift.

As to spirits who have died, I really think they need to use past personality traits simply so we can identify them, as that is all we understand and comprehend. I know with my deceased father he has done some amazing things with me since he has pasted, so I have ceased to see him as the personality he once was. As I can see he is and was so much more than that, and has immense power. But he reminds me form time to time that he always was and always will be my father, as he knows this unsettles me a bit.

Like you No-one, your experiences with Pk are similar to mine. When I use the tarot cards I find them extremely accurate, and I put this down to quantum effects known to science i.e. that our observation of atoms in the universe influences them. In experiments with others, some years ago during a workshop as a part of my psychiatric training we had a warm -up exercise in which we concentrated on each other to see what came to mind. My partner looked frustrated, and said " I only get a triangle". To which I laughed, as at that time I used an image of a triangle around me at night for protection. My mum also tells me she knows when I will ring. So apparently I'm a good sender, or matter influencer.

So I feel humans are just unaware that our thinking can influence matter, and that science is yet to learn that our consciousness forms the universe. Lyn x.

[Faisal]

This thread on Bernardo's forum about neutral monism might be worth reading:

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!topic/metaphysical-speculations/vnbW8zG3Apo

[Juan]

Not so! Consciousness is not any of these:
"thing, event, process, phenomenon".

I was referring to idealism, which is an affirmation, and thus it can not be literally true according Kastrup, but he seems that believes that it is literally true.

First, I don't think mind is primary in the Universe, since mind does not have the power to alter the fundamentals of math and logic. Mind cannot make 2 + 2 =5. I believe there is a base reality that is existentially prior to consciousness.

Yes, this leads to the problem of the ontological status of logical and mathematical truths. I think there are two ontic fields: existing and subsistent. What exists is what we can experience (idealism) and what occurs in the space-time (materialism), while the subsistent are abstract structures that can be applied to the existing, ie, logic and mathematics.

I think his ideas can lead to an explanation of some paranormal events that are, otherwise, baffling. I'm thinking about PK, poltergeist phenomena and apportments; maybe even some forms of synchronicity. How does a non-physical entity, a human mind/thought/intent or that of a spirit(s)effect physical objects without physical contact?

Poltergeists and macroscopic PK maybe can be explained by electromagnetism; there is data to suggest that magnetic anomalies are generated in these cases.

On the synchronicities, you can be closer to the truth, but it is also very difficult to know whether a case is a
synchronicity or mere coincidence.

[Luciano]

Faisal... Well he certainly looks a lot less rigid about it...

[lynn]

And that's past not pasted. From and not form, oh dear. Thanks for that post Faisal. I see things much the same, especially as he suggests that properties attributed to materialism, like solidarity, continuity etc, can also be attributed to consciousness. And that we rely heavily on symbolism and separatism as well.

Interestingly the night before I read physicist Peter Russell's interview on Skeptico that scientists do not change. I had similar discussions with my husband along the lines that I feel it's the public that will push for change, as scientists are by averages conservative and materialistic. Its the nature of the beast I'm afraid. Lyn x.

[lynn]

Materialists- I think I need more sleep. Last post I promise for a while. Lyn .x

[Bruce Siegel]

Michael, thanks for this excellent post. You've capture some of Bernardo's key points, and though I know you're not in agreement with all he says, it's fun seeing you seriously consider his worldview.

You've inspired me to read the book myself, and though I'm only a quarter of the way through, I have to say that reading Bernardo's tour de force gives me some of the same satisfaction I get from reading The Cosmic Game. Bernardo, like Grof, is a master at explaining the idealist position, and it's a joy to see him do it with such insight and clarity.

I've mentioned Bernardo's book "Dreamed-Up Reality." It makes clear that his ideas are grounded in his own transpersonal experiences. I've been looking back at that book as I read this new one, and here's a passage that brings to mind your recent post "Mysticism and Madness":

http://books.google.com/books?id=ap3XfWwUtxcC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=%22it+was+overwhelming+and+painful+in+a+non-physical+way%22&source=bl&ots=LpGbrx1wi2&sig=NrGM6g9nXck9EFfuwrT2XniOieo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7smkU7bKCoGGogS73YFQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22it%20was%20overwhelming%20and%20painful%20in%20a%20non-physical%20way%22&f=false

[Faisal]

I am wondering how the acceptance of the existence of God as the necessary first cause of cosmological argument and the intelligent designer of teleological argument fits with idealism and external realism.

If God is an unembodied mind and the necessary basis of existence, can we use the term 'ontologically objective' (things existing independent of perception) with respect to God?

If not then wouldnt accepting the existence of God be in conflict with absolute external realism ; the idea that reality is at least to some degree external to any mind.

And wouldnt the rejection of absolute external realism mean the acceptance (in some way) of idealism?

