

Knowing:

Consciousness and the Universal Mind

By Ken Levi

Copyright 2019 Ken Levi

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This eBook may not be resold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite book retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank-you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Cover Credit

Cover Work: Rita Toews. Your eBook Cover Design

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

_A._ _The Hard Problem_

_B._ _Qualia_

DUALISM

_A._ _Introduction_

B. Phaedo

C. Aristotle

D. Saint Augustine

E. Rene Descartes

F. Dualism Conclusion

IDEALISM

A. Introduction

B. Bernardo Kastrup

1. Kastrup's Idealism

2. Kastrup's Rebuttal

C. Itay Shani

D. David Chalmers

1. Panpsychism

2. Supervenience, Emergence, Irreducibility

E. Quantum Mechanics

1. Bohr, Schrödinger, and Planck

F. Idealism Conclusion

PHYSICALISM

A. Introduction

B. A Brief History of Everything

1. Timeline

2. Brain Evolution

3. The Human Brain

4. Summary of Everything

C. Seeing

1. What the Frog's Eye Tells the Frog Brain

2. Seeing in Humans

3. Other Senses

D. Pleasure

E. John Searle

F. Gilbert Ryle

G. Daniel Dennett

H. Antonio Damasio

I. Artificial Intelligence

J. Physicalism Conclusions

1. The Science

2. The Philosophy

WHAT TO USE

A. Introduction

B. What to Keep

C. What to Cut

D. What to Add

A NEW THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS

A. Introduction

B. Knowing

C. Cosmic Ultimate

1. The Unified Force

2. The Ultimate Force

D. Ultimate Truth

E. Top-Down

F. Bottom-Up

G. Bottom-Up/Top-Down Interface

1. Interface

2. What Interface?

H. Modes and Means of Experience

1. Modes of Experience

2. Means of Experience

I. Epiphany

J. A Top-Down/Bottom-Up Theory

1. Summary of the Concept

2. Summary of the Argument

3. Summary of the Evidence

K. Objections

WHAT THE THEORY REALLY MEANS

A. God

B. The Universal Mind

1. God Is the Rock

2. Evidence for a Universal Mind

C. The Quantum Field

1. Introduction

2. The Standard Model

3. Quantum Fields

4. The Unified Field

D. Consciousness and the Universal Mind

1. Introduction

2. The Connection between Consciousness and the Quantum Field

3. What's the Connection?

4. Analogies

5. How Does It Work?

F. Evidence God Sees through Our Eyes

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

# FRONT

". . . in apprehension how like a god"

(Shakespeare, Hamlet)

# INTRODUCTION

_The Hard Problem_

"Consciousness is the hard problem." So states philosopher David Chalmers (1996).

Psychologist Julian Jaynes (1976) adds, "Perhaps no aspect of mind is more familiar or more puzzling than consciousness and our experience of self and world."

Biologist Thomas Huxley (1866) asks, "How is it possible that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness, comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue? [It] is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp."

Psychologist Stuart Sutherland (1989) declares consciousness "a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it has evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it."

And 2300 years ago, Aristotle (350 BC) had a similar thought. "To attain any assured knowledge about the 'soul' is one of the most difficult things in the world."

Why is consciousness so hard? Science magazine (2005) declared consciousness the second most important unanswered question in science (first was the nature of matter). Theologists, philosophers, and scientists have struggled to unravel the problem for thousands of years, without coming up with a solution. More than that, consciousness itself may simply not be understandable.

Yet, if we ever get a handle on consciousness, it could be key to comprehending so much else. It could explain what makes us human. It could explain what makes life unique. And, most of all, it could explain what we mean by "God."

Recently scientists have captured a picture of a black hole. It was thought to be impossible until they did it. After all, black holes don't emit light. But researchers solved the problem with radio wave telescopes distributed throughout the planet. Even so, we still don't know what happens inside a black hole, or even if the laws of physics still apply. We now know what the outside looks like. But the inside remains obscure.

Consciousness is like a black hole. It ranks among the most intractable problems we face, such as the existence of God, the origin of the Big Bang, the question of life after death, or the nature of good and evil. We know what consciousness looks like. We all possess it. But we really have no idea how it works.

This is not for lack of trying. Today, there are innumerable books, articles, web sites, and journals dedicated to the issue. Some of these include: _"Neuroscience of Consciousness," Journal of Consciousness," "Consciousness and Cognition," "Journal of Psyche," "Mind and Matter," "Journal of Consciousness Studies," "Mind," "Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics."_

In addition, a slew of strange and bizarre concepts have been coined for what has become, in effect, the consciousness industry. Some of these concepts include: psychism, panpsychism, constitutive panpsychism, cosmopsychism, micropsychism, microexperientialism, panexperientialism, phenomenology, heterophenomenology, epiphenomenalism, functionalism, computationalism, representationalism, Dualism, monism, priority monism, Idealism, behaviorism, Physicalism, materialism, blobjectivism, and Och OR.

In this book, I will try to steer clear of creating any weird new jargon. There's enough of it out there already. Instead, I will assemble some of the best current ideas about consciousness, and add a few of my own. I will lay out arguments from leading thinkers; picking and choosing from their ideas; keeping the good and discarding the bad. Then, I will introduce an entirely new explanation, building on, and adding to, insights from the past. I think the hard problem can be solved.

## Qualia

What is consciousness? In the literature, consciousness is defined as "qualia." That is the scientific term for a subjective experience. The term comes from Latin "qualis," meaning "of what kind" ( _Dictionary.com_ ). In English, it refers to "the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions . . ." For example, the sight of red; the sound of traffic; the smell of perfume.

Qualia is distinguished from "access," which refers to the physical way stimuli are received and processed (Pinker, 1997). For example, the mechanics of hearing a bell consist of sound waves captured by the ears, sent through the auditory canal, impacting the tympanic membrane, setting off the hammer and anvil, vibrating the cochlea and the 1000s of hair cells in the cochlea fluid, and activating the auditory nerve. That's access.

The mechanics of access is something we can observe. They are open to inspection by other people. We can measure sound waves. We can detect electronic impulses traveling along a nerve. These are "objective" events in he sense we can view them as objects, or things, in the material world.

But the actual experience of hearing is something different. The actual sound of he bell - the way it sounds to you - can only be perceived by you, the person experiencing it. By definition, qualia are internal, subjective experiences inaccessible to outside observation. Feelings are not things.

The hidden aspect of qualia, the fact that only you can know what you're feeling or what you're thinking, plays a formative role in social behavior. Polite society is based, in large part, on our ability to keep our real feelings secret or to project false attitudes that we don't really have (Goffman, 1959). It's one of the things that distinguishes infants - and infantile persons - from mature adults.

Contrast, for example, the outward tranquility and piety of a Christian monastery with the actual feelings roiling inside one of the monks"

"Grrrr – there go my heart's abhorrence!  
Water your damned flower pots, do!  
If hate killed men, Brother Lawrence,  
God's blood, would not mine kill you!"

Imagine how disruptive such thoughts would be if they could not be kept private and hidden from view (Browning, 1842).

If qualia are hidden and private, then, how do we know they exist? Thomas Nagel (1974) devised a simple test. Qualia exists when you can ask, "What is it like to be [fill in the blank]." For example, what is it like to be "Henry?" Or, even, what is it like to be a "bat?" This involves scoping out the world through the bat's eyes - being wary of predators, searching for flies; in other words, putting yourself in the bat's shoes. You can't ask that question about a pair of gloves, or a hammer, or a waterfall. You can't ask what is it like to be a hammer, because it isn't like anything. A hammer is just a thing.

The distinction between things and feelings is nicely captured in "the analogy of the mill" (Liebnitz, 1714, cited in Strickland, L., 2014). Imagine someone walking through an expanded brain, as if they were walking through a mill and seeing its mechanical operations. Nowhere would you see conscious thoughts (Smith, 2013). So, where are they? Where do our feelings reside?

In "Consciousness in the Sense of Sentience," Pinker (1997) states, "At least for now, we have no scientific purchase on the special extra ingredient that gives rise to sentience." And by sentience, he means seeing, hearing, touching, tasting and smelling. Those are the basics of qualia. They are our fundamental subjective experiences.

Scientists and engineers at MIT are currently trying to create a conscious robot. So far, they have not succeeded, and perhaps they never will. We do have simple machines that can capture and record images, sounds, and pressures. They can distinguish the chemicals that constitute tastes and smells. But they can't see, hear, taste, touch, or smell. They can't feel pleasure or pain. They are not conscious. They probably never will be. Your recorder can't hear. Your thermometer can't feel. Your camera can't see. But your puppy can. And so can you.

Our senses form the basis for our emotions. Great tastes can make us happy. Intense pain can make us sad. A combination of sights, sounds, smells, and feelings can make us fall in love. These emotions constitute a higher level of qualia. But they are based on the five fundamental senses.

Our senses and emotions form the basis for our thoughts. For example, the cloistered monk catches sight of his nemesis. That sight evokes his hate. That hate engenders thoughts of murder. But it all begins with sight.

Our senses, our emotions, and our thoughts all fall under the heading of subjective experience. They are all different forms of qualia. But, to keep things simple, I will concentrate on the basics: seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling. Take away one or two of these senses, and the remaining senses will compensate. Consider Helen Keller.

Take away all five of these senses, and we have no feelings, no emotions, and no thoughts. We find ourselves trapped in the darkest of rooms, without any perception of our environment or ourselves; without any comprehension. Our senses are how we know the world. Without them, we have no way of knowing.

Back to top

# DUALISM

_Introduction_

Seventeenth Century philosopher Rene Descartes conceived the mind as separate from the body, with the mind taking pride of place. For that reason he is considered the father of Dualism. But the idea for some sort of Dualism goes back much further than that.

The word "spirit" comes from the Latin "spiritus," or breath. It is the essential thing separating the living from the dead. For that reason, the spirit was thought to contain our intelligence, consciousness, and sentience. Breath and spirit are also equated with each other in the Greek "pneuma," the Sanskrit "Atman," the Hebrew "nephesh," and the Egyptian "ka." Ancient Egyptians believed that ka, the life force, was breathed into each person at birth by the god Heket, or Meskhenet. At death, the ka leaves the body, but it endures.

Likewise, ancient Chinese worshipped the still vital spirits of their dead ancestors. And in Hinduism of ancient India the highest plain of existence was thought to be the Brahman, the great spirit, which dwelled in each individual in the form of the Atman, the personal soul. All major religions believed, and still believe, in this duality of existence. The concept of spirit as an invisible, non-material substance, is nearly universal. It is thought to be the essence of our life.

In this section I will outline some of the leading Dualist thinkers in philosophy and religion throughout history – from Socrates to Descartes – who strongly influenced how we think about body and mind in Western society.

## Phaedo

In 399 B.C., Socrates drank a cup of poisoned hemlock and died. He had earlier been condemned to death by an Athenian jury for the crimes of refusing to recognize the state gods, and for corrupting the city's youth. In his jail cell, the great philosopher was surrounded by mournful disciples, one of whom later recounted the scene during Socrates's last hours. His name was Phaedo (Plato (1961/ 380 B.C., pp. 40-98).

During these final moments Socrates engaged his students in one of his most famous dialogues. It concerned the immortality of the soul.

Socrates states, as a given, that we are part body and part soul. He then asks his followers which of the two is most "pure and everlasting and immortal and changeless" (Plato, 1961/380 BC, p. 63). They readily agree it's the soul. The body, on the other hand, is afflicted by the opposite features: impure, transitory, mortal, and changeable.

Under these circumstances, the body is the soul's prison. And for the soul, death is release from confinement.

The body, according to Socrates, is a distraction from what's most important, which is "pure and unadulterated thought" (48). He explains that, ". . . when the soul uses the instrumentality of the body for any inquiry, whether through sight, or hearing, or any other sense – because using the body implies using the senses – it is drawn away by the body into the realm of the variable, and loses its way and becomes confused and dizzy, as though it were befuddled, through contact with things of a similar nature" (62).

The only solution, Socrates concludes, is if we are to have "knowledge of anything" (49), we must "get rid of the body" in order to "contemplate things by themselves" (49).

Death is the surest escape from the body's prison. But in the meantime, a person should strive to abandon, " . . . bodily pleasures and adornments, as foreign to his purpose and likely to do more harm than good," and devote himself to "the pleasures of acquiring knowledge, and so by decking his soul not with a borrowed beauty but with its own – with self-control, and goodness, and courage, and liberality, and truth . . ." (95).

The abandonment of bodily pleasures and the spurning of "borrowed beauty" can be accomplished in life because it is the mind that rules the body. To Socrates, soul and "mind" are the same thing.

Socrates uses the example of his own incarceration. If it were up to the muscles and sinews of his body, he would long since have escaped. But his mind made the decision to remain and obey the law. The mind, therefore, is the cause, and the body merely provides the conditions whereby the purposes of the mind can be met (80).

It is noteworthy, at this point, to underscore the uniqueness of Socrates's concept of soul/mind, and therefore, consciousness. On the one hand, he does believe the mind rules the body through knowledge and wisdom. On the other hand, he severs from his definition of mind all of the senses – to include seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling. To him, these are bodily functions, and, therefore, distractors. Somehow, consciousness is knowing without sensing!

The main theme of Phaedo's narrative focuses on one aspect of the soul, in particular. It focuses on immortality.

In that regard, Socrates advances four arguments. These are: 1) contraries from contraries; 2) recollections from before birth; 3) body and soul affinities; and 4) the form of life. The first and the last are the most intriguing,

The first argument is: contraries from contraries. Ingeniously, Socrates argues that for all animals and plants, everything comes from its opposite. For example, cold comes from heat, heat from cold. Little comes from big. Beauty comes from ugliness. Every quality emerges from its opposite, and "from no other source" (53).

What, then, is the opposite of living? Dying. What is the opposite of dying? Living. So, dying comes from living and living from dying. This means something must endure after death, and then re-emerge to bring new life. That something must be the soul!

Furthermore, if life is the product of a soul entering a body, then where did the soul come from? It must have abided in another place, until the time came around for it to be reborn.

Socrates's fourth argument for the immortality of the soul is: the form of life. Here's how it goes:

1. Absolute beauty can never be ugly. Absolute evil can never be good. Absolute tallness can never be short.

2. That is to say, an opposite "can never be opposite to itself" (84). Cold, per se, can't be hot. Sadness, per se, can't be joy.

3. This also applies to the person or thing for whom the the quality in question is a "distinguishing characteristic" (85). For example, snow has coldness as a distinguishing characteristic. So, it cannot simultaneously be hot. In fact, when heat is applied, the snow itself ceases to exist.

To take another example, consider the number "3." It has oddness as a distinguishing characteristic. The number 3 can never not be odd. If you tried to make it even, it would no longer be a 3. And although 3 and oddness are different things, 3 still requires oddness in order to be itself.

4. So, Socrates asks, what must be present in a body to make it alive? The answer is soul. The distinguishing characteristic of soul, therefore, is life. And for that reason, soul can never be without life, any more than snow can be without cold or 3 can be without oddness.

5. Soul must be immortal (87).

If the soul is immortal, it demands our care. We must strive to live a good life because whatever we do in this life will carry over after we are gone. Socrates proceeds to offer a fanciful notion of what happens to the soul after death. For most people, the soul resides in the afterlife awaiting rebirth. But for the extremely wicked, the soul is cast into Tartarus, a horrible pit of torment. From thence, it never emerges.

With those words, Socrates accepts his fate. He does so "cheerfully," confident in his logic, and in the destiny that his own soul will face. Indeed, his last words are, "Crito, we ought to offer a cock to Aesclepius" (40). That's what Greeks used to do, to thank the god of medicine for curing them from an illness, and providing them with a better life to come.

## Aristotle

Aristotle, in the 4th Century B.C., had his own version of the mind. To him, there are three substances: matter, form, and a compound of the two. Matter refers to things. Form refers to souls. And compounds "are the things that have souls." It's the soul that gives them life (350 B.C., cited in Shields, 1907).

The soul is the "form" of the living thing; not its shape, but its nature. The soul, he says is "the first actuality of a natural body." It represents a capacity to engage in life's activities. It is what animates us.

As an example of the relation of the mind to the body, Aristotle cites the case of the eye. "Suppose that the eye were an animal. Sight would have been its soul, for sight is the substance or essence of the eye which corresponds to the formula; the eye being merely the matter of seeing. When seeing is removed, the eye is no longer an eye, except in name. It is no more a real eye than the eye of a statue or of a painted figure. We must now extend our consideration from the 'parts' to the whole living body; for what the departmental sense is to the bodily part which is its organ, the whole faculty of sense is to the whole sensitive body as such" (De Anima).

In other words, mind is to body as sight is to eye. Take away sight, and the eye is useless. Take away the eye, and there can be no sight.

So, Aristotle felt mind and body worked hand-in-hand, and neither could be separated from the other. But what happens after death? As we have seen, Socrates held that the soul never died. It exists, he declared, separate and apart from the body. In the "Phaedo," cited above, Socrates maintained that the soul is immortal, as opposed to material things that are "perceptible, composed of parts, and subject to dissolution" (380 B.C., cited in Jowett, B., 1942).

But Aristotle disagreed.

To him, "The soul neither exists without a body, nor is a body of some sort. For it is not a body, but it belongs to a body, and for this reason, is present in a body; and in a body of such-and-such a sort. _It is a capacity_ , not the thing that has the capacity" [italics mine]. And he added, "We must no more ask whether the soul and body are one than ask whether the wax and the figure impressed on it are one" ("Aristotle," _Yahoo Answers_ , 2/11/2008).

For these reasons, Aristotle broke with his predecessors, and flatly declared that, apart from the body, the soul is "not capable of existence."