[Tom D]

I may have skipped over it, but one possibility that seems to resolve some of the problems with dualism and idealism is that we live in a virtual reality. This possibility has been developed by Tom Campbell, Nick Bostrom, and particularly Brian Whitworth. While Whitworth proposes a booting up to explain the Big Bang, I do not think this is necessary. If we consider the possibility that we are each experiencing a “story” that is being interactively created as we progress in the experiences we are having, then the Big Bang is at some point “written” into our story and for each of us has no existence prior to it becoming part of our narrative. For most people, and their particular stories, the Big Bang does not exist. For me a good example of what may be happening is Roger Bannister. Prior to him, the 4-minute mile did not exist. When he ran the 4-minute mile (collapsed the wave?), it came into existence and is now easily experienced by most runners. Obviously, the brain and all that is attributed to brain function exists only within the virtual reality, and details of what the brain is and does will vary within the reality of each individual. This does not mean that research on brain function should stop, nor should any other advances in science and technology, because this increases our experiences, which is apparently one of the purposes for mortality (besides learning to love). I realize that the possibility of a virtual reality is a difficult concept (i.e. that things exist only in our individual experience) and it is one I personally struggle with, but this should not exclude it as a possibility.

[Bruce Siegel]

Faisal, maybe the best definition of idealism comes from Thornton Wilder's "Our Town":

"I never told you about that letter Jane Crofut got from her minister when she was sick. He wrote Jane a letter and on the envelope the address was like this: It said: Jane Crofut; The Crofut Farm; Grover’s Corners; Sutton County; New Hampshire; United States of America…Continent of North America; Western Hemisphere; the Earth; the Solar System; the Universe; the mind of God – that’s what it said on the envelope."

When I first read that passage I was in high school, and had no idea what Wilder was trying to say (though I loved the play). Fifty years later, I see it as the truth, plain and simple.

[lynn]

Is not a virtual reality idealism? Are you saying our mind in relation to our environment is by means of a virtual reality, and therefore idealism?

Love your posts Bruce. The last post reminds me of a book I used to read my children when they were very young called "My Place in Space (1988). About a brother and sister who ask the bus conductor to take them home. To which the bus conductor asks some what condescendingly - "Do you know your way home?"
And the boy replies- "I live at 12 Main Street, Gumbridge. Its in the Southern Hemisphere, and one of nine planets (back then)", etc, etc. A really great book for teaching young children about astronomy. Strictly materialism though, ha ha.

Love the last post too Bruce and perhaps demonstrates how techniques such as lucid dreams and transcendental meditation can bring understanding of what may be a virtual reality out there.

I feel idealism also explains how entanglement works, which must affect both mind and environment i.e. all atoms. And therefore also explains the phenomena of ESP and PSI.

Old and people may have seen this

http://www.livescience.com/17264-quantum-entanglement-macroscopic-diamonds.html

Shows how entanglement of larger particles that can be seen with the naked eye occurs, not just quantum particles on a minute scale.
Cheers Lyn.

[lynn]

What I also love about your post from the book 'Dreamed up Reality' is that he realized it was all "Me" (the source) which also explains the concept of Idealism, and rather than abstract it was highly personal.

Also that non-ordinary states of consciousness are a vehicle that allows us to connect with the underlying quantum consciousness or source.

And as Peter Russell suggests, science ignores consciousness and questions like - Why is their 'mind' or 'consciousness' in the universe at all and why is it relevant?

Its my biggest problem, I can hear spirit fine if they pop information in my head. But if I ask for information and attempt to weed out their answer from mine, I have to work harder. And that's because the key is- you have to opp out (as in meditation, lucid dreaming) and let go of the egoic mind to allow another consciousness to come in. But I love a concrete reality, being grounded, solving mental problems. So yea it's hard to let go of that egoic little mind. Lyn x.

[Bruce Siegel]

Thanks for the kind words, Lynn.

"I feel idealism also explains how entanglement works, which must affect both mind and environment i.e. all atoms. And therefore also explains the phenomena of ESP and PSI."

Exactly. Since there's ultimately only one mind in existence, "reading someone's mind" really comes down to knowing your *own* mind.

Bernardo's whirlpool metaphor is quite useful for grasping how all minds are separate but connected.

[Douglas]

Poltergeists and macroscopic PK maybe can be explained by electromagnetism; there is data to suggest that magnetic anomalies are generated in these cases.
Juan
----

Not really. As one example,Sandy, who has posted often on this blog, has carried out many experiments on her own PK abilities, extensively testing for electromagnetic interaction, and found none.

For example, in one of the pin wheel jar experiments, she covered the outside of the jar in bits of polystyrene foam, highly reactive to static. She then tested this with material charged up with electromagnetic energy. Of course, the pin wheel moved, as did all the bits of polystyrene around the jar.