## Saint Augustine

Christians believe in the body and the soul. That belief is a core tenet of their faith. It is the solid foundation upon which much of Christianity is based. Why talk about Heaven and Hell; why talk about revelation; why talk about eternal salvation, if there is no such thing as a soul?

Yet, when we examine the Bible and pour through the Old Testament, there is scant basis for such a belief. There, the word "soul" was used as a term to refer to people and animals, as in the statement, "Five thousand souls departed from Egypt, during the time of the Plague." Nowhere in the Old Testament is soul referenced as "immortal" or "everlasting."

Only with Origen in the 3rd Century and St. Augustine in the 5th Century was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept in Christianity. And both men based their views - not on the Bible - but on Socrates, Plato and early Greek philosophers.

In "Phaedo," as we have seen, Socrates poses the question, "Is the soul immortal?" And his answer is, "Yes." Moreover, the soul is the reality of a person, and the seat of rationality. The body is the soul's "prison."

Even before Plato, 6th Century B.C. Greek philosopher Pythagoras stated that the soul is home to basic knowledge. Only the soul has the power to know the true, eternal, and unchanging nature of reality. And, he added, the truth can only exist in an incorporeal substance.

Drawing from the early Greeks, St. Augustine declared the soul "the intelligent mind." It is both separate from the body and immortal. And it precedes a person's bodily existence.

Death, therefore, "does not mean the end of personal existence," Augustine (426 AD) writes in _The City of God_." "If the truth is immortal," he declares, "Then the soul must be immortal." Death is the separation of the soul from the body. But it's only the body that dies. The soul lives on.

To St. Augustine, the capacity to know the truth is what makes the soul immortal. "Truth so exists in the soul that it is inseparable from it, but Truth is immortal, then, the soul is immortal" (426, cited in _New Advent_ ). Eternal cannot exist in non-eternal.

After St. Augustine the doctrine of the soul became the dogma of the Church. Today, Christians world-wide accept the dualism of body and soul; the dualism of mind and matter - as an established fact.

## Rene Descartes

Almost two thousand years after Socrates, and one thousand years after St. Augustine, Rene Descartes re-introduced the concept of mind-body Dualism into philosophy. What he meant was that humans are composed of two separate and very distinct substances. They combine in us to form a third substance – intelligent beings – just like hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water. But they themselves are unique.

Why are they unique? Well, for starters, the body is "extended" but the mind is not. One takes up space, like machinery in a mill. But, like a conscious thought, the other does not. One can be divided and subdivided. But the other cannot. If an "I" could be divided, Descartes observes, then two "I's" would result, creating two separate selves. That doesn't happen.

Minds can have "final causes." That is, they can behave for the sake of some end or goal. But bodies cannot. As Descartes asks, how can a stone determine where to fall? So, principles of mental causation have no role to play in the explanation of physical phenomena.

Descartes offers one final piece of evidence that mind and body are two separate entities. Each can exist without the other. Bodies certainly can exist without minds. Consider rocks and stones. But can minds exist without bodies? Descartes says yes.

"On the one hand, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, insofar as I am simply a thinking, non-extended thing [that is, a mind], and, on the other hand, I have a distinct idea of body, insofar as this is simply an extended, non-thinking thing. And, accordingly, it is certain that I am really distinct from my body, and can exist without it" (Cottingham et al, 1984-1991, p. 198).

In other words, it makes sense to think of ourselves in two completely separate ways. We can see ourselves as objects that can't think, or as minds that can. And since the brain is a object, it makes sense that minds and brains can exist apart from each other.

To Descartes, this means that minds can persist even after the body dies. So, minds are the same thing as souls, giving us hope for an afterlife.

The main critique that Descartes struggled with in the formulation of his theory was the so-called "mind-body problem." If minds and bodies are so different from each other, how is it possible for them to come into contact? Bodies, after all, have a surface. But minds do not. Bodies touch each other by way of their surfaces. But what possible interface can they have with minds?

In response to this dilemma, Descartes speculated that it all might happen in the pineal gland. That is a pea sized mass in the center of the brain. Maybe that gland is where body events are converted into mind events, and vice versa. Aside from that speculation, however, Descartes concedes, "I have not yet dealt with it at all" (Haldane & Ross, 1970).

## Dualism Conclusion

Today, both science and philosophy have rejected the concept of mind-body Dualism. Yet, it remains popular among most people. In the West and Middle East, Christianity and Islam believe in the soul and life after death. In the Orient, they still honor the spirits of dead ancestors. In India, Hindus revere the Brahman and the Atman. And for many religions world-wide belief in God is, after all, a belief in Spirit.

For Christianity, in particular, the concept of soul traces back to St. Augustine, to Origen, and ultimately to Socrates. The ancient Greek philosophers had differing opinions about the nature of the soul. For Aristotle, soul was more like a capacity, than an actual substance. He makes this clear in his analogy of the eye, where he says the body is like the eye, and the soul is like sight. Neither one can endure without the other.

Socrates, on the other hand, maintained that the soul was a separate substance; that it could exist on its own – without the body; and that it survived after death.

Had the early Christian theologians sided with Aristotle, rather than Socrates, we might be practicing a very different form of religion today.

But St. Augustine chose Socrates. And he makes an interesting argument. Truth, he says, is immortal. And the soul embodies truth. So, the soul itself must be immortal, because only something that is itself immortal could contain something else that is also immortal.

Modern science, however, largely rejects the concept of soul or spirit. And this is because science is all about careful observation and measurement. Souls and spirits are unobservable. To scientists, if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist.

Philosophers, on the other hand, are more comfortable with mind as a form of spirit. But they largely have dismissed mind-body Dualism. Instead, most of them are "monists." That is, they are either all body, or all mind.

Why have philosophers rejected Dualism? Well, it's mainly because the two warring camps, Physicalistm and Idealism, don't think the other one exists. With regard to mind-body Dualism, the Physicalists reject mind. The Idealists reject body.

Moreover, "physicalists" identify with science. Many of them have degrees in both philosophy and neuroscience. So, they reject anything that can't be empirically observed.

The "idealists," on the other hand, take the position that it's the physical world that can't be observed, for reasons that will be explained in the following section.

They really take it seriously when Descartes declares, "Cogito, ergo sum." I think. Therefore, I am.

Back to top

# IDEALISM

_Introduction_

In contrast to Dualism, Idealism is a "monistic" concept that views the entire Universe as composed of only one type of substance. That substance is consciousness itself.

Idealism is an alternative to Physicalism. The latter view holds that reality is composed of irreducible entities. They include quarks, photons, electrons, etc. These entities exist, regardless of whether we're consciousness of them or not. They are the basic components of matter and energy, and their observable parameters include mass, momentum, spin, and charge. Physicalism is a description of the material world.

At first blush, the whole notion of Idealism sounds like some kind of airy, New-Age spiritualism. It sounds unscientific. But the idealist argument is grounded in an irrefutable truth – "Cogito, ergo sum.'

Our senses are the only way we have of knowing the world. In other words, I can order a mushroom pizza; see how it looks; smell how it smells; and taste how it tastes. But all I really know about it is the look, the smell, and the taste. Outside of those subjective, sense experiences, I have absolutely no other way of knowing there's a real pizza there.

And the same thing goes for the mushrooms, the pizza box, and the delivery boy. Things may or may not exist independently of my sense experience of them, but I have no way of knowing that.

Bernardo Kastrup (2018c) cites the case of Samuel Johnson who, when asked why he was skeptical about Idealism, responded by kicking a large stone, and stating, "I refute it thus." It was the felt concreteness of the stone that made him so certain that the physical world is real (15). Yet, as Kastrup points out, that feeling of a concreteness was itself a "feeling." It was a subjective experience, and without it, Johnson would have no knowledge of his stone.

"If we believe in physicality," Kastrup writes, "It is because of qualities such as concreteness, solidity, palpability – all qualities of experience" (15).

As 18th Century philosopher Immanuel Kant states, "We can never be certain whether all of our putative outer experience is not mere imagining" (1787). He goes on, "The reality of external objects does not admit of strict proof. On the contrary, however, the reality of the object of our internal sense (of myself and state) is clear immediately through consciousness."

Two centuries later, the new science of Quantum Mechanics revealed the illusory nature of reality. This prompted British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington to proclaim, "The stuff of the world is mind stuff " (Idealism) To that, his fellow Brit Sir James Jeans added, "The Universe begins to look more like a great thought, than like a great machine" ("Idealism," _Wiki_ ).

This turns empirical science on its head. What's indisputably real to us are our feelings. Everything else may be an illusion.

The following sections detail some of the leading theories in the Idealism school of thought.

## Bernardo Kastrup

Kastrup's Idealism

Bernardo Kastrup is one of the leading proponents of Idealism. Kastrup has a Ph.D. in computer science, with a concentration in artificial intelligence. Yet, despite this engineering background, he has published numerous books and articles denying any mechanical basis for consciousness, and extolling the uniqueness of subjective experience.

As he says, "Subjectivity is the only carrier of my reality that I can ever know" (2015).

Kastrup (2018a) claims that qualia cannot be explained in physical terms. He says, "There is nothing in the study of matter that allows us to explain qualities of experience." We cannot describe redness, bitterness, and warmth in terms of quarks, bosons, and leptons.

Yet, Physicalism seems to be the position of mainstream science. Today, a prevailing hypothesis in science is that consciousness arises from the interaction among neurons in our brains, and that it is only a matter of time before we uncover how this process works. The analogy is to how snowflakes arise out of the interaction between water molecules and cold.

"No," Kastrup says. Compound entities are the product of their component properties. Clearly, snowflakes result from water molecules and temperature.

But this is emphatically not the case with consciousness. It cannot be understood in terms of any of the fundamental properties of matter, including mass, charge, and spin.

Kastrup calls basic elements "ultimates." For example, material objects are made up of molecules and atoms, which, in turn, are made up of quarks and leptons. But beyond that we cannot go. So, quarks and leptons are the ultimates of the physical world.

According to Physicalist theory, physical ultimates combine to form mental experiences. But how is that possible? How can things that lack consciousness combine to create things that have it?

Well then, Kastrup concludes, if consciousness cannot be explained from the bottom up, then perhaps it can be better understood from the top down. Perhaps we should view "the whole Universe as a unitary conscious entity" (134). For consciousness, the Universe itself is the single ultimate.

As Kastrup elaborates, "Under this new paradigm, a form of universal mind will be viewed as nature's sole fundamental entity" (2018).

Kastrup calls this theory "cosmopsychism." And what he means is that the Universe itself is one big Mind, and everything in it is basically the thoughts of that Mind. The physical world is an illusion.

He compares the visible Universe to a brain. He describes that organ as the second person perspective of a first person experience (2015). In other words, it's what you see about how I feel. Likewise, the Universe that we apprehend may also be the outer embodiment of a hidden first person perspective.

Using Thomas Nagel's famous test, Kastrup declares that "there is something it is like to be the whole of the Universe" (2015).

Kastrup is not alone in likening the Universe to a brain. Renowned physicist Lee Smolin (2013) makes a similar observation in _Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe_ (270). In the _San Diego News_ , Jan Zverina (2012) writes, "The structure of the Universe and the laws that govern its growth may be more similar than previously thought to be the structure and growth of the human brain."

Sentient beings like ourselves are extensions of that universal mind. Kastrup calls us "relative subjects." That is, we are subjects of our own experiences. We occupy the starring role in our own personal drama. But that "subject-ness," in turn, derives from the subject nature of the Universe as a whole. As Kastrup (2015) writes, "A relative subject constitutes a segment of cosmic consciousness" (136). Therefore, our individual experiences are "excitations of cosmic consciousness" (139).

It's as if you and I were characters in a dream. We feel like we are having our own sensations and our own thoughts, but, in reality, we are just projections of the Dreamer's Mind.

Kastrup delineates local and general types of subjectivity. Living beings constitute "a local pattern of phenomenal activity." The general type of subjectivity comes from the "intrinsically subjective, perspectival nature of cosmic consciousness as a whole" (136).

This raises the question: if we are all sharing the same Mind, why don't we all have the same thoughts? Kastrup answers this question with his concept of "alters." We are all familiar with "alter egos." This is when people have a type of personality disorder, which results in a single individual with multiple personalities. Several years ago, in 1957, the movie "The Three Faces of Eve" popularized this phenomenon.

Based on a real-life case, the movie told the story of Eve White, a quiet, unassuming housewife. Under therapy, however, a second personality emerged, the wild and fun-loving Eve Black. And then came the third personality Jane, the stable, level-headed one. The movie tagline was "A moment ago, she was the nicest girl in town . . . A moment from now, she will be anybody's pickup." Joanne Woodward won an Academy Award for her portrayal.

Kastrup's point is that it is entirely possible for several personalities to occupy the same individual, all with their own identities and perspectives, and each unaware of the others' existence. In that sense, we humans are all "alters" of the cosmic Mind.

Each of us has what Kastrup calls our "revealed" side and our "concealed" side. The revealed side is our surface appearance. It's how others see us. The concealed side, however, is our subjective aspect, which remains private to us, and hidden from outside view.

The revealed side is "grounded" in the concealed side. For example, when we hear a baby crying, that's an indicator of how the infant feels. The feeling is the critical event, and the crying is merely a symptom of it. This is true for all outward appearances. They are just reflections of internal realities.

"Living organisms," Kastrup explains, "are the revealed appearance of alters of universal consciousness" (145). Why do we just see the revealed appearance?

It's because our ability to perceive is bounded by the surface of our bodies (144). This came about with the formation of the first alter (147). That resulted in a "dissociative boundary" between that alter and the world.

Consider multiple personality disorder. Even though they all occupy the same individual, each personality is cut off, or "dissociated from," the thoughts and feelings of the others. All they know about each other is what they see on the surface.

The cosmic consciousness also has a revealed side and a concealed side. So that the colors and the sounds we see on the "screen of perception" are just the outward appearance of the qualities "experienced by the segment of cosmic consciousness that surrounds our alter . . ." (148).

And what about death? It's just the end of dissociation.

In summary, Kastrup believes we occupy a sort of dream world, in which physical objects are just an illusion. The Universe consists of a single cosmic mind, and everyone in it is just a part of it. We are alter-egos of that cosmic mind. We differ from each other because of a form of multiple personality disorder. And for that reason, we only can see the surface of things, and not what lies beneath.

Kastrup's Rebuttal

Kastrup is aware of the skepticism his ideas receive. For many of us, Idealism is a hard pill to swallow. So, he devoted one of his articles (2018c) to responding to his critics. Here are some of his main rebuttals:

1. The Brain. Neurobiologists have studied the brain extensively, and have made enormous progress in isolating which parts of the brain are responsible for our thoughts and our behaviors. Is Kastrup claiming that, in effect, the physical operations of the brain are irrelevant?

Kastrup (2018a) says this. Physical entities, like bodies or brains or neural activity within our brains, are "simply the revealed appearance of the dissociative phenomenal field of an alter" (150). In other words, the activities of the brain are the outward appearances of our inner experience. We see neurons and ganglia and neurotransmitters But that's just what inner experience – or qualia – looks like from the outside.

2. The World. If we are "alters," with our own, separate perceptions, why does the world around us look pretty much the same to everyone? If three of us are sitting on a park bench watching ducks in a pond, how come we all agree on what we're doing?

Kastrup's answer: "All alters are immersed . . . in the thoughts that constitute the concealed side of the inanimate cosmos" (152). In other words, the cosmic consciousness sets the stage for what our individual minds perceive. In effect, since we are all living in the same dream, we all see the same things.

3. Reality. Back in the early 20th Century, a remarkable group of thinkers, including Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger among others, developed the theory of Quantum Mechanics. One of the mind-blowing conclusions of this new science was that nothing really exists unless and until we are conscious of it.

So, is that also what Kastrup believes? And, if so, did anything exist in the eons of time before conscious creatures evolved to a state of awareness?

The simple answer Kastrup offers is – cosmic consciousness. The world existed in the dreamer's Mind, long before alters emerged to perceive it for themselves.

This, in turn, answers the age-old question – does a tree falling in the forest make a sound, if no one's around to hear it? The answer, of course, is yes. The cosmic consciousness is everywhere, and knows everything that occurs.

4. The Laws of Nature. If subjective experience takes primacy over physical cause and effect, then are the laws of nature irrelevant? Are thermodynamics, electromagnetism, relativity not the real drivers of events?

Kastrup (2018c) has a two part answer: First, a lot of activity is independent of our volition. Take the example of the ducks and the park bench. Second, "Nothing in Idealism precludes the possibility that phenomenality in the universal consciousness unfolds according to very stable and orderly patterns . . ." (22).

In other words, the world of consciousness can be an orderly place. And the order prescribed by the laws of nature may be an exact reflection of the subjective order of the cosmos.

5. Unconscious Thoughts. Often, we have thoughts we're not aware of. Later, we might say, "Oh, come to think of it, there was a lady with a feather hat in that store." You noticed it, but at the time you were not aware that you noticed it. How does this fit with Kastrup's schema?

Easily, he says. All mentation is conscious. Self-reflection is only one type of consciousness. For example, drivers may see danger before they can tell themselves that they see danger ahead (26).

These are some of Kastrup's responses to his critics. Whatever you might think of his ideas, he has created a plausible and coherent framework for understanding the origin and nature of conscious experience.

## Itay Shani

In his various articles, Kastrup frequently references another proponent of Idealism, Itay Shani, a professor of philosophy at Sun Yat Sen University in Zhuhai, China.

Shani (2015) derides any notion that purely physical elements could combine to create consciousness as a result. "The physicalist who puts her faith in the power of organization to explain phenomenal consciousness expects it to constitute, or generate, experience. This expectation, however, is highly problematic insofar as it is hard to see how any kind of organization, no matter how complex, could turn a dead and numb [sic] matter into an intrinsic locus of experience" (44).

Thinking that you could transition from matter to mind involves what Shani calls an "ontological discontinuity" (44). It entails a transition from a "wholly insentient realm of purely material existence" to a "realm of experience" (3).

Equally problematic, he contends, is the panpsychist idea that everything has some degree of consciousness, and that higher levels of awareness are made up of components with lower levels of awareness.

"Points of view," he says, "Do not combine" (12).

Shani references Coleman's argument (2014) against micro-level "ultimates." How, Coleman asks, could "mind-endowed" micro ultimates play a role in explaining "macro-level experience"? In other words, how could the supposed experiences of quarks and photons combine to yield human conscious experience?

Points of view are unique perspectives. So, even if perspectives from quarks and photons were to combine to form human perspectives, their unique viewpoints would cease to exist. There would be no trace of them at the higher level, and, therefore, no need for them to contribute to it, in the first place.

Subjective experiences, he explains, are "gestalts." They are structural totalities which cannot be explained in terms of the combination of parts. When it comes to perspectives, the very existence of parts "excludes the existence of the whole" (37).

Shani coined the term "cosmopsyschism," as distinct from "panpsychism" (2015). This latter view holds that everything - people, desks, bricks, etc., - everything possesses some degree of consciousness.

Instead, Shani believes in "top-down" consciousness. He proposes the existence of "an all pervading cosmic consciousness as the single cosmological ultimate" (abstract). The cosmos, he maintains, " Is the only ontological ultimate there is" (14). He further maintains that such universal consciousness is the ground for the emergence of individual conscious creatures.

Shani introduces the concept of "priority monism" as defined by Schaffer (2010), namely, that the Universe as a whole existed prior to its parts. Under this view, the cosmos is ultimate not just causally, but also chronologically. It came first, and everything else derived from it (20-21).

Technically, Shani defines the Cosmos as a "plenum," or a space filled with "an inner expanse constantly teeming with a spontaneous buzz of qualitative feel" (25). It is, he says, "an intrinsically sentient medium" (25). He likens it to a vacuum in quantum field theory, which is really not a vacuum at all but rather is packed with incessant activity (25).

Individual entities are related to the "absolute" through "local disturbances." Such disturbances, like currents and waves in the ocean, can interfere with each other and create vortices. These vortices become "relative subjects" - that is, individual sentient beings.

The sentient medium inside the vortex becomes "uniquely regimented" (30). It forms patterns which mirror the revealed side of its environment. The result is a "crystallized ego structure." It is the self-centered mental occupation of the individual "vortex" (36).

This process is iterative, "allowing for steady ascent in scale, integration, and complexity" (Kastrup, 2017, p. 35). Not all vortices become "subjects of experience" (35). It depends on how the "endo-phenomenological reservoirs of their mirror components" join together in a coherent way, resulting in a "unified experiential domain" (35).

The cosmic ultimate is the ground for the emergence of individual conscious creatures (1). Shani explains that, "Without the absolute's intrinsic capacity for experience, there would be no individual experiences at the level of relative subjects" (38-39). Thus, "All perspectives can be said to inherit their generic character from the subjectival nature of the absolute" (41).

Like Kastrup, Shani espouses a "lateral duality" principle. The absolute has a revealed and concealed nature. The concealed aspect is a dynamic domain of creative activity. The revealed aspect is "the outer observable expression of that activity" (27).

The revealed is the province of scientific inquiry, but the concealed is like a force field in physics. It is "a vast, dynamically fluctuating ocean" (27).

"Core-subjectivity, or "I-ness" is an intrinsic aspect of the cosmic consciousness, and it is the ultimate source for the sense of self, as the basis of each relative perspective (46).

In summary, Shani's theory is very similar to Kastrup's. Both believe in a cosmic ultimate. Both believe that consciousness comes from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. Both believe in a revealed side and a concealed side. Where they differ, however, is how Shani accounts for the emergence of "relative subjects," like ourselves. We are the product of local disturbances in the cosmic ocean, which eventually organize themselves into crystalized ego structures. So he contends.

Shani admits his theory is "more than a tad speculative" (39).

## David Chalmers

Panpsychism

Chalmers is the one who coined the phrase "the hard problem." A Professor of Philosophy, he is also Director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at New York University. He refers to consciousness as "the most mysterious phenomenon in the Universe" (2014).

That's why it intrigues him. He discloses, "Even when I was studying mathematics, physics, and computer science, it always seemed that the problem of consciousness was about the most interesting problem out there for science to come to grips with."

His argument rests on the firm conviction that consciousness is real. "Some say that consciousness is an 'illusion,' but I have little idea what this could even mean. It seems to me that we are surer of the existence of conscious experience than we are of anything else in the world . . ." (1996, pp. xii-xiii).

Chalmers agrees with Kastrup regarding a cosmic consciousness. He writes, "If brains correspond to an inner life, it is not at all implausible that the inanimate Universe as a whole could as well" (2003). He observes that the large scale Universe, with its galaxies and super-galaxies and galaxy clusters, looks remarkably like the neurons, dendrites, axons, and ganglia of the brain.

The hard problem is: "why mental events emerge from physiological occurrences." In contrast, easy problems include how the brain initiates sleep and wake cycles; or, how the brain distinguishes walking from running; or anything falling into the general categories of perceptual discrimination, integration of information, and verbal report (Chalmers, 2019). In theory these are abilities a computer or a robot might have. But much more daunting is the question about how physical processes in the brain produce subjective experiences.

Right now, the best science can do is find correlations, versus explanations. For example, they can link feelings of empathy with increased activity in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex. They can link feelings of pleasure with the ventral tegmental area. But simply seeing parts of the brain light up doesn't explain how the associated feelings are produced. Indeed, Chalmers doesn't think consciousness can ever be explained by empirical measurement.

From the outside, we do rather resemble pieces of machinery. And someday engineers might develop robots that look and sound just like we do. But inside, we are something robots can never be. We are observers, and we view the world exclusively through subjective experience.

Perhaps, Chalmers opines, we should think of consciousness as a fundamental element, like time, space, and mass (Carroll, 2018). That is, maybe it's something that cannot be subdivided into constituent parts. And like space, time, and mass, perhaps consciousness is an intrinsic part of all physical processes.

Based on this view, Chalmers advances two "crazy" ideas (Carroll, 2018):

1. that consciousness is fundamental;

2. that consciousness might be universal.

The first crazy idea equates consciousness with time, space, and mass. It's one of the basic parameters shaping our world, Chalmers contends.

This second crazy idea situates Chalmers within the camp of the panpsychists, who see all things imbued with some degree of consciousness. The reason, Chalmers claims, is because of "PHI," his term for the amount of information integrated into a system. Wherever you find information processing, he says, there you find consciousness. And to him, this would even include worms, microbes, and elementary particles (Carroll, 2018).

It would include electrons and quarks, although they would have "proto-consciousness," because their consciousness would be embryonic. It would even include "George," Chalmers confirms, when asked if a bonsai tree named George might be conscious. The reason is, "Wherever there is information processing, there might be some element of consciousness" (Chalmers, 2019).

Would it also include a ballpoint pen? No, says Chalmers,, because a pen is not an information processing device.

Chalmers refers to himself as a "Property Dualist," rather than a strict Idealist (Carroll, 2018). This is because he accepts materialism. He accepts the physical world. But he thinks consciousness is a distinct and unique property of material entities. And consciousness rules. Any time two or more physical properties interact with each other, he states, it's their "mental properties" doing the work."
Supervenience, Emergence, and Irreducibility

How does Chalmers justify his concept of property dualism? For a further explanation, we now need to take a deep dive into three rather esoteric philosophical concepts. These are: supervenience, emergence, and irreducibility.

1) Let's start with "supervenience." A is supervenient on B, if B is the necessary and sufficient cause of A. Or, as Chalmers explains, it's when one set of facts can fully determine another set of facts (2008, p. 411). So, wherever you see A, there has to be B. For example, eye color is supervenient on DNA. Gravity is supervenient on mass. Biology is supervenient on physics. By the same token, consciousness is supervenient on physical facts (416).

2) The next esoteric term Chalmers deploys is "emergence." It basically means that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. As Chalmers explains, emergence occurs when phenomena arise and depend on more basic phenomena, "yet are simultaneously autonomous from that base" (Chalmers, 2008, 420).

Chalmers concedes that physical facts "exhaust all facts about the world" (420). However, something new and unique can "emerge" from those physical facts, which is "autonomous" from them. Consciousness, he argues, fits that description.

3) The third and final esoteric term is "irreducibility." Something is irreducible if it can't be fully explained by its component parts. On the other hand, something is reducible if it can be fully described by phenomena more fundamental. Irreducibility is a necessary aspect of emergence (420).

So, consciousness, Chalmers concludes, is supervenient on physical facts, and it emerges from them in such a way that the whole is distinct from the sum of its parts and can't be reducible to them.

He sums up consciousness as, "a novel property of a system when that system has reached a certain level of complexity and that, even though it exists only insofar as the system or entity exists, it is distinct from the properties of the parts of the system from which it emerges" (Vintiadis, 2010).

Unlike Kastrup and Shani, Chalmers does not deny the physical world, but he makes the case that something entirely unique might emerge from it. Whether or not this is true, remains to be seen.
Zombies

This brings us to the topic of zombies (416), one of Chalmers's favorite themes. A zombie is someone who looks and acts like a normal human being, but is "dead" inside. That is, he has no subjective experience, no consciousness. He is like a robot. Is this logically possible? Yes.

So, just because someone looks and acts human, it does not necessarily mean they are human. This defeats the argument Physicalists make that if someone looks and acts like a conscious being, then he must be one. Not so, Chalmers states. After all, zombies look and act human. But they aren't.

Chalmers, who part-times with a band, has even memorialized his position in song:

"I act like I act, I do what I do,  
but I don't know what it's like to be you.  
What consciousness is, I ain't got a clue.  
I've got the zombie blues" (2019).

In sum, Chalmers is a pseudo-Idealist. He believes in the material world, but one which is dominated by a conscious component. It appears that he has two separate theories in this regard. The first is panpsychism, the idea that everything is imbued with a degree of consciousness. But while electrons and photons have "proto-consciousness," information processing systems, such as worms and bonsai trees, have actual consciousness.

On the other hand, when discussing supervenience, emergence, and irreducibility, a different version of the theory emerges. In this case physical systems develop a certain level of complexity, in order for a new sort of reality to appear. And once it does appear, consciousness cannot be explained or reduced to the components that produced it.

Chalmers is open to either one of these versions to be true.

## Quantum Mechanics

Bohr, Schrödinger and Planck

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, a remarkable group of physicists turned the world upside down. It was Einstein who broke the news to us that time and space are not absolute. Both are "relative" to the observer's point of view. Nels Bohr, Ernst Schrödinger, Max Planck, and their colleagues shattered our notion of reality.

For them, it all started with the famous double-slit experiment. Light is passed through a barrier with two slits. On the other side, the light forms a pattern on a viewing screen. If an observer focuses on the screen alone, what he sees are a series of alternating white and black strips. This is exactly what would happen if light consisted of waves. The peaks and troughs of the waves either reinforce themselves or cancel each other out.

On the other hand, if the observer sets up a measuring device at one of the two slits, then the light acts like particles. Instead of a series of alternating black and white strips, they form two separate white strips. This is exactly what one would expect if a stream of particles passed through the two separate slits, and came to rest on the viewing screen.

Reality, it would appear, depends on observation. If you look at light one way, it appears as waves. But if you look another way, it's particles.

This isn't the way it's supposed to be. Facts should be facts, regardless of who sees them. But yet, the new field of Quantum Mechanics – the study of the smallest particles – undermined our view of the physical world, and lent credence to the theory of Idealism.

As a 2007 article put it, "Quantum Physics says Good-bye to Reality."

According to Schrödinger, the particles "exist in a state of a wave function, which is a series of potentialities, rather than actual objects" (Rosenblum, B. & Kuttner, F., 2006). This wave function is not to be confused with an energy wave. Rather, it is a wave of "potentialities." Observing causes the function to "collapse," and "create" the existence of matter, either as particle or as wave.

Quantum Mechanics has exploded the notion that reality is absolute. Human observation plays a role. A link exists between consciousness and reality. Neither one exists apart from the other.

The introduction of Quantum Mechanics into the consciousness debate adds scientists to the list of philosophers in the Idealist camp.

## Idealism Conclusion

The concept of Idealism is not for everyone. In effect, it is 180 degrees opposite from the world most of us think we occupy. But Idealism is a logical offshoot from the concept of mind-body Dualism. If Dualism fails, then what's left is either all body or all mind, alone.

In philosophy this is referred to as a "monistic ontology." An ontology is the nature of being. It's the substance from which all reality is constituted. In the case of Idealism, that basic substance is consciousness. Everything is a projection of Mind.

In this section I have not attempted to have an exhaustive overview of the Idealism perspective. In fact, I have omitted several schools of thought, such as spiritualism or micropsychism. Instead, I have highlighted some provocative concepts from leading and respected thinkers in their field.

Some of their ideas are, to put it mildly, "a tad speculative." In particular, I am uncomfortable with how both Kastrup and Shani describe the emergence of separate sentient beings from the cosmic consciousness. The whole notion of a disturbance in the sentient ocean creating relative subjects from vortices seems like nothing more than a flight of fantasy.

Kastrup's view is somewhat more sketched out and coherent. He likens the emergence of relative subjects to the well-established phenomenon of multiple personalities. In that sense, each of us is an alter ego of the ultimate Mind, separated from others through a process of dissociation. The idea of people and animals as "alters," however, sounds like science fiction. And there's no evidence to back it up.

Another problem is the supposed connection between the world of appearances and the world of sensations, the "revealed" world and the "concealed" world. How does the world of sensations cause the appearance of food, or of eating? How does the world of sensations cause the appearance of drinking? How does the world of sensations cause the appearance of quarks, photons, neutrinos? What possible sensation could be the counterpart to the use of hammers and nails?

A hammer can cause the appearance of a hammer. A material object can cause the awareness of that object. But how could that work the other way around? Why would anyone have a vision of a hammer, unless there was an actual hammer there to begin with?

On the other hand, I think there are four ideas well worth exploring. First, it makes sense that consciousness works from the top-down, rather than the bottom-up. This is a direct hit against panpsychism, which holds that rocks and waterfalls are sentient. I have never encountered a rock, stone, or pebble that displays the slightest degree of intelligence.

Second, it makes sense for there to be a "cosmic ultimate." Kastrup and Shani's arguments against panpsychism and the "combination problem" are compelling. Plus, if consciousness doesn't come from below, then from where else?

Third, Chalmers is most persuasive about the reality of consciousness, despite the daunting challenge of explaining it.

Fourth, and most controversial, is the proposal that the physical world is an illusion. At first, this, too, makes a lot of sense. After all, the only thing we really know about anything is what we sense of it. Because we see the baby, we know the sight is real. But is the baby?

All that lends credibility to Idealism. But in the next section I will offer some compelling evidence for the opposite point of view.

Back to top

# PHYSICALISM

_Introduction_

Physicalism is the world most of us think we live in. All of the sciences, to include physics, biology, anthropology, botany, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, are predicated on the assumption that we occupy a material Universe. So is medicine, which diagnoses and treats people on the basis of physical symptoms and physical cures.

Most scientists would consider Idealism as a form of spiritualism. And they would rank it alongside mysticism, religion, and faith healing. All these belief systems fall outside the realm of objective and empirical investigation. None of them are subject to rigorous observation and measurement, which science employs to test and validate hypotheses.

Thanks to science, we know so much about the material world that it is hard to dismiss all this knowledge as illusory. It is hard to dismiss the physical world as a mirage. Today, we pretty much know how the Universe began, how it evolved, how Earth was created, how life emerged, how humans arose, and how our brains developed. In the following section I will briefly outline this impressive fund of knowledge, in order to demonstrate the validity of a belief in the material world.

## A Brief History of Everything

Timeline

The First Three Minutes.

0 seconds (13.7 bya*) The Big Bang. The Universe, Space, & Time begin.

0 – 10-43 seconds. The Planck Epoch. Single Unified Force (UF).

10-43 to 10-35 seconds. The GUT Epoch. Gravity separates from UF.

10-35 to 10-12 seconds. The Inflationary Epoch. The Strong Force separates.

10-12 to 10-6 seconds. The Quark Epoch. The Weak Force separates.

10-6 to 1 second. The Hadron Epoch. Quarks form Protons & Neutrons.

1 to 180 seconds. The Lepton Epoch. Electrons & Neutrinos dominate.

3 – 15 minutes. Nucleosynthesis. The first element Hydrogen appears.

15 min. – 380,000 yrs. Matter Domination. Dark Matter shapes the Universe.

380,000 – 500 mill. yrs. Recombination. Electrons combine with atomic nuclei.

500 million yrs. to now. Gravity consolidates stars out of atomic dust.

13.2 bya.* The Milky Way is formed.

4.6 bya. Our Solar System is formed.

4.5 bya. Earth is formed.

3.5 bya. Life begins on Earth with the appearance of single cell bacteria.

2.7 bya. Bacteria Prokaryotes evolve into Eukaryotes with a nucleus.

850 mya.* Eukaryote Choanoflagellates become the ancestors of animal life.

575 mya. The first animals appear in the oceans.

360 mya. Animals colonize the land.

55 mya. The first primates evolve from lemur type animals.

14 mya. The first great apes evolve from monkeys.

4.2 mya. The first hominid Australopithecus evolves from chimpanzees.

4 mya. The first bi-peds evolve from Australopithecus.

2.1 mya. Homo Habilis evolves from bi-peds, with 600 cc brain size.