She then repeated the experiment, this time simply using her finger near the jar. the pin wheel began spinning around, one direction, then the other, just as much, if not more so, than it did under the influence of static. The static-sensitive polystyrene did not move or react in any way.

These types of experiments have been carried out on several occasions. It certainly doesn't seem to be electromagnetic energy which moves the wheel, but something far more subtle.

This leads me to conclude that, while stray static might result in movement of nearby objects in some cases (uncontroversial), this certainly does not 'explain' the phenomenon of PK.

[Art]

Ya'll's posts remind me of the story about Indra's net. At each knot of the net it reflect's every other knot. It is also reminiscent of Victor Solow's and Kelly K's NDE description descriptions.

"Some 2,500 years ago the Buddhist text, the Avatamsaka Sutra, described the cosmos allegorically through the imagery of Indra’s net. In the heavenly abode of the deity Indra, there was cast an infinite net reaching in all directions, and at each node point in the net there was a jewel, each reflecting the light of all the others—infinitely. Should any jewel be touched, each of the infinite other jewels would instantly be affected, presaging Bell’s theorem that everything is interconnected in this interdependent universe."

full article can be read @:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=216073

excerpt from Victor Solow's NDE description:
"I was moving at high speed toward a net of great luminosity. The strands and knots where the luminous lines intersected were vibrating with a tremendous cold energy."
http://tatfoundation.org/forum2003-12.htm

excerpt from Kelly K's NDE:
"I remember thinking, "So, THAT'S how it is! I was in awe. It was like a huge net, or chain link fence, everything in the universe is connected."
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Experiences/kelly_k%27s_nde.htm

[Faisal]

Nice posts Bruce and Lynn.Thanks.

And thanks Luciano for a good insight about Bernardo seemingly not being rigid.

Must say I have mixed feelings about using isms.

They help in categorizing and differentiating various positions that people hold.

But at the same time using isms can be problematic since reality does not always fit simple categories.

[Steve Echard Musgrave]

to the state the obvious I agree on almost all of his points.(which is why I wrote the forward to it)I hope it reach's a wide audience it is an excellent book

[Juan]

Not really. As one example,Sandy, who has posted often on this blog, has carried out many experiments on her own PK abilities, extensively testing for electromagnetic interaction, and found none.

I do not know what happens in the case of Sandy, but in some cases psi seems to be related to electromagnetism:

-Many psychics have suffered electric shocks during childhood or in the womb, as Matthew Manning.

-Studies about Nina Kulagina showed that a strong magnetic field around her during the PK instances.

-Experiments of Persinger about psi and geomagnetism.

-Experiments about Keith Harary showed that the ethereal body can be detected with electromagnetic sensors.

-Article by Michael Roll:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_17_1_roll.pdf

[lynn]

Hmmmm excerpts from "Seth" on the universe as channelled by Jane Roberts.

"Because all constructions are more or less faithful reproductions in matter of the same basic ideas (since all individuals are, generally speaking, on the same level in this plane), then they agree sufficiently in space, time and degree so that the world of appearances has coherence and relative predictability".

"All physical matter is idea construction".

"We only see our own constructions".

"So-called empty space is full of constructions not our own that we cannot perceive".

"Our skin connects us to other physical constructions, and through it we are involved in the complicated fabric of continuous matter".

The action of each one of the most minute of these particles affects each other one.

"The slight motion of one grain of sand causes a corresponding alteration in the distribution of the stars and in all matter's fabric, from an atom in a man's skull down to the slightest variation in a microbe's action".

"All matter is idea construction, woven together; each construction is individual and yet cohesive to the whole'.

"The smallest particle is necessary to the whole, forming part of matter's design".

It occurred to me how amusing it will be if one day science who has been for years examining 'material' for a theory to explain the universe. The source of all matter might be found to be simply the 'gap' between a thought. Having all along determined that consciousness was unworthy of research.

Lyn x.

[lynn]

I feel I should clarify that when I refer to the 'source' as the 'gap between a thought'. I refer to the 'intent' as suggested in the book, Dreamed up a Reality. I know you think differently Michael, but I have long felt that that since science discovered atoms react to observation, i.e. rather than their position being indeterminate, the electrons line up. That the universe represents a mass of 'probability' and the mind therefore determines materialization. I just don't understand why this didn't cause a flurry of research into how consciousness may affect matter. Lyn x.

[Bruce Siegel]

Just ran across another nice statement from an idealist. This time it's Jim Carrey (believe it or not), speaking at the Maharishi University 2014 commencement. The link may open the video part-way through, so just slide the progress bar back to the start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V80-gPkpH6M

Two of the clearest references to idealism are at 4:50 and 19:48.

-- Bruce Almighty

[Marja]

This is a bit off topic, but that 'brain as a filter' theory would explain our general lack of really reliable, well working psychic skills nicely. One of the common refutes against things like clairvoyance I have seen coming from the materialists is that if it was possible at all it would have developed into a common and fully reliable talent or sense a long time ago because it would be so useful. After all, reliable clairvoyance would tell a hunter where to look for the prey, and where not to go because a sabretooth would be there and so on.