2.0 mya. Homo Erectus evolves from Homo Habilis, with 1000 cc brain size.

2.0 mya. Homo Erectus develops language.

740 tya. Homo Heidelbergensis evolves from Homo Erectus.

200 tya.* Homo Sapiens, modern man, evolves, with 1600 cc brain size.

*bya = billion years ago; mya = million years ago; tya = thousand years ago.

So many momentous events occurred in the first three minutes of our Universe that scientists have divided that period into epochs. Later on, an epoch would be the equivalent of tens of millions of years. But in the beginning, the most transformative changes occurred in fractions of a second. Here is how it all started.

A. The First Three Minutes (Weinberg, 1977). Modern science has established that matter evolved from energy. The five basic forms of energy are gravity, electricity, magnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. In the beginning however, everything was one thing. All matter and all energy derive from a single, all encompassing, all powerful Superforce. This was the case during the Planck Epoch, dating from the Big Bang to 10-43 seconds. That is one billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

The heat of the universal energy at that time was 1032 Kelvin (Ohio State, 2015). That is about a trillion times a trillion times a trillion degrees. The energy was absolute. And from that energy everything was born.

"In the most common models the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures . . ." (Anonymous, 2009).

In the GUT Epoch from 10-43 to 10-35 seconds Gravity split off from the Unified Force (UF). In the Inflationary Epoch from 10-35 to 10-12 the Universe cooled enough for the Strong Force to split off from the Unified Force, and in the briefest time imaginable, the Universe expanded 1026 times. That is, it expanded 100 trillion trillion times its size.

In the Quark Epoch from 10-12 to 10-6 seconds, the Weak Force split off from Electro-magnetism. Free quarks stopped evaporating. And the Higgs Boson appeared, to confer mass on otherwise mass-less particles.

In the Hadron Epoch, from 10-6 to 1 second, free quarks combined to form the first Protons and Neutrons. In the Lepton Epoch, from 1 second to three minutes, free electrons, neutrinos, and muons dominated the mass of the Universe. Then, finally, at the 3 minute mark, Nucleosynthesis. Protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of hydrogen and helium. This resulted in nine hydrogen nuclei for every one helium nucleus (Silk, J., 2016).

Matter Domination began to occur in the period between 15 minutes and 380,000 years. Dark matter constituted 85% of all matter, and it accelerated the formation of pockets of density.

The Universe first became visible during the epoch of Recombination, from 380,000 to 500 million years after the Big Bang. Free electrons combined with proton-neutron nuclei to form the first atoms. And, in doing so, they freed photons from being absorbed. For this reason, the earliest sight we can ever obtain of the nascent Universe comes from this epoch.

After protons, neutrons, and electrons clumped together to form atoms, enough heavy matter existed to cause Gravity to pull them together to form stars, galaxies, and planets. The Star Forming Epoch began 500 million years after the Big Bang, and continues to the present day.

Our own Milky Way galaxy appeared at the time of the Star Forming Epoch. Our Solar System came later at 4.6 billion years ago; and then, at 4.5 billion years ago, the Earth.

B. Life. Within a surprisingly brief period of time, Earth bore witness to life. Four billion years ago, primordial bacteria emerged from the oceans. Bacteria belong to the domain prokaryotes, that is, cells without a nucleus. They split off into eukaryotes some 2.7 billion years ago. This happened when one prokaryote swallowed another one. Because the ingested cell retained its own membrane, that gave the big cell a nucleus, plus an energy source. Some of the cells it swallowed eventually evolved into chloroplasts and mitochondria.

C. Animalia. The word "animalia" comes from the Latin, meaning "having breath" or "having soul." Eukaryotes split off into two separate kingdoms, animalia and planta. The planta are "autotrophs," meaning they can make their own food. Each plant cell contains chloroplasts which capture sun rays and convert them into energy. This happens through the process of photosynthesis.

Heterotrophs, however, do not contain chloroplasts. This means respiration in animals depends on breathing oxygen. Hence the name "animalia." It also means animals have to obtain food from their environment. This makes all the difference.

Heterotrophs have to move around, and they have to develop ingenious methods for capturing their prey. In addition, they have to dodge other heterotrophs looking to eat them. Unlike autotrophs, heterotrophs have to sense and respond to their surroundings. They need to be conscious.

D. The Primitive Brain. To find mates and escape predators, fish developed an "optic tectum," enabling them to track objects with their eyes. Later, fish and mammals acquired a mid-brain, or limbic system, in which the amygdala enabled them to respond to fear; the basal ganglia promoted patterns of movement; and the thalamus and hypothalamus gave them memory and feelings of reward.

Physicalists believe that consciousness occurs within the brain. It is, after all, the control center of our nervous system. For that reason, let's take a much closer look at this ultimate product of 13.7 billion years of evolution, How did the brain emerge, and how does it work?

Brain Evolution

A. Bacteria. Primitive bacteria generated an electrical potential across its membrane by pumping out ions. This ability was key to the ultimate emergence of a nervous system, billions of years later.

B. Animalia. Both electrical and chemical signals have been detected in single cell choanoflagellates, thought to be the ancestor of all animals, 850 million years ago. Even though these beings consisted of only one cell, they sometimes bunched together in colonies, leading to the emergence of multi-cell organisms 575 million years ago. This evolution required cells being able to work together by sensing and responding to each other (Robson, 2011).

C. Bi-Lateralism. About 560 million years ago, the acoela, a tiny worm-like creature, developed bi-lateral symmetry. A line running across the center of its body later evolved into a spinal column, and eventually a brain.

D. Sponges. The evolution of multi-cellular animals depended on cells being able to sense and respond to other cells in order to work together. About 530 million years ago, multi-cellular sponges, lacking any internal organs, were still able to trigger movement and digestion by pumping out chemical messengers like glutamate or GABA. These same chemicals play a similar role in our brains today.

D. Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles. Over time, the spinal column culminated in a "reptile brain." Its function was primarily to regulate homeostatic functions, such as breathing, body temperature, and digestion. Amphibians evolved from fish and colonized the land around 360 million years ago. They, in turn, evolved into reptiles 312 million years ago.

E. Mammals. The first mammals appeared about 200 million years ago, along with the "mammalian brain." This is the limbic system regulating memory and emotion. They still had the reptilian brain, but just added the mammalian brain on top of it. In addition, they developed a small neocortex on top of that.

F. Primates. The human brain began to increase dramatically some 2.1 million years ago, going from 600 cubic centimeters (cc's) in Homo Habilis to 1600 cc's in Homo Sapiens The reasons for this development are varied. Some attribute it to the demands of social living; others to fire and a meat rich diet; others to bi-pedalism and freeing of the hands and arms for manipulation and invention. Whatever the cause, it catapulted us to our present state.
The Human Brain

A. Overall Structure. Evolution has produced a three-tier brain, with the primitive reptilian brain overlaid by the mammalian brain, overlaid by the human brain. The reptilian brain consists of the brain stem and cerebellum, at the end of the spinal cord, and mainly controls motor coordination plus homeostatic – that is non-conscious – functions.

The mammalian brain consists of the mid-brain limbic system, and mainly controls memory and emotion. Finally, the human brain consists of the neo-cortex, covering and surrounding everything else, and controlling intelligence. In addition, the brain itself is divided down the middle into two hemispheres, reflecting the bi-lateral symmetry of the body it oversees.

B. The Neo-Cortex. Evolution has increased the size of the brain's control center to 16 billion neuron cells. It consists of four "lobes," including the frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital. The occipital controls vision; the temporal, hearing; the parietal, spacial sense, touch, and navigation; and the frontal, movement, language, decision-making, problem-solving, planning, and sensory input processing.

C. Messaging. The entire brain consists of some 86 billion specialized neuron cells overall. Those cells communicate with each other by way of axons and dendrites. These are long, string-like threads, making up the electrical wiring system of the brain. Each cell has one axon, dividing out at the end into several branches. These axon branches send signals to other cells, by way of dendrites which receive those signals and pass them along to the next neuron. The axons send electrical and chemical signals to the dendrites by way of a "synapse," a small opening between axons and dendrites, across which the signals are transmitted. Imagine two fingers almost, but not quite, touching. Our brains contain some 100 trillion synapses.

D. Neurotransmitters (NTs). Neurons communicate with each other, not only through electric signals, but also through chemicals called neurotransmitters. These include: adrenaline, noradrenaline, acetylcholine, glutamate, serotonin, GABA (gamma aminobutyric acid), dopamine, and endorphins. About 50% of the neurotransmitters are glutamate. Some of the NTs are excitory, while others are inhibitory.

E. Intelligence. The huge increase in the size of the human brain enabled abstract thought. "The more the brain processes incoming information, the more it starts to identify and search for overarching patterns that are a step away from the concrete, physical objects in front of our eyes."

This has been a brief overview of the structure and function of our brain. This amazing organ stands at the pinnacle of all creation. From the first flash of unified energy blasting out trillions upon trillions upon trillions of force, to the formation of atoms, molecules, galaxies and stars, the ultimate product of all that evolution is our brain. But does that organ hold the secret to something more remarkable still - our conscious minds?

Summary of Everything

I have just outlined the evolution of human intelligence from the beginning of time to the present. Why? All of this development is physical. All of our understanding for how we got here is based on a physical model of the Universe. The energy produced by the Big Bang, and the fundamental elements that resulted are all material substances. The galaxies and solar systems and planets that formed from those elements are material things. Life on Earth arose from physical compounds.

Our brains take up space and operate over time. We can measure them in cubic centimeters. And we can document how that size has expanded from earliest times. Moreover, we can use machinery, like the FMRI, to observe how signals are transmitted throughout our nervous systems, and detect what specific parts of the brain are associated with particular behaviors.

The laws of nature describe how the Universe works. These include the laws of thermodynamics, electro-magnetism, general relativity, and quantum dynamics, among others. All of these laws describe relations among physical entities. And they accurately predict causes and effects.

Idealism asks us, in effect, to ignore all of this evolution. It asks us to accept that the physical world is an illusion. The only reality, according to Idealism, is subjective experience. Basically, the only reality is a dream.

Bernardo Kastrup (2018c) does a brilliant job of responding to his critics. To those who claim that Idealism does not comport with science, he answers, "Nothing in Idealism precludes the possibility that phenomenality in universal consciousness unfolds according to very stable and orderly patterns and regularities, whose extrinsic appearance corresponds to the laws of nature" (22).

He is saying that the world of dreams can operate much like the world of objects. But how can that be true? For one thing, our imaginations can create the most bizarre scenarios. We can teleport ourselves to other galaxies in our minds. But we can't do this in the real world.

On the other hand, why would dream objects relate to each other the same way as physical objects do? Why, for example, would gravity result when massive objects attract each other, when mass itself doesn't actually exist?

It is true that our only way of knowing is through our senses. But when several people agree on the same thing, for example, when we all stop on red and go on green, then it suggests there's something real out there beyond our individual perceptions. And when scientific experiments can be replicated, so that the same results appear again and again, it tends to validate the physical model that those experiments are based on.

To me, denying the reality of the material world because we currently have no way of explaining consciousness in physical terms, is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Perhaps Kastrup, Shani, and the other idealists are right, but I think their approach is the least parsimonious and most extreme way of dealing with the issue. Let's not abandon common sense just yet.

## Seeing

What the Frog's Eye Tells the Frog Brain

Now that we have a brief overview of how the brain works, the next question is how all this gives us sensation. According to Physicalism, consciousness can be entirely explained by the body and the brain: "It is now a canon of neuroscience that any mental experience can be associated with some specific pattern of neural firings" (Chorost, 2011, p. 33). For example, by tracking blood flow with an MRI, we can tell if a person is thinking "a face or a place," a "bottle or a shoe" (Kluger, 2009, p. 15).

If we accept the physical model of the world, and reject Idealism, then what does the physical model tell us about how consciousness comes about? Let's start with something simple.

In 1959, a remarkable paper was published entitled "What the Frog's Eye Tells the Frog's Brain" (Lettvin et al). It shows how neurons in the "optic tectum" of the frog are wired to combine elementary responses in a way to make them function as "bug perceivers." Here's how they do it.

The frog's eye will only detect movement. As the authors write, "He will starve to death surrounded by food if it is not moving" (234).

The frog retina contains rods, cones, and ganglion cells, whose axons form the optic nerve. The primary receptors – the rods and cones – number a million. The ganglion cells of the optic nerve are half a million.

The ganglion cells are divided into four distinct types. These include: 1) sustained contrast detectors; 2) net convexity detectors; 3) moving edge detectors; and 4) net dimming detectors (241).

Each of these detectors has its own "receptive field." This is a portion of space that the frog sees.

In operation no.1, the sustained contrast detectors: if the sharp edge of an object lighter or darker than the background moves into the receptive field and stops, the op.1 nerves will discharge electric signals, and continue doing so for an extended period of time.

In operation no. 2, the net convexity detectors: the op. 2 detectors will discharge if a curved object moves into the receptive field. A flat-edged object, however, produces no response. Nor does an object lighter than the background (247).

In operation no. 3, the moving edge detectors: any kind of moving edge causes the op. 3 fibers to fire.

In operation no. 4, the net dimming detectors: there is an extended response if a dark object moves into the field and stops, especially if the object is large. In addition, there is a "violent and prolonged oscillation" when light is turned off" (249).

The four different types of nerve fibers have concentric receptive fields. The contrast field is in the center; then, the convexity field; the moving edge field; and finally, the outermost circle, is the dimming field (252).

The four different types of fibers are dispersed throughout the optic nerve. But when they terminate in a layered structure called the "superior colliculus," they do so in an orderly way "such that the termini exhibit a continuous map of the retina" (252).

Curiously, when the authors cut some of the nerve fibers, they grew back exactly as they were before.

The four types of fibers terminate in separate layers of the superior colliculus, also known as the "optic tectum." Each layer shows a continuous map of the retina, in terms of its own particular operation (253). For example, the op. 2 convexity layer will show a complete picture of moving convexities throughout its receptive field.

The arrangement of the four layers is associated with their speed of conduction. The contrast layer is the topmost and the slowest. Next in order come convexity, moving edge, and dimming, at the bottom.

At the end of their article, the authors draw some conclusions: 1) a lot of information has already been organized by the eye before it even enters the brain. The images on the retina consist of an "array of regularly spaced points at each of which there is a certain amount of light in a certain composition" (256).

Moreover, 2) every point is seen in context. That is, dark in the context of light, or current location in the context of former location, or large dark object moving quickly and dimming out the light. As a result, "the operations thus have more the flavor of perception than of sensation . . ." (257). The authors conclude, "the language in which they are best described is the language of complex abstractions from the visual image" (258).

The authors were able to study the frog eye by implanting electrodes into its face and brain. You can't do that with people. So, we are able to learn something about the primitive operation of our own visual system by looking at that of the frog. And what we learn is that optic fibers have specialized functions and specialized "receptive fields" within which they operate. They are also organized in terms of timing, so that some information is conveyed before others.

In addition, we learn something about "mapping." As we know, the brain maps the body. That's why we have two cerebral hemispheres. It's why we have an olfactory bulb, an occipital lobe, a temporal lobe, and a parietal lobe. Specifically, the brain maps the body's surface: the skin, the tongue, the retina. It maps the surface in excruciating detail, pixel by pixel. And, as we see in the case of the frog, the brain maps not only the pixels, but also what happens to those pixels. Are they impacted by light, pressure, heat, and so forth?

So, what we know about the world is primarily what we know about ourselves. Our brains are focused exclusively on the surface of our bodies. Whatever impacts our bodies, one way or another, is our only way of knowing anything.

Most critically, in the case of the frog, his fiber operations are geared to what the most needs to know. He needs to know about predators, and he needs to know about prey. Regarding other aspects of his environment, he seems fairly oblivious. He has no specialized fibers telling him about the symmetry of an orchid.

Also intriguing is the fact that information about predator and prey is largely organized in the superior colliculus, before it even enters the rest of the brain. You might say, it's handed to the brain on a silver platter.

Even though the information the frog gleans from his environment is limited, it's still real. What he's seeing are actual events. Those events constitute the frog's reality. What we humans see, by contrast, is not so much a different reality, but a vastly expanded one. The delivery systems for our senses have grown to tell us a great deal about the nature of our environment. And it's worth considering that if we can perceive so much more than the frog, by virtue of evolution, how much might we apprehend given even greater expansion of our receptive capacity in the future.

Seeing in Humans

Each of our five senses begins with special receptor cells. Like the frog, our eyes have light receptive neurons in the retina. These are the rods and the cones. Axons from those neurons travel through the optic nerve to the thalamus, the brain's way-station. From there, signals are sent to the occipital lobe, where they are processed, and sent to the frontal lobe, where they are integrated with signals from other sensory systems (Astraye, 2016).

Now, to be more precise*:

1. light rays bounce off objects and enter your eye.

a. objects absorb all colors except the color they already have.

b. for example, a red apple reflects red because it already has red.

2. they pass through the clear, outer cornea and into the black pupil at the center.

3. the light rays are focused by the lens.

4. from there, the rays go to the retina at the back of the eye.

5. the retina contains some 130 million (M) photoreceptor cells:

a. 10M RGB cones to distinguish color, clustered mainly at the retina center.

b. 120M rods to capture light, even in the dark, clustered on the sides.

6. light hitting the receptors activates the protein opsin, which changes shape.

7. this causes the cells to be hyperpolarized to the negative.

8. the receptor cells then fire across synapses to a layer of bipolar cells.

9. there are "on" and "off" bipolar cells.

a. the on bipolars send a charge when light is on.

b. the off bipolars send a charge when light is off.

10. the contrast between on and off cells enables the eye to detect edges.

11. the bipolar cells send a current to the retinal ganglion cells.

a. these sit in a layer on top of all other cells in the retina.

b. they bundle together to form the optic nerve.

c. as a bundle they pass through the retina to the brain.

12. they first go to the X shaped "optic chiasm."

a. half of each nerve's axons go to the opposite side of the brain.

b. this enables the brain to combine information from both eyes.

13. from the optic chiasm the nerve cells travel to the "lateral geniculate nucleus."

a. this is located in the thalamus, the brain's relay center.

b. from there nerve cells are combined in the sheath-like optic radiation.

c. this is a thick band of tissue connecting the thalamus to the visual cortex.

d. the optic radiation goes to the primary visual cortex (V1) further back.

14. V1 contains a map of visual space

a. it relates a point in the visual field to a location in the map.

b. V1 then projects to V2.

15. V2 splits the visual information into two streams.

a. the dorsal stream goes to the parietal lobes on top of the brain.

i). the parietals are responsible for the way you sense your body.

ii). the dorsal stream is called the "where" pathway.

iii). it deciphers where things are in space, including you.

iv). it helps in detecting motion.

b. the ventral stream goes to the temporal lobes on the sides.

i). the temporals are responsible for recognizing objects.

ii). so, the ventral stream is called the "what" pathway.

iii). it helps in object and face recognition.

iv). it parses out color, size, shape,, and orientation.

v). it connects to memory.

16. In the dorsal & ventral streams, V3-V8 perform specialized visual functions.

a. V3 for motion, angle, direction, and symmetry.

b. V4 for color, orientation, form, and movement.

c. V5 for speed and direction of moving stimuli.

d. V6 for motion in the periphery of the visual field.

e. V7 for perception of symmetry.

f. V8 for the processing of color.

17. Some information passes to the frontal lobes where it is assessed for meaning and significance.

18. Finally, visual information is bound together along with information from the other senses into a single "frame" (Blakeslee, 232-237).

The brain has traffic signals. They're called "inhibitory interneurons." Just as actual traffic signals cause a number of vehicles to bunch up together on red and then proceed in a single batch on green, just so the interneurons bind sensations together in packets. The inhibitory interneurons fire forty times per second and send a wave that sweeps the brain from front to back. All sensations that occur during a fortieth of a second are thereby bound together into a single frame.

Information from auditory, visual, tactile, olfactory, motor and other sensory signals are combined. They are bound together and associated with each other within that discrete frame of time. In that way, our brain takes snapshots of the world. Each snapshot represents everything occurring within a fortieth of a second. Like a reel of film in a movie projector, the succession of individual frames, one after the other, forms our experience of the world (Levi, 2018, p. 49).

Until all information is bound into a single frame, consciousness can not occur. We don't see, hear, taste, touch, and smell separately. We experience them all together.

(References: for items no. 1-12, Astraye, 2016; for items no. 13-17, Carter, 2019, pp. 82-89; for items 13-14, Noback, et al, 2005, pp. 334-341.)

This is an overview of how the visual system works in humans. Clearly, we have come a long way from frogs. Whereas they have 500,000 photoreceptors, we have 130 million. And unlike these little amphibians, we can distinguish a vast panoply of colors, shapes, sizes, and movements. We can see backgrounds, even when nothing is moving. Our visual systems are much more detailed, targeted, and organized.

"One way to think about visual perception is to see it as the end product that emerges from a long and complicated assembly line" (Carter, 88).

But there are two big take-aways from this review. First, the material elements of vision are indispensable. It is hard, if not impossible, to see how the intricate operation of the visual system is nothing more than just the outward appearance of a hidden subjective reality. What kind of "concealed" experience could possibly be reflected in the protein opsin changing the shape of optic neurons, and leading to their hyperpolarization?

Clearly, Physicalism is a huge part of how seeing works.

Second, the actual seeing still remains a mystery. We could replicate all of the mechanics of vision that I have just described. We could create a robot. It could have a camera for eyes and a computer for a brain. And light signals from the camera could electronically pass to routers which parsed out different aspects of the image. Yet, that robot still could not see.

Or, take another analogy. The brain is like the projector in a movie theater. Both brain and projector display images in frames. In the brain, frames appear every 1/40th of a second. In the projector, it's somewhat slower at every 1/12th of a second. So, imagine a movie frame in an empty theater. With no audience, there's no experience. Even though a cast of thousands may have toiled for months over a slew of complex and intricate tasks, still, no audience, no experience.

The same goes for vision. A long assembly line of activity in the brain results in a finished product, a frame. But there's something missing. Where is the audience? Where is the viewer of the frame, so essential to making the experience complete?

So, the neuroscientists are correct. The nervous system does explain vision. But it doesn't explain it completely. Indeed, it leaves out the most important part.

Other Senses

Another example is the sense of touch. In this case "somatosensory" nerves on our skin transmit signals to peripheral sensory neurons, then to our spines, and then to our brains. The thalamus receives these signals and shuttles them along to the primary somatic sensory cortex in the parietal lobe. That's where they are processed and forwarded to the frontal lobe (Sincero, 2013).

The _Merriam Webster Dictionary_ (2014) defines sensation as "the process in which a sensory receptor is stimulated, producing nerve impulses that travel to the brain, which, in turn, interprets such impulses as a visual image, a sound, taste, odor, touch, or pain. The physical signal present in the environment emits energy that is absorbed by a sensory organ, causing sensation."

Perception comes after sensation. It is defined as "the occurrence when the brain performs organization of information it obtains from the neural impulses, and then begins the process of translation and interpretation. It is a vital process that helps us rationalize or make sense of the information related to the physical stimulus. Perception occurs when the brain processes information to give meaning to it, by means of emotions, memories, etc."

These definitions of sensation and perception take us to the brink of science. The scientific observation of activity in the brain reflects the evolution of mankind from the moment of the Big Bang to the formation of the Earth to the first bacteria to sponges and fishes and lemurs and primates and humans and brains. The marvelous complexity of the brain, with its 100 trillion synapses is the culmination of all the development leading up to it.

But yet something is missing. In the dictionary definition of "sensation," it includes the phrase, "interprets such impulses as a visual image, a sound, taste, odor, touch, or pain." Well, how exactly does it do that? Yes, we can track the movement of electro-chemical signals from receptors to nerves to brain. And we can also correlate bodily activity with specific areas within the brain where those signals wind up. But it is misleading, to say the least, to extract from that knowledge the experience of sight, sound, taste, odor, touch, or pain.

As Michael Tye observes, "For no matter how deeply we probe into the physical structure of neurons and the chemical transactions which occur when they fire, no matter how much objective information we come to acquire, we still seem to be left with something that we cannot explain, namely, why or how such-and-such objective, physical changes, whatever they might be, generate so-and-so subjective feeling, or any subjective feeling at all" (2017).

How exactly does the stimulation of neurons in the occipital lobe produce sight? If it were that easy, then, we could create a robot that could see. Robots can capture and record images, just like a camera can; just like a mirror can. And we can scientifically track the signals that produce those images. But a robot cannot see, nor can a camera, nor can a mirror. Machines do not, and can not, have subjective experiences. How, exactly, can the brain?

## Pleasure

In the 1950s neuroscientist James Olds inserted a wire electrode near the hypothalamus of a rat. He then ran a current through the wire, and observed that the rat "seemed to like it" (White, 2016).

Moreover, the rat's behavior could be conditioned. The little rodent was given a lever to activate the implanted electrode. And he "pushed the lever like crazy."

So far, we have been discussing the five senses, but all five of them have the capacity to produce pleasure and pain – or, if not pain, then at least discomfort. Pleasure and pain are also subjective experiences, and they derive from the primary sensations of seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling. So, now, let's examine the physiology of these derived sensations, with special focus on pleasure.

Two areas of the brain appear to be critical to the sensation of pleasure. These include the ventral tegmental area (VTA), and the nucleus accumbens (NAcc). When activated, the VTA releases the neurotransmitter (NT) dopamine into the NAcc. The result is pleasure.

At the same time other NTs are also being targeted to particular receptors on the surface of NAcc neurons. These include specialized receptors for opiates, cannabinoids, glutamate, and GABA (Danbolt, 2001). Dopamine, in particular, increases the amount of endorphins released in the NAcc, "which when activated produces a feeling of liking" (White, 2016).

Dopamine also activates feelings of arousal and motivation. "The increased motivation and arousal makes everything seem interesting and increases people['s] ability to interact positively with the environment" (Strom, 2016).

The VTA is the origin of dopaminergic cells, the ones that produce dopamine. It is located at the bottom of the midbrain, near the medial fissure. "The VTA plays an important role in a number of processes, including cognition, motivation, orgasm, and intense emotions relating to love, as well as several psychiatric disorders" (White, 2016).

The VTA, in turn, is part of the limbic system, which also includes the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, hypothalamus, ventral palladium, the cingulate cortex, and the NAcc. This region constitutes the brain's "reward circuit." The limbic system receives input from the five senses, and – somehow - produces pleasure (Fink, 2016).

"Basically, the spontaneous firing of neurons in this region gives rise to sensations of pleasure or gratification" (Pandit, 2018).

"The so-called 'pleasure center' of the brain was discovered in 1954 by James Olds, who was an American psychologist, and Peter Milner while he was a postdoctoral fellow at McGill University. Olds and Milner stumbled on the pleasure center after they implanted electrodes into the septal area of the rat and found that rats became addicted to pushing a lever that was stimulating the nucleus accumbens (NAcc)" (Bergland, 2014).

The limbic system is involved in a wide range of emotions, constituting a third order of subjective experience, beyond mere pleasure and pain. For example, a tumor in the amygdala is associated with anger and rage. Charles Whitman the Texas Tower shooter was afflicted with this condition. The olfactory areas and the hippocampus trigger memories that affect our moods. And the feeling of pain is the only sensory modality with its own build-in emotion: suffering (Fink, 2016).

The amygdala, in particular, receives signals from all five senses. It functions as the gateway to the limbic system. It helps determine whether stimuli are rewarding or aversive. The amygdala activates dopamine cell bodies in the VTA. Plus, it projects to the hippocampus to create memories of the experience.

The hippocampus transfers information from short to long term memory. It functions as the control center of the limbic system. It projects to the pituitary gland and the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Both the amygdala and the hippocampus project to the prefrontal cortex. This is where planning and judgement take place, concerning the correct behavior in a given situation (Pandit, 2018).

In sum, the senses collect information from the environment and send signals to the brain about the presence of a stimulus. Memories remind us of the experience. Then the brain sends signals to other parts of the body to engage in behavior. At the same time, neurons in the reward center release dopamine, which "provides the sensation of pleasure," (Pandit, 2018).

In looking at the causes of pleasure, I have delved more deeply into the way the brain works. I have isolated particular areas, such as the VTA and NAcc, and particular neurotransmitters, such as dopamine and epinephrine. Science has uncovered how these parts of the brain function, and has demonstrated conclusively the link between them, our feelings, and our emotions. Yet, as Aaron White (2016) tells us, something is still missing.

"The bigger question, for which there is no answer, is how activation of pain/pleasure pathways leads to the conscious experience of pain/pleasure."

Maybe one of the analysts in the following sections will answer that question.

## Gilbert Ryle

In 1949, Oxford philosopher Gilbert Ryle published _The Concept of Mind_ , where he coined the phrase "ghost in the machine." His intent was to debunk the idea of some kind of spirit entity residing inside our bodies, doing all our thinking for us. Ryle was a lecturer at Oxford University in the mid 1900s, and the founder of "ordinary language philosophy" (Witthuhn, 2014).

Ryle's main target was Descartes and the whole notion of mind-body Dualism. The 17th Century philosopher proposed that mind and body were two separate entities, and that mental acts determine physical acts.

Ryle countered that "mind" is a philosophical illusion. Descartes, he claimed, made a "category mistake," in supposing there exists a separate ghostly entity apart from the body. This mistake was based on a misuse of language. It would be like contrasting the phrase "She came home in a flood of tears" to the phrase "She came home in a sedan chair" (Jackson, 2002).

These are not different ways of arriving home. Nor are they different types of mood. One thing is a conveyance, and the other is an emotion. They belong to separate categories altogether. Descartes's mistake, Ryle says, was to categorize body and mind as equivalent substances, the one being material and the other ghostly (1949, p. 198).

"Mind," Ryle claims is not a separate kind of substance. It is simply a way we have of describing physical behavior. The workings of the mind, he says, "may be better conceptualized by the actions of the body." Philosophically, this places him in the school of "behaviorism."

Much of what we consider mental activity is what Ryle calls "dispositions." For example, "knowing, believing, detesting, learning" are not acts, at all. They are more like what we mean by "possessing," as in "possessing a bicycle" (197). Unlike acts, these words do not occur at a particular point in time. That is, we don't say, "I know French at 5:00 PM," but we do say, "I bought a candy bar at 5:00 PM."

Furthermore, we don't use action qualifiers for these words. We don't say, "I am believing quickly," or, "I am detesting efficiently." Moreover, real action verbs can be broken down into their component parts. "Walking to the store," for instance consists of moving in a given direction, placing one foot in front of another, looking at street signs. But knowing and believing are irreducible. They can't be broken down into component parts (Tanney, 2015).

So, all of this is to say, it's a mistake to equate "detesting" with "shopping." It's a category mistake, because they aren't both actions. They are different sorts of things altogether.

If we understand the difference between the two terms, according to Ryle, "We shall then be out of danger of supposing, as epistemologists often have supposed, that knowing and believing are very peculiar processes, namely occult processes" (1949, 198).

It is absurd, he says, to treat "know" or "believe" as an action – an "occult sort of action" – simply because we never witness anyone actually doing it (197).

To repeat, so-called mental words like knowing, liking, learning, believing, hating, these are not acts. They are dispositions. And each of them is associated with actual, observable behaviors. For example, "learning French" is associated with looking up words in a dictionary. "Hating asparagus" is associated with not eating asparagus, and avoiding the asparagus counter at the supermarket (200).

So, if these mental terms are not actions, then what are they? They are, Ryle says, dispositions to do things, and we recognize them by the things that people do. That is, we see dispositions by way of observing people's behavior.

Propensities and dispositions can be explained by the behaviors involved in wanting something. Motives are manifested by a person's actions in any given situation. In other words, what we consider as mental properties can more accurately be categorized as descriptions of behavior.

Having disposed of dispositions, Ryle then takes on the subject of perceptions. Again, perceptions are thought to be ghostly acts, in the Cartesian framework. But perceptions, he argues, don't need to involve any of the five senses. Nor do they need to involve any kind of sensations at all.

In addition, we don't report perceptions. In the example "I am seeing a cat," we report the cat, but we don't report a "seeing experience," per se.

To take another illustration, suppose three people looked at the same word on a page. The educated person might see a misspelling. The child might see the word. And the illiterate would simply see a black mark. In each case, there is really no thought process involved. There is no inferring or reasoning. There is no time delay. Each person is just reporting what they already know – or don't know. They aren't "thinking."

As Ryle asks, if it is not true "that the thinking that enters into perceptual recognition, identification, comparison, etc., is inferring, then the search for its fundamental premises is the search for nothing. Why assume that it's thinking at all" ( _SEP_ , 2015, "Behaviorism").

In summary, Ryle is a behaviorist. The attraction of behaviorism, he observes, is it doesn't insist on "occult happenings." We can settle disputes about whether someone is in pain, for example, by pointing to their behaviors. It isn't unknowable.

He accepts the privacy or secrecy of dreams, imaginings, and "silent soliloquies." He just denies the ghostly aspect. He says, "Rather than construe someone who pictures his nursery as the spectator of a resemblance of his nursery, he should be construed as resembling a spectator in his nursery" (1949, p. 234).

In other words, according to Ryle, we can describe the first person experience in much the same way we describe a third person experience – by looking at their behavior. To him, "mind" is just a word we use for observable behaviors and unobservable dispositions (1956, p. 345).

Gilbert Ryle is a giant in the field of consciousness. His innovative and iconoclastic bursting of everyday assumptions is a wonder to behold. And much of what he says regarding dispositions and perceptions makes a lot of sense. Perhaps, in many cases it's just a misuse of words. We think "knowing" and "shopping" are the same sorts of action, because we use them in similar ways in ordinary conversation. But they're not.

But, here is my problem. To me, consciousness basically boils down to seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling. Everything else is built on these five senses. So, Ryle explains the derived aspects of consciousness, such as dispositions and perceptions. But these are what Chalmers calls the "easy problem." Ryle, in my opinion, does not explain the five senses, or the intimate, subjective experience that each of them gives us. He does not explain the "hard problem."

Ryle, however, does give us a clue. Using his method reveals something intriguing about the five senses. They are not actions. Seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling are not the same thing as walking, shopping, and eating. In the phrase, "I see a cat," for example, I am not actually doing anything. I am looking at the cat. That's what I'm doing. But as a result of looking at the cat, I'm seeing her. Or, consider the example of smelling perfume. The action that I perform is sniffing. As a result of that action, I am smelling.

On the other hand, the five senses are not what Ryle calls "dispositions." They aren't inclinations or generalized descriptions of a set of behaviors. They are actual experiences occurring within a specific frame of time. If you slap me in the face and I feel pain as a result, That is an actual event. And it's not illusory. The pain is real.

So, what we discover is that every sensation can be broken down into two parts. The first part is an action verb: looking, listening, sniffing, eating, and pressuring (in the case of touch). And the second part is a result of that action. Seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling are all responses we have to the actions we perform. They are not actions in themselves. But they are real experiences, nonetheless. Moreover, they are experiences robots don't have. Robots, cameras, and mirrors - all of them "look." But none of them see.

## John Searle

John Searle is Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. He has published numerous books and articles on the subject of consciousness. And in every one of them he has shown himself to be a relentless opponent of Idealism.

He calls it a "bad idea." He cites Bishop Berkeley's assertion that physical objects don't really exist; and that empirical reality is basically nothing more than sense data. This, says Searle, is the "worst possible theory" of consciousness imaginable.

Berkeley's theory is "representative," in the sense that he's saying you don't really see an object. All you see – all you can ever see – is a representation of the object. Searle disagrees.

Searle then proceeds to outline his theory of consciousness. It all revolves around the philosophical concept of "intentionality." This doesn't mean what you think it means.

In philosophy, intentionality refers to the way that the mind is directed at objects and states of affairs in the world. It comes from the Latin tendere which means to stretch or spread. It is "as if the mind were a mental bow whose arrows could be properly aimed at different targets" (Pierre, 2019).

Mental states are "about" things. That is, they are intentional states. And the things they're about are intentional objects. Every intentional state has an intentional content. In the sentence, "I see the dog," the dog is the content. In the sentence, "I believe it will rain," the rain is the content.

The content, in turn, determines "the conditions of satisfaction" of the mental state. It is through the content that the state is linked to its object.

In other words, take the example of the dog. Your mind takes aim at the dog, and the dog itself satisfies what the mind is aiming at. Or, more precisely, all the features of the dog define what the mind needs to know about the dog. They provide, "the conditions of satisfaction."

This argument has the appearance of circularity. It seems to be turning around on itself. However, Searle is making a larger point. And that point is there is no visual experience apart from the object. He distinguishes between two types of awareness: awareness of a table, and awareness of a sensation. But this is just another case of a "category mistake," because whereas you can be aware of a table, you cannot be aware of a sensation. And that is because the sensation is the awareness!

The table is an object of perception. The the visual experience is not. You cannot see the visual experience, "because it is the seeing." In other words, logically, you cannot see the seeing. It is not a thing.

Searle calls this type of awareness "direct realism," meaning what we see is the object itself, not the seeing of the object. For example, when you hit a table, you don't hit the hit. When you smell a rose, you don't smell the smell. The seeing of an object is not an object of perception.

It is wrong to think of a perception as a representation, Searle says. This is because the connection between the object and the perception of it is too immediate and direct. Unlike beliefs and desires, a perception gives you a direct presentation of objects and states of affairs in the world. It is always about the here and now.

Part of that perception is causation. You perceive the object as causing your perception of it. "There is no way I could be seeing the thing unless there was a thing."

For example, Searle explains, imagine what happens when you don't know what you're perceiving. Say, you hear a loud noise. You may not know what the object is, but you do know for sure that whatever it is, it grabbed your attention. It caused your perception if it.

So, there is clearly a causal component in perception, and that component is part of the perception. We experience the world as causing us to have these experiences.

Searle illustrates his point with the color red. What is it, he asks, about the raw perceptual experience that causes us to see red? His answer is "It's part of what it means for something to be red that it's capable of causing experiences like this." What you have is an object in the world and a conscious visual experience, and both "are the same in every case." The event going on in your head is simply "an event in the world like any other."

For me there are three big take-aways from Searle's philosophy. First, he is radically opposed to Idealism, which he deems the "worst" solution to the consciousness issue. Second, he believes there is no middle-man between an object and our perception of it. Just like when you hit a table, you're not hitting your hit; just so, when you see an object you're not seeing your sight. You are seeing the object directly.

And third, objects in the real world are what's important. Our perceptions are determined by those objects, and not the other way around. When he says, "It's part of what it means for something to be red that it's capable of causing experiences like this," he's saying it's the object's redness that is causing the experience. It's not our subjective interpretation of it. Consciousness, then, is basically a "presentation" of reality.

You have a direct presentation because, he claims, the visual experience has intentionality. That is, it is "about" something. It is aimed and focused toward that something. And the presence of that something "satisfies" the aboutness.

So, in effect, Searle feels there's nothing exceptional about consciousness. It's simply an event in the world, like any other. And it's the result of a set of clearly observable causal events.

In sum, his argument is not so much an explanation of consciousness, but a denunciation of Idealism. Physical objects are real, he insists. They are not figments of our imagination. They are what cause our sense of them.

## Daniel Dennett

Philosopher Daniel Dennett, currently Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, had been a student of Gilbert Ryle at Oxford. Like his mentor, he denies that consciousness even exists. He agrees with others that, "Human consciousness is just about the last surviving mystery" (2003). But it's a mystery based on the fact that it's an illusion. He calls it a magic trick. It's like when a magician saws a lady in half, and you ask, "How does he do that?" The simple answer, Dennett responds, is he doesn't do it. The magician really doesn't saw the lady in half.

At the heart of the illusion is the notion of qualia. There's really no such thing, Dennett states. The supposed features of qualia – that they're incorrigible, ineffable, intrinsic, private, but directly accessible – are incompatible with each other, and therefore incoherent. There is nothing, he says, that satisfies this description (1993).

In his seminal work, _Consciousness Explained_ (1991), Dennett divides his time between denouncing what he refers as the "Cartesian Theater," and advancing his own theory of the "Multiple Drafts Model."

Even after removing the element of qualia from Rene Descartes' dualism, there still remains a model of consciousness that Dennett considers false. The Cartesian Theater depicts mental images as if they were scenes played out on a Stage. They appear to happen in Real Time, for the delectation of an Audience of one, the Self. All this, according to Dennett, is wrong (Schneider, 2007, 313).

There is no Stage. There is no Real Time. There is no Audience, he claims. The notion that the brain contains a central place where all impressions are integrated and presented to the "mind's eye" is erroneous (2001). The brain does not have a central processing unit – a CPU.

To illustrate his point, Dennett cites the example of the "color phi phenomenon." A demonstration of this effect can be seen at http://www.yorku.ca/eye/ colorphi.htm. A green circle is separated by a few degrees from a red circle. At first, the green circle appears by itself. It flashes on and off, after which the red circle does the same. But what the viewer sees is the green circle gradually turning into the red circle as it moves from left to right. How is it possible, Dennett asks, for the viewer to see the green turn into red before the red circle flashes?

Dennett (1991) says there are two incompatible ways of interpreting this phenomenon. You could say the mind interpreted the first flash, but then altered its interpretation after the second flash. Or, you could say the mind held both flashes in abeyance, and came up with a composite interpretation at the end. Dennett contends there is no way of proving which interpretation is correct. Therefore, he concludes, "there is no concrete place or time in which material is or is not in consciousness."

In place of the Cartesian Theater, Dennett proposes the Multiple Drafts Model. At any given point in time, various narrative fragments are running through different parts of our brain. They resemble a stream of consciousness, in which a huge jumble of associations are floating around in our heads. These fragments only come together when the brain is probed; for instance, when we ask a question.

"Some or all of them may come together in the event that they need to determine a behavior for the organism" (Schneider, 2007, p. 314).

Suppose, for example, you are sitting in a coffee shop, and the coffee machine emits a loud noise. Suddenly, you become of aware of it because your mind probes for an answer to what just happened.

"Of course, introspectively, we do have a sense of having sequences of events flowing through consciousness. Dennett does not deny this. But this sense is not due to there being a central place or time in the brain where consciousness comes together, or relatedly, to there being a self as viewer of the events" (Schneider, 2007).

So, what gives us the impression we have subjective experiences? It's parallel processing. There is no central place where consciousness takes place. But our brains do massive amounts of parallel processing. And part of that is to create a concept of "self" out of a web of words and deeds. That unified concept is a convenience, for advancing our prospects for sex, food, and other rewards. The self, Dennett says, is "the center of narrative gravity." It's just how we organize the story our brain constructs. We create a sense of time and space, and orient our "selves" within it (Schneider, 2007, p. 315).

There really is no such thing as consciousness and no such thing as self, Dennett claims. Our brains are just very sophisticated computers.

Dennett belongs to the school of computational functionalism. This view was first expressed in the "Turing Test." That is, if you encounter an individual who seems conscious, then, assume they are. If they look, act, and respond the way a conscious person would, then, they passed the test.

In this view, mental states are constituted solely by their functional role. The function of pain, for example, is to produce the belief that something is wrong with the body. Any machine that can perform the same function, according to Turing and Dennett, "must be considered to have mental states, just like a human."

Dennett (1995) takes issue with the concept of "philosophical zombies." What does this mean? Well, a zombie is dead, but seems to be alive. Philosophical zombies, then, appear to have subjective feelings and emotions, but really don't. But the distinction between human and zombie is phony, says Dennett. If so-called zombies can act just like humans, then that's what they are.

After all, Dennett observes, it was a mindless process of natural selection that resulted in the evolution of the brain and human consciousness" ( _Encyclopedia Britannica_ , 2019). We are, in fact, composed of some 100 trillion little cellular robots, not a single one of which is conscious. Not a single one knows who we are (2003).

Since _Consciousness Explained_ , in 1991, it has become "widely accepted that processes in the brain are massively parallel and that there is no centrally located homunculus that views all experiences passing before it" (Schneider, 2007, p. 316).

However, as Dennett critic, David Chalmers observes, " . . . philosophers sympathetic to problems involving qualia may urge that while it might be a promising scientific theory of the information processing involved in consciousness, by itself, it does not answer the hard problem of consciousness" (Schneider, 2007, 319).

He adds, ". . . if one finds the hard problem to be a rich and compelling problem, Dennett's Multiple Drafts Model does not yield a satisfying answer. For, as discussed, what Dennett is ultimately defending is a sort of computational functionalism, together with the view that consciousness is a highly distributed activity in the brain" (320).

In other words, Dennett may explain the mechanical side of consciousness, but he leaves the "hard problem" of qualia unaddressed.

## Antonio Damasio

Antonio Damasio is a neuroscientist, strongly rooted in the physicalist perspective. He is a Professor of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Philosophy at the University of Southern California, where he heads the Brain and Creativity Institute.

Unlike some of his colleagues, he humbly admits at the outset, "It would be ridiculous to proclaim that we know how we make consciousness in our brain" (2011). Yet, he forges ahead with a strictly physicalist explanation based on his thesis that, ". . . body and mind are different aspects of specific biological processes" (2011).

For him, it all starts with the brain. Networks of neurons come to mimic different parts of the body. They represent a body map, constituting a "virtual surrogate." Damasio (1999) calls the arrangement a "neural double" (38). For that reason, the brain is primarily about the body, which is a "natural topic" of the mind" (39).

Consciousness is what emerges from this linkage between body and mind. It renders "the sense of self." For Damasio, it goes beyond merely being awake and attentive. It involves "an inner sense of self in the act of knowing."

More specifically, consciousness is a state of mind "in which there is knowledge of one's own existence and of surroundings." It is a particular state of mind, tied to the particular organism in which the mind is operating. That state of mind involves knowledge that the organism is "situated" and that there are objects and events surrounding it. It is "a state of mind with a self process added to it" (71).

For Damasio, consciousness is defined by self, and self is defined, primarily, by body. In human evolution, he sees three stages of self. These are the "proto self," the "core self," and the "autobiographical self."

In the primitive proto self, the mind simply maps the body. The brain stem creates a "tight coupling" between itself and the interior body, so that every part of the body is represented by a counterpart in the brain. This coupling, Damasio (2011) observes, is "exquisitely topographical." The emergence of mind results from reciprocal signaling between the body and the brain stem, and the brain stem and the cerebrum.

The proto self arises out of a fanatical obsession with homeostasis. The brain has to be exceedingly self-centered, in order to keep an "infinite sameness" in the way our basic bodily functions are regulated. Otherwise, we die.

In the core self, the mind forms a relationship between the organism and an "object-to-be-known." And in the autobiographical self, the mind links memories of prior experience and future expectations with the core.

The core-self renders a sense of personhood in the here and now. While in the autobiographical-self, language comes into play, informing both memory and reason. The individual can conceptualize an integrated past and future, constituting a self identity.

With the primitive proto-self, there are only bodily "dispositions" (144). The individual need not even be aware of these dispositions. They are simply inclinations to act. We "life-forms" just did things without knowing what we were doing.

In the more advanced core self, "mind" emerges as what Damasio calls a "self-referencing" of disposition. It's as if the individual thought (non-verbally), "Hey where's that drive to eat coming from? I know. It's coming from here!"

In the process of self-referencing one's own dispositions, mind constitutes an image. The image is a general term for mental representation. What's represented are our body maps. And by imaging them, it enables the brain to use them consciously. That's what happens in the core self.

What we experience is mapped in our neurons. And what is mapped becomes images in our consciousness (55). These include sights, sounds, touches, smells, tastes, pains, and pleasures (70). These are all terms for what Damasio calls "images."

Finally, in the autobiographical stage, the actual "self" is a self-referencing of that image. In effect, you picture yourself. When that happens, we are conscious.

Even though Damasio is a neuroscientist and a physicalist, unlike others, he does not derogate the importance of feelings. Our brains have what he calls "action programs" (Pontin, 2014). These are sequences of reactions to internal or external threats. For example, we have action programs for thirst; action programs for predatory attack.

Once the action program is deployed and the brain has done its job of mapping what is happening to the body, then, Damasio says, "that leads to the emergence of the mental state" (Pontin, 2014). That mental state is our qualia, our feeling. And feeling, he maintains, is where mind begins.

To me, of all the physicalists, Damasio offers the most sensible and coherent explanation for consciousness. He does not deny the reality of the self. On the contrary, he makes it the centerpiece of his argument. The self emerges because, quite naturally, the body has to be self-centered. It has to be in order to survive.

His explanation for brain mapping echoes what we have already seen in the frog's eye article. Not only does the brain map all parts of the body, but in the process of doing so, it also maps everything that impacts the body's surface. And those impacts are the only way we have of knowing what's going on in the world around us. Our body maps are our world maps!

So, Damasio takes us takes us right up to the edge of understanding. But to me, he stops short. And he admits it. He asserts body maps produce "mental images," which correspond to feelings. This is something he flatly asserts, without much explanation or proof. Yet, that's the main issue.

In sum, Damasio does an excellent job of describing the brain-body connection and the issue of self. But the matter of qualia remains open.

## Artificial Intelligence

In 1980, John Searle devised a thought experiment that became famous in philosophy. It was called "The Chinese Room" (Cole, 2014). Here's how it works. A man sits by himself in a closed room. Through a mailbox slit in the wall, Chinese speakers outside the room pass him a note. The note is a question written in Chinese characters. The man, who knows nothing at all about Chinese, uses a book of instructions to match the characters in the note with a set of corresponding characters. He then passes the note back to those outside. They read his responses to their question, and they draw the conclusion that the guy in the room must be a Chinese language wiz!

For example, suppose the calligraphy was "how are you," in Chinese. And suppose, the instruction book said when you see this string of characters, output another string of characters, which mean "fine." All this could be done without any comprehension.

The point Searle was making is that it's entirely possible for a computer or a robot to look like it understands language, but, in fact, be perfectly oblivious to its own responses. Substitute "behavior" for Chinese, and "computer program" for book of instructions, and the result is evidence that you shouldn't be fooled by an apparently intelligent machine (Cole, 2014).

Searle's illustration is a direct response to one of the founders of computer intelligence. In 1950, Alan Turing devised the "Turing Test" It held that if you had a conversation over the phone with what, unbeknownst to you, was actually a computer, and you were convinced you were talking to a person, then you can conclude you were talking to an intelligent being. In other words, if it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.

Searle said no. And with the Chinese Room he showed the error of the Turing logic. At the heart of his argument lies the distinction between syntax and semantics. Syntax refers to symbols and their arrangement. For example, the proper arrangement of numeric symbols is "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc." Semantics refers to the meaning of those symbols. For example, the meaning of numeric symbols is quantity, and it's how we measure the relative amounts of things.

To take another example, in English the usual arrangement of elements in a sentence is – subject, predicate, object, as in "I see you." But in French it's – subject, object, predicate as in "Je te vois." The syntax is different. But the meaning, in either case, is that I am having a visual experience of you. And there's no way you can derive this meaning purely from its syntax.

Computers just deal in syntax. Computer programs are basically associating one kind of symbol with another. For example, associate "01110011" with "s." This is something computers can do without any understanding whatsoever of what they're doing.

In 1984, Searle laid out, in simple terms, the reason why syntax, by itself, cannot render semantics (Cole, 2014).

1. Programs are purely formal (syntactic).

2. Human minds have mental contents (semantics).

3. Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of, nor sufficient for, semantic context.

4. Therefore, programs by themselves are not constitutive of, and not sufficient for minds.

What Searle is saying is that machines cannot be conscious. It's not just because we aren't technologically advanced enough. It's because it defies logic.

Still, regardless of Searle's objections, the search for an intelligent machine goes on. A ray of hope shined on the AI community in 1997, when IBM's supercomputer beat Gary Kasparov at chess. Kasparov was the world chess champion. Yet, he conceded in dismay to "Big Blue" after only eleven moves.

An even greater coup occurred in 2011. IBM's super-duper computer Watson trounced not one, but two all time winners on "Jeopardy." Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter had each won millions of dollars previously on the show. Jennings had achieved an unprecedented run of 74 winning games in a row. At the end of their three day challenge, Rutter had won over $21,000; Jennings over $24,000; and Watson over $77,000.

This was all the more remarkable because Jeopardy – unlike chess – is a word game that relies heavily on language and inference. Afterwards, Jennings commented, "I feel obsolete."

Today, efforts are ongoing to top even Big Blue and Watson. In Europe the Human Brain Project aims to create a functional computer system of the whole human brain. They expect that within a few decades, they will have produced an "intelligent, sentient humanoid" (Hay, 2019). Indeed, Marvin Minsky, founder of MIT's AI Lab, noted that "psychology could turn out to be like engineering."

In his blog on AI, Maciamo Hay lays out an optimistic view for robots."

"In a few decades, intelligent and sentient humanoid robots will wander the streets alongside humans, work with humans, socialize with humans, and perhaps one day will be considered individuals in their own right. Research in artificial intelligence (AI) suggests that intelligent machines will eventually be able to see, hear, smell, sense, move, think, create and speak at least as well as humans. They will feel emotions of their own and probably one day also become self-aware" (Hay, 2014).

Philosopher Daniel Dennett (2018) tears down several of the barriers to making AI possible. First, he dismisses the question of semantics. Who knows what anyone really "means" when they do something. For example, when the howler monkey screeches at the sight of an eagle, what's he saying? Is it, "I'm scared," or "Look out," or "Take cover"? And in the comment, "Tom has a thing for redheads," is it really worth agonizing over the precise meaning of the word "thing"?

Dennett says, "Don't try." It's a "fool's errand." Rather, he says, we should talk about what people report as their inner experiences. This means we should adopt the third person point of view, rather than the first person point of view. In effect, this means don't talk about inner feelings. Just focus on what people say and do.

The fallacy of semantics, Dennett (1987) contends, is the notion that we have some central agent in our brains processing all our experiences. He says, "None of this means there's a fixed point in the brain where the drafts are adjudicated and the thinking gets done. There is no such privileged place."

Instead, he believes the brain operates, much like a computer, through massive parallel processing. And, he adds, the best way to model the brain is through "Bayesian nets." These are probability models for discrete parts of our life. For example, suppose you want to know whether to water your lawn. Well, the key entities are: lawn, weather, sprinkler system. Each is causally connected to the other. Assign probabilities to each causal link, and let the program play out. That, says Dennett, is how the mind works.

Finally, having overturned our concept of semantics, and our concept of self, he adds one more item for good measure. "Another pervasive error . . . is the doctrine of qualia." In other words, feelings don't exist. Or, at least, we shouldn't waste our time studying them. Thus, Dennett provides the philosophical rationale for the artificial intelligence enterprise.

Robert Reply (2014) goes after the semantics argument in another way. Suppose, he says, you're a robot. And you store the symbol "cat" in your memory. Then, you go out into the world and you associate those symbols with other symbols, such as fur, meow, licking, etc. Don't those associations elevate your symbols into semantic meanings?

Searle says no. He offers an expanded version of the Chinese room. Suppose, in addition to the note with Chinese calligraphy, you also have a ticker tape, spewing out a stream of binary digits – 0's and 1's. These symbols are the digitized output of a video camera's images. Now, your instructions direct you to pair some Chinese with some digits. So, what? You still have no meanings. All you have is an association of symbols which, to you, mean absolutely nothing.

As Giulio Tononi (2016) puts it, computers and mathematics just transform symbols into symbols. They do not, and cannot transform symbols into meanings.

Searle (2002b), by taking his position on the Chinese Room, seems to be denying Physicalism. But that is not the case. Instead, he believes, "Conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain . . ." (9). He's still a physicalist. But he thinks it's only biology, and not machinery, that can produce a mind.

Other objections to AI include the fact that we simply aren't there yet, in terms of technology. After all, the brain contains 86 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. "Current computer power is insufficient to model an entire human brain at this level of interconnectedness" (Bishop, 2019).

But regardless of our future level of technology, others feel that AI simply fails the test of logic. "Still, it must be recognized that an artificial sentience may never truly be able to experience qualia as we understand them, and therefore never reach a state we would define as conscious." So concluded a panel on "Qualia and Artificial Sentience" (2018).

Roger Penrose (2019), best known as the Oxford mathematical physicist who collaborated with Stephen Hawking, offers additional logic against AI. There are true statements in arithmetic which can never be proven arithmetically, he explains. Therefore, "Any mechanical, algorithmic process is based on some kind of formal system. So there will always be some truths which computers can't prove, but which human beings can see are true! So, human thought can't be just running of an algorithm.

Finally, a further difficulty arises. Even if we ever overcome the problems of semantics and qualia, we still face a dilemma: if machines did have feelings, how would we know?

"Surely the subjective nature of consciousness means that we can never know if a computer is experiencing emotions, and can never have a concept of what it is like to be a computer. So are such discussions doomed to be fruitless exercises, or does the panel simply accept the Turing-esque definition "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."? After all, the only way I know the panel aren't all automata is by inference...!" (Scott, 2019).

Late lamented comedian Groucho Marx slyly quipped, "One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know" ( _Your Dictionary_ , 2019).

Could a computer ever understand that joke? Could it unravel all the semantics? And if so, would it be amused? So far, the situation looks bleak for AI. But then that casts a shadow over Physicalism in general. If we can never make machines conscious, then how do those who regard humans also as machines, explain how we have consciousness in ourselves?

## Physicalism Conclusions

In the previous section we reviewed whether consciousness can be explained in strictly physical terms. We looked at science and philosophy. The science tells us how we arrived over time at our present state. The philosophy tells us whether there is any possible way to understand the subjective experience of our present state in an objective way.

The Science

Looking back on history, it's pretty clear how we evolved from a chain of material events. In the tiniest imaginable fraction of a second after the Big Bang, everything was one thing. And that one thing was pure energy. It was the underlying substance for all that followed, and that substance was physical.

After that, in quick succession, one thing split into two, two into three, and so on. Gravity separated; then, the strong force; then the weak force; then, matter. In each case the basic underlying substance endured, only in different forms, and always physical.

From the first three minutes, up to about 3.5 billion years ago, as far as we know, the Universe was lifeless. Space dust turned into galaxies, which turned into solar systems, which turned into planets. So, at least for 10 billion years, presumably there was no such thing as consciousness. If we just concentrated on those 10 billion years, the question of consciousness wouldn't even occur to us.

Then, 3.5 billion years ago, the first bacteria appeared on Earth, and with it, the first life. Is that when consciousness arose? Or, was it 2.7 billion years ago with the first plants? Or, was it 570 million years ago with the first animals?

Again, looking at the physical record, it appears that neither bacteria nor plants had anything like a nervous system. But animals, on the other hand did, and they had to. Sheer physical necessity required them to develop nervous systems in order to survive. Being heterotrophs, animals were – and are – constantly faced with the challenges of eating, or being eaten.

Being heterotrophs, also meant respiration. They had to breathe oxygen in order to convert food into energy. This gave them "anima," the breath of life, or, what some consider the soul. Thus, animals are creatures with "souls;" that is, creatures with a mind.

But, from the start, all of this was physical. And when we examine brain development, we see what looks rather much like a complicated machine. Science presents us with a very convincing story about how the brain emerged, in adaptation to its environment. Specific areas like the optic tectum, amygdala, thalamus perform specialized functions like visual orientation, fight or flight responses, memory.

These areas are wired together by what looks like the work of a master electrician. The brain contains 86 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses, enabling communication by way of chemical and electrical signals, travelling along some 500,000 miles of axon and dendrite filaments. Many of these signaling systems were already present at the dawn of life on Earth. How can anyone dismiss the physicality of nature, given what we know about how things work?
The Philosophy

That sums up the science. So, now let's turn to the philosophy. To me, John Searle is to Physicalism as Bernardo Kastrup is to Idealism. He has written extensively over a period of decades on the subject of consciousness. He renounces Idealism, but then his challenge is to describe subjective experience in purely material terms.

I think he partly succeeds in the following ways. First, he argues that we perceive objects directly, rather than through a sense object in our minds. The so-called sense object isn't an object at all, but actually our process of sensing what's out there. As he says, we don't see seeing.

Searle also argues that every experience has an object, which lies at the center of perception. The object and its features dictate how we view them. This roots perception solidly in the world of physical things.

The problem I have with Searle is that perceptions are based on sensations. That's what Merriam-Webster's dictionary tells us. Searle does an admirable job of explaining perceptions. But, to me, he short-changes the whole subject of sensation. How can we have "intentionality" without sight, sound, touch, taste, or smell? Where do the basics of subjective experience come from? How can we talk about intentional contents and conditions for satisfaction, without explaining how the initial awareness of these factors occurs?

I believe this is a fair indictment of the other philosophers of Physicalism as well. Gilbert Ryle would have us believe we are philosophical zombies. Our intentions and motives are written in our behavior. What, if anything, lies behind that behavior is of no concern. Daniel Dennett agrees. We are made up of mindless elements – organs, cells, chemicals, etc. So how can they all combine to make a mind?

Dennett's answer (2003) is the "Multiple Drafts Model." For any given event we have a wide array of associations. We have a stream of consciousness. When called to account for what's taking place, our brains piece together a coherent explanation after the fact, by picking and choosing from the stream. This creates the appearance of a conscious mind, that doesn't really exist. As for the "self," Dennett says it's a fiction we create in order to organize our narrative of events.

Antonio Damasio has, I think, a better explanation for self. The brain is mapped to our bodies. And from that linkage, we recognize a self. That may be a good way of describing our core identities, but it hardly gets to the question of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell.

That's what I shall address in the following sections.

Back to top

# WHAT TO USE

_Introduction_

Now, it's time to put it all together. In the previous sections, we looked at the three main schools of thought on consciousness. These include Dualism, Idealism, and Physicalism. We presented some of the leading thinkers in each of these three categories. Every one of them has his own unique approach. And every one of them has something of value to contribute.

We have also gone into some detail on the human brain, how it evolved – literally how it emerged since the beginning of time - and how it processes sensations. Particular focus has been placed on the sense of vision.

My purpose in examining how the brain works and on seeing, in particular, is this. Most people believe that's where consciousness comes from. Moreover, that is the prevailing view in science. We look to the brain to understand how consciousness happens. And even though we don't presently have all the answers, still many in the scientific community believe it's just a matter of time until we do.

Others would disagree. They think it's a fool's errand to pin all our hopes on the brain and nervous system. They maintain we need to look elsewhere for the answers.

In the following three sections, I will screen out what I consider the best and the worst ideas from the theories of Dualism, Idealism, and Physicalism. Then, I will throw in some notions of my own. The next three sections will offer components for a new theory of consciousness. They will list the main ingredients of our recipe for the mind.

Once we have assembled all the ingredients, then we will construct a new theory building on the best of the old combined with an infusion of the new. Before arriving at that point, however, let's first take a look at: What to Keep, What to Cut, and What to Add.

## What to Keep

Following is a list of concepts from Dualism, Idealism, and Physicalism which I think are worth retaining.

1. Qualia are the fundamental elements of consciousness.

2. Subjective experience is the only way we have of knowing.

3. The Universe, as a single substance, came first (priority monism).

4. The basic ontology – or substance – of the Universe is physical.

5. The brain is the outcome of the material events of evolution.

6. The brain is the seat of consciousness.

7. Consciousness is, in part, the result of a neural mapping of the body.

8. Consciousness is also, in part, a top-down process.

9. The "combination problem," is an argument for a top-down approach.

10. The "top" of top-down is the "cosmic ultimate."

11. We, and all sentient beings, are part of that cosmic ultimate.

12. Consciousness is as fundamental as space, time, and mass.

13. The Universe is "a unitary conscious entity".

## What to Cut

Following is a list of concepts which I think should be omitted from our theory of consciousness.

1. Idealism – or a non-physical ontology – as the basic substance of the Universe.

2. Dualism – or body plus mind – as two opposite substances of the Universe.

3. Soul, as mind.

4. Alters, as "relative subjects" of the cosmic ultimate.

5. Dissociation, as the means by which alters are distinguished from each other.

6. Impingement, as the way the cosmic consciousness enters the mind of an alter.

7. Turbulence, as the way "relative subjects" form from the cosmic ultimate.

8. Panpsychism, as the view that even rocks and molecules have consciousness.

9. Behaviorism, as the sufficient explanation for consciousness.

10. Mechanics, as a sufficient explanation for consciousness in the brain.

11. Parallel processing as a sufficient explanation for consciousness in the brain.

12. Artificial Intelligence, as a replication of the sentient mind.

## What to Add

Following is a list of new concepts which I think should be added to our final theory.

1. Qualia as the terminal response in a chain of actions and reactions.

2. Sentient verbs as composed of active and passive components.

3. Sensing – or qualia – as knowing.

4. Knowing as being.

5. Top-down plus bottom-up as working in combination.

6. Top-down plus bottom-up as completing a circuit

7. Unified, physical substance as ultimate.

8. Unified, physical substance as ubiquitous.

9. The nervous system as a form of access.

10. The nervous system as the product of evolution.

11. Enhanced access as the product of evolution.

12. A Universal Mind as a unified quantum field.

13. A Universal Mind as the embodiment of all knowing.

14. A Universal Mind as the source of consciousness.

Now, you have the ingredients. Some of them may not yet be self-explanatory. But in the following sections, I will put it all together.

Back to top

# A NEW THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS

_Introduction_

Physicalism and Idealism have something in common. Both deny the reality of the other. Plus, both deny the reality of Dualism. So, we are left to choose either one of two camps. But I think there are good ideas on both sides, and in the following sections I will combine those ideas with some of my own to construct a new theory of consciousness.

While I have pledged to avoid any esoteric or exotic new forms of jargon, I am giving this new theory a name, which, I hope, will serve an illustrative purpose. For reasons that will soon become obvious, I call it "Consciousness and the Universal Mind."

Over the ensuing nine sections I will unravel what this theory is all about, and present both logic and evidence to back it up. It all starts with the concept of "Knowing." This is the key. After that, I will separately discuss individual components of the theory: "Cosmic Ultimate," "Ultimate Truth," "Top-Down," "Bottom-Up," "Bottom-Up/Top-Down Interface," "Modes and Means of Experience," "Epiphany;" then finally, the "Theory" itself.

So, here we go.

## Knowing

Consciousness begins with the five senses, with seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling. Even though they each give us different and unique impressions of our world, they all have one thing in common. They all are about knowing.

The five senses form the basis for all of our feelings, such as pleasure and pain, heat and cold. The five senses plus our feelings form the basis for our emotions, such as love and hate, joy and depression. The five senses plus our feelings and emotions form the basis for our thoughts, such as the thoughts we're sharing right now in this essay.

In every case, however, whether we're talking about seeing, or happiness, or jealousy, it all boils down to knowing. Our senses – our qualia – give us critical information about our environment and about ourselves. Some of this information may be abstract, but much of it is visceral. Consider the kiss. You can describe it in words, and that will give you some understanding of what it's all about. But words are no substitute for the actual sensation. And that sensation delivers a powerful message.

Here's another example. Consider the parable of Mary. She grew up in a black and white room, which she never left. She spent all of her time reading books and watching black and white TV. As a diversion, she decided to study the color red. Given all her spare time, she became something of an expert. Ask her pretty much any question about the color red, and she could give you an answer. But one day, they let her out of the room, and she entered a garden bursting with red flowers. She was amazed. Now, for the first time, she was seeing red itself. And she was learning something she never knew (Gulik, 2014).

Our senses enable us not only to know our world, but they are the only way we have to accomplish that knowing. They are both necessary and sufficient. And when you take away any of them, our knowledge of the world suffers.

So, sensing is knowing. To that, we can add: knowing is living. Life begins with the onset of consciousness, and it ends when consciousness stops. Take away one or two senses, and we are diminished. Take away all five senses, and we fall into a coma. Imagine having a heartbeat, but no senses, no feelings, and no thoughts. You are in a "vegetative state." That's when they pull the plug.

Investigators have a term for this. They call it the "philosophical zombie." That's how they describe a being who has all the appearance of life on the outside, but no subjective awareness whatsoever on the inside. The word "zombie" suggests that such a person is really dead; the walking dead.

However we may appear to other people, our life is our subjectivity. Our internal world is where we live. And we are most alive when we find ourselves present, in the moment, and entirely focused and captivated by what's happening to us now. Think of the kiss.

So, sensing is knowing, and knowing is living. To that, we can also add: living is pleasing. John Searle makes the point that most of us underestimate sight. Vision is so commonplace, we take it for granted. Yet, what a miraculous thing it is. Whether it's the grandeur of a mountain range, or a lover's face, or simply a piece of paper on the sidewalk on our way to work, we achieve information through what we see. And that achievement is always a kind-of pleasure.

Indeed, when we think of the senses, we think of the enjoyment they give us: a delectable taste, a melodious sound, an electrifying touch. Living is a positive thing. Most of us vastly prefer it to the alternative. And we cling to life because of the pleasure of living. Even in pain, even in sorrow, still we cling to life. And we do so because it is a positive experience.

So, sensing is knowing; knowing is living; living is pleasing. These aren't different types of experience. These aren't even different aspects of the same thing. These are all the exact same thing. These are all knowing. And knowing is what consciousness is all about.

## Cosmic Ultimate

The Unified Force

In the beginning, the Universe was one. Then it became many. This isn't airy mysticism or some kind of superstitious babble. It's science.

The Universe was one. Then it became many.

The Universe began in a unified force with nearly infinite energy. This was the situation during the Planck Epoch. Within the space of one second as many vast and momentous developments took place as subsequently occurred over the next 13.7 billion years after that.

Within one second, the unified force morphed into gravity, the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, and matter. After that, it took a very long time to produce life, sentience, and consciousness.

One way to see this is as a process of realization. We see an unfolding – or an unpacking – of all the latent potential emanating from that original unified force. It was not an accident. The Planck Epoch lead to the GUT Epoch, then to the Inflationary Epoch, and so on. All this emergence was baked in from the very start.

But it wasn't until sentient beings first appeared, that the products of creation doubled back on themselves. It wasn't until then that we not only existed, but knew we existed. It wasn't until then that our actuality became real to us. That was the moment of our realization.

And this realization was also baked in from the start. It was inevitable. After all, by definition, the Universe is all there is. That's why we call it "Uni," or "One." And in the Planck Epoch, the unified force was all there was. So, anything that came after it had to be a product of that force. It's not like some outside element interceded and altered the course of destiny.

So, just like gravity or electromagnetism, consciousness emerged from the unified force because it was an inherent property of that force to begin with.
The Ultimate Force

Bernardo Kastrup and Itay Shani talk about "ultimates." An ultimate, they say, is the basic component of something. It's when you break an entity down to its fundamentals, beyond which you can no longer subdivide. In the case of Physicalism, for example, the ultimates are quarks and leptons. Starting with these elementary particles the Universe emerges from the ground up.

But consciousness is different. Kastrup and Shani argue it doesn't make sense to build consciousness from the ground up, because nothing that it might be constructed from contains any of the properties consciousness requires. Quarks and leptons, atoms and molecules – have none of the attributes of sentience.

Instead, they say, don't look down. Look up. The ultimate for consciousness comes from the Cosmos. The Universe itself is conscious. Furthermore, the consciousness of the Universe is ultimate consciousness because it is unitary. You can't break it down into something more singular.

In that case, our consciousness derives from a cosmic ultimate. It comes to us from the top-down, and not from the bottom-up. And this makes sense. We know already that consciousness comes from the unified force. It has to. That means consciousness is an inherent property of the unified force. Everything that exists is part of that force, including us. Whatever properties we have come from it. For consciousness, therefore, the unified force is the ultimate force (UF).

## Ultimate Truth

I agree with Kastrup and Shani about the cosmic ultimate. But I disagree with them about the nature of that ultimate. I think the Universe is entirely material – entirely physical. It's made up of matter and energy, and nothing else. To me this is born out by the science of cosmology, evolution, chemistry, physics, and biology, and also by simple logic.

So, how is that possible? How can the Universe be both material and conscious? Supposedly, materialism and consciousness don't mix. In response, I could just shrug my shoulders, hold up my hands, and go, "Eh! How should I know?" I could even offer the usual cop-out explanation, "The Universe can do whatever it wants to do. It is the ultimate force!"

However, I'd like to take a crack at coming up with an explanation. So, here goes. For us, as humans, and for all other sentient beings, knowing is living. Knowing is being. But for the Universe – and only for the Universe – being is knowing.

That's the key.

The ultimate force differs from us in several important respects. 1) It's ubiquitous. 2) It's eternal. 3) It's self-conceived.

Being ubiquitous, the UF contains everything. You, me, the planets and the stars are all part of it. Nothing lies outside of it. Being eternal, the UF contains everything that ever was or ever will be. Being self-conceived, the UF is realized through itself. Nothing else can do this. Nothing else can create itself. But scientists believe that's exactly what happened in the Big Bang. The Universe created itself.

Being ubiquitous and eternal not only means the UF contains everything, but also that it has knowledge of everything. All the knowledge about every entity, every event, every interaction, every cause and effect are all contained within the UF. And this knowledge existed long before we ever discovered it for ourselves. And it will exist long after we are gone.

For example, consider the Higgs Boson. It was only within the past few years science discovered its existence. But the fact of its existence was always true. Long before we ever found it, or even thought of it, the Higgs Boson was the cause of mass in elementary particles. This and many other truths are contained within the Universe, even when they're unknown to us.

The knowledge contained within the Universe is all encompassing. It ranges from the extremely abstract to the extremely concrete. But at the most fundamental and most concrete level, knowledge comes from embodiment. That is, it comes from the fact that everything is physically part of the Universe; and from the fact that the Universe embodies – is the body of – everything.

Being the embodiment of everything, the Universe contains, not only second person and third person, but also first person knowledge of everything. It knows what it's like to be you and me. It knows what its like to be a rock.

And this type of knowledge is non-verbal. It's immediate and visceral. The UF feels what you feel. Or, more accurately, the Universe knows what you will feel.

For example, consider the apple. The Universe embodies the apple. It knows everything there is to know about the apple. So, when you look at the apple, the Universe knows what you will see. When you eat the apple, the Universe knows what you will taste.

Another example is music. The impact of music is visceral. You can describe it in words, but that's not the same as experiencing it directly. The visceral meaning of music is contained within its harmonies. So, here is an example where the knowledge of how you should feel when you hear it is baked into the music itself.

In a sense, this is what Searle has in mind when he says, "It's part of what it means for something to be red that it's capable of causing experiences like this."

It is an example of how everything in the Universe contains knowledge of how it will affect you. And if the Universe embodies everything, and everything contains that sort of knowledge, then the Universe as a whole must, too.

Finally, Universal knowledge is a product of self-conception. The Cosmos made itself real. That happened at the time of the Big Bang. And it continues to this day. Every time we see, hear, taste, touch, or smell, it is an act of the Universe knowing itself.

Self-conception is the essence of the Universe. It's how it came into being. And that applies not just to the Universe as a whole, but to everything it contains. It applies to the realization of an apple, of the Earth, of how apples fall to the Earth. The Universe embodies the ultimate truth about everything.

We humans strive for such knowledge. But we don't have it. For the Universe – and only for the Universe – being is knowing. Being is truth.

## Top-Down

Consciousness hits us from two directions: bottom-up and top-down. Most Physicalists and some Idealists take a bottom-up stance. Physicalists think consciousness emerges from atoms, molecules, nervous systems, and brains. Some Idealists like Chalmers think that everything – including atoms, molecules, etc. – is already endowed with consciousness. From those microscopic entities, they say, greater consciousness develops.

Other Idealists, however, take a top-down stance. Kastrup and Shani, for example, believe there is a unitary cosmic ultimate; in effect, a conscious Universe. And from that ultimate, our human minds derive. In fact, they go further and contend that the Universe itself is immaterial. It's not really made up of matter and energy. All that is a kind of illusion. To them, the basic substance for everything is consciousness itself, and we are all living in a sort of dream.

I believe that both sides are correct; or, at least, partly correct. The physicalist view of the world is also the scientific view. It's also the common-sense view. I don't think atoms, molecules, fire and ice are illusions. And I do think the biology of our nervous systems is a critical factor in the development of our minds.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone has come up with a strictly mechanical explanation for consciousness. And it seems likely that no one ever will. So, something besides our physical bodies has to be involved. And that's where top-down comes in.

The Universe is based on a single ultimate force. Everything that exists emerged from that force. Everything that exists emerged from the laws contained within that force. The advent of gravity and electromagnetism, of quarks and neutrinos, was not an accident. They are the orderly and inevitable projections of the unitary Planck Epoch substance.

In other words, the Planck Epoch substance had to be more than a mindless smear. After all, it contained the parameters for everything that emerged from it. The seminal knowledge for everything had to be enclosed within that substance.

This includes knowledge about the visceral meaning of experience. The Universe embodies us. So, the Universe is in the unique position of knowing not only exactly what kind of experience we are having, but also knowing how that experience should affect us in visceral – or qualia – terms.

This means we have access to ultimate truth. We have access to the knowledge of the Universe. It's in us. The only question is how do we get to it.

## Bottom-Up

Consciousness begins with sound waves, light rays, tactile pressures, olfactory and gustatory molecules. These stimuli emanate from objects in our environment. It's basically how they tell us "I'm here. Pay attention!"

These stimuli make their way to us where they impact the surface of our bodies in particular ways. They strike our retinas, eardrums, nasal cavities, tongues, and skin. Special sensory receptors on those various surfaces are activated by the stimuli that hit them.

Sensory receptors then send electrical charges to neurons in the nervous system branching into every part of our bodies. As we have seen, these neuron cells communicate with each other by way of axons, dendrites, and synapses. The string like axons send signals to the fibrous dendrites by way of tiny electric charges that arc over the open space between where axons and dendrites meet.

Throughout the nervous system neuron activates neuron all the way from the body's surface to the brain. When signals finally reach the brain, they distribute themselves to specialized entities. These include the brain stem, the occipital, parietal, temporal, and frontal lobes, the limbic system, the cerebrum, and others.

These entities then send signals to each other by way of both electrical signals and neurotransmitter chemicals, such as dopamine.

So far, so good. This is how the bottom-up part of perception looks like. But now we run into a couple of problems: Where does the process of stimulus-response, stimulus-response finally end? Where, if anywhere, is the terminal response? Where do we come to a point when the message is not only relayed from one station to another, but actually, ultimately read?

One can imagine building a robot with similar circuitry. Tiny batteries could convey electric signals from point A to point B to point C, etc. But at no point do you ever see the emergence of consciousness. Even if point B releases chemicals into the system, or activates special machinery, we still don't see anything like a mind.

## Bottom-Up/Top-Down Interface

The Connection

If consciousness cannot be explained mechanically, then, it has to be explained by something else. That something else, I contend, is where bottom-up meets top-down.

In effect, the body is a delivery system, like UPS. It tells the Ultimate Force, "Here's what I have." And the ultimate force responds, "This is what it means."

The duality of sensation is expressed in the words we use to describe it. This is an insight gained from Ryle. Whenever we say, I see, hear, taste, touch, or smell, we really are saying two things. We are describing: (1) an act we perform, and we are describing: (2) something that happens to us as a result of that act. For instance, we declare, "I taste the soup." What we really mean is, "I put some soup in my mouth, and, as a result of that, I had a sensation of taste."

We are combining an active verb with a passive state. But because we casually combine both meanings in a single term, it sounds like a single act. And that is why Ryle would rightfully accuse us of thinking we had a ghost in our machine. It seems like we are doing something when we see, hear, taste, touch, or smell. But we have no evidence whatsoever in our bodies or our brains of such an act being performed.

And this is because we really are not doing something. We aren't performing "an occult sort of action." Rather, something is being done to us. And this is where the ultimate force enters in.

For example, consider the apple. Light rays emanate from the fruit to our retinas, where they are conveyed along the optic nerve to our brain. The brain broadcasts a constellation of signals. The ultimate force reads those signals and creates a vision. It creates the sight of an apple.

The "sight" of the apple is visual knowledge. It's information about the apple conveyed, not in words, but in qualia.

That sight is what consciousness is all about. It gives us an inner life. It gives us a reproduction of the world around us, which we can then imaginatively play with to our heart's content.

In the case of the apple, the UF has knowledge of what it should look like. It has knowledge of how it should taste. And it communicates that knowledge to us. On our own, we do not have that kind of knowledge. But when we connect with the UF, we get it.

What we feel is the realization of the being of things. The interface is where knowing-as-being and being-as-knowing connect.
What Connection?

Consciousness results from the interface between brain and UF. But if both sides are material – as opposed to ideal – then, shouldn't we be able to observe that interface in action? If both brain and UF are physical entities, then shouldn't we be able to see them?

John Searle observes that seeing is not a thing. It's a process. The same might be said of hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling. The interchange between us and the UF is also a process. Perhaps, it is akin to what happens when elementary particles find themselves in a force field – such as the Higgs Field. The result is mass. In effect, the Higgs Field (aka the "God particle") is creating reality.

We don't see this interface between particle and Higgs Field. It may be we would need a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way to do so. But we do see the results. We see particles with mass, on the one hand. And we see the Higgs Boson – or at least a trace of it – on the other.

Perhaps the reality of our consciousness is created in just such a way.

## Modes and Means of Experience

Modes of Experience

Seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling give us very different sensations. You might almost ask, why are we lumping them all together? After all, what does the smell of perfume have to do with the sound of a horn?

We combine all these modes under the heading of "the senses." And we do so for good reason. Even though they are very different in terms of what we get out of them, they parallel each other both physically and mentally. Physically, they all receive stimuli from the outside. They all travel through the nervous system. And they all arrive at specialized processing areas in the brain.

Mentally, they are all "subjective." That is, they are experiences that somehow happen inside of us, hidden from view from outside observers. In fact, they are so hidden, that many have questioned whether they exist at all. Gilbert Ryle calls them the "ghost in the machine."

Ironically, even though some people think sensations – or qualia – don't even exist, others believe they are the most important aspect of our lives. Our feelings and our emotions are what give us life. Tell it to someone who has just lost a loved one; or tell it to someone who has just gained a loved one. Tell them that they're not really feeling anything. See how far that gets you.

On top of the compelling subjective aspect of our sensations, to me there is something else they give us of paramount importance. And that is "knowing." They are how we know anything and everything. Without them, we know nothing. And without knowing, we are brain dead.

So, as diverse as our sensations are, they are all just different ways of achieving the same thing: knowledge of the world. Therefore, in the interface where bottom-up meets top-down, we have five different pathways going up, but only one pathway coming down.

We humans, and other sentient beings, have evolved in adaptation to our environment. In particular, we have developed the senses we need in order to survive. So, dogs have an acute sense of smell. Owls have an acute sense of night vision. At the other extreme "blind" bats have an acute sense of hearing. And some birds have an extra sense the rest of us lack. They can detect magnetic North.

So, we have different ways of obtaining knowledge, adapted to the circumstances of our species. But they are all different ways of getting the same thing. And when bottom-up interfaces with top-down, the top-down part is that one thing that the different modes of sensation need. That one thing is knowledge, in its purest form.

When we acquire that knowledge, we receive it differently because of our different modes of sensation. In effect, we have different filters. But the bottom line is: that's an apple. Whether we see it, touch it, taste it, or smell it, however we come to know it, knowledge is the end result.
Means of Experience

Perception is the degree of access we have to the source of ultimate truth. That truth - and the knowledge it holds - remains perfect. Our ability to access it, however, is flawed.

Our nervous systems are the bottom-up part of consciousness. But they can be injured, or impaired, or simply worn down with age. We can become blind or deaf. Or, we can willfully shut down our senses through inattention or ignorance. People who work in animal shelters, for example, and whose charge it is to euthanize their wards, learn to block out sights and sounds that might otherwise interfere with their jobs.

Over billions of years, evolution has enabled some of us to access our environments better than others. A rock, for example, is as much a part of the ultimate force as the rest of us. But it has no access to that source whatsoever.

A frog's vision adequately serves his purposes. However, in terms of the depth and breadth of information it conveys, it pales in comparison to ours. The frog has 500 thousand photoreceptor cells. We humans have 130 million. We can see colors and details and movements that the frog is blind to. To be sure, both we and the frog are seeing the same reality. We just see more of it.

When bottom-up meets top-down, the frog receives from top-down only that part of reality that he captures and broadcasts. If his nerves only enable him to collect the pattern of lights in a moving edge, then that's the vision he obtains.

We humans are far superior to the frog in terms of our capability to receive and transmit information from our environment. But we still have a ways to go. Our sense of smell, for example, is puny compared to that of a dog. Man's best friend has 225-300 million smell receptors versus 5 million in humans. Our canine pets can smell 1000 to 10,000 times better than we can. The olfactory cortex in their brains is forty times larger than ours (Vinod, 2019).

Both we and the dog are living in the same world, surrounded by the same truth. We just see more of it than he does. He smells more of it than us.

Differences in consciousness exist not only from one species to another, but also among individuals of the same species. We stand in awe of geniuses of remarkable perception. Consider the giants of literature, of art, of music. Consider Shakespeare and Chaucer; Van Gogh and Michelangelo; Beethoven and Mozart. They seem to be able to see, hear, and feel things most of us cannot. It is hard to imagine what their inner lives – their subjective consciousness – must be like.

In particular, these people of genius seem to see more deeply into the truth. They seem to have a greater depth of understanding in terms of sights, sounds, or emotions. It's not just that they sense things differently than the rest of us. They sense things better. They see truth more clearly.

It is notable that when asked where their inspirations come from, many of these geniuses answer that that the inspirations seem to come from an outside source; that it's not strictly something they worked out on their own. But rather it was more like someone was whispering in their ear. James Taylor, for example, said that's how much of his music came to him. He would simply have the entire piece, from beginning to end, suddenly pop into his head.

The key is he was "open" to hearing it.

## Epiphany

Even though most of us do not fall into the category of "genius," many of us still experience our moments of rare insight (Levi, 2018) . Suppose the following to be true – that the ultimate force is the top-down part of our conscious minds. How, then, could we discern whether our perceptions come purely from our brains, or from the Cosmos, as well?

Not by miracles. It doesn't make sense that the UF would violate its own system of logic to make a point. If the UF is perfect, anything that subverted it would abrogate its order. Also, not by appearing before us. After all, the Universe already appears before us everywhere we look. Even if the UF were to appear in the form of a person, then we would have every good reason to doubt that person's claims, unless, of course, he performed miracles. But that would violate his order.

So, what's left? How else could the UF make itself known to us? The answer, I believe, is through insight. The UF would not change its own mind, but it certainly could change ours. It could make us see basic truths about the Universe, about its beauty and coherence, and about ourselves, that we would be unable to perceive by ourselves. It would give us an epiphany.

The _Cambridge Dictionary_ defines epiphany as "A moment when you suddenly feel you understand, or suddenly become conscious of, something that is very important to you." They go on to explain, the word epiphany originally referred to "a powerful religious experience" ("Epiphany"). And it seems to come from an external source, often as "a manifestation of God...that is tangible to the human senses" ( _Gotquestions.org_ ).

In her book Epiphany, Elise Ballard (2011) further defines "epiphany" as,

"A moment of great or sudden revelation; an intuitive grasp of reality through something usually simple and striking; an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure" (front).

Ms. Ballard is an actress and filmmaker, whose debut documentary was about Buda Dog Races in Buda, Texas. She does not appear to be affiliated with any religious group or have any particular spiritual ax to grind. Instead, she wrote her book because her own personal experience made her curious about that of others.

So, epiphanies have the characteristic of being: seemingly from an outside source, surprising, sudden, important, and fulfilling. Epiphanies are not like when we work out a problem in our conscious thoughts. They are not even like they come from us at all. They are much more like they come from outside.

Indeed, the word epiphany is from the Greek "epiphaneia," meaning "appearance" or "manifestation" (Ballard, 2011, p. 5). And in ancient Greece it was used to describe a revelation from the gods. Carried over to English, in the mid-1600s, it