Except if a baby was born with strong extrasensory talents, would that baby be able to develop into an individual able to function in his daily life at all? Or would constantly getting too much input cripple him to the point where the end result would be somebody who just sits in one spot and stares at the cave wall forever, until the tribe just abandons or kills him because they are not able to look after him as he grows larger? The last things I have read about what now is thought to be the problem with severely autistic people seems to be that they are maybe getting more information than they can handle. Maybe we have people who are strong telepaths or clairvoyants etc among us, but they are those completely nonfunctional individuals who have been locked up in some institutions since childhood due to a severe case of information overload.

[lynn]

There's an awful lot of theories out there on Malay Airlines fate - and here's the latest-

The Australian Transport Board after comparing conditions on the Malay flight with previous disasters, suggest passengers died from suffocation and the plane then dived into the sea on auto-pilot.

The main problem I see with this scenario ( and an Australian Board member agreed). Someone purposely changed the co-ordinates of the planes autopilot, directing the plane to fly East rather than North. A very deliberate act suggesting sabotage and not really contingent with the hypoxia theory.

Like everyone when downloading from the net I constantly juggle with what I consider is truth, by seeing how closely it fits with my understanding and most likely.

I found this interesting. One could say that hypnosis, like lucid dreaming, meditation etc, lends the mind to a freeing of the subconscious. And although research suggests those under hypnosis can also be influenced, this is not always the case.

Anyway, hard to follow as mainly in Hindi I think and slow to get to the point. I do think however that this is a more likely best fit for the plane's scenario.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOVUMZFVVqY

Cheers Lyn.

[James Oeming]

I have been reading Kastrup avidly for several days now when I have bits of spare time. I'm gaga over Kastrup.

I've been feeling frustrated because I've been wanting to make some comments to this and other forums about Kastrup's work, but I haven't had the time, due to various obligations.

This dashed off accolade will have to suffice.

In particular, I found Kastrup's book "Dreamed Up Reality: Diving into the Mind to Uncover the Astonishing Hidden Tale of Nature" riveting and compelling. Kastrup has, to me, an ultra clear and sincere writing style. He ties together many loose threads I've had in my personal thinking, and for that I am grateful.

Kastrup repeatedly points out that he has no thesis: he is simply putting forth propositions, or tentative models, based on his direct experiences.

In "Dreamed Up Reality" he proffers a fascinating fractal model of creation, and does so clearly, cleanly and systematically, using no mathematical notation. (For those wanting to delve into the math, it's in the appendix.)

His accounts of his journeys into his mind are perhaps the best I've read (at least per my sensibilities).

I find Kastrup's thinking to be penetrating and coherent.

You go, Bernardo!

Hoaky! Back to work!

PS: Thanks once again for your dynamite "salon" of a blog, Mr. Prescott.

[no one]

I just listened to this http://www.skeptiko.com/248-bernardo-kastrup-materialism-is-baloney/
interview with Kastrup.

I really liked what he has to say. Very convincing when I think about it (today at least).

[Barbara]

Yep. He's the real deal.

[Bruce Siegel]

"Bernardo Kastrup's new book, combatively titled Why Materialism Is Baloney, makes a case for monistic idealism - the philosophical position that everything is ultimately part of consciousness, and that there is no dualistic divide between physical reality and the mind."

I've just started re-reading Seth Speaks, a book I first read many years ago. Michael, I think you've shown some interest in Jane Robert's channeling. (Which, apropos of another recent thread, turns out to have been initiated by use of the Ouija board.)

Anyway, that led me to discovering Seth's Creation Myth online. It beautifully echoes idealist philosophy, and contains this:

“The first ‘object’ was an almost unendurable mass, though it had no weight, and it exploded, instantaneously beginning processes that formed the universe – but no time was involved. The process that you might imagine took up eons occurred in the twinkling of an eye, and the initial objective materialization of the massive thought of All-That-Is burst into reality. In your terms this was a physical explosion – but in the terms of the consciousnesses involved in that breakthrough, this was experienced as a triumphant ‘first’ inspirational frenzy, a breakthrough into another kind of being."

“The earth then appeared as consciousness transformed itself into the many facets of nature. The atoms and molecules were alive, aware – they were no longer simply a part of a divine syntax, but they spoke themselves through the very nature of their being. They became the living, aware vowels and syllables through which consciousness could form matter."

This sentence:
"the initial objective materialization of the massive thought of All-That-Is burst into reality"

reminds me of James Jeans' remark that the universe seems more like a great thought than a great machine. And also of a memorable experience I had once in altered consciousness, of seeing God's head explode into the countless entities and forms of manifest creation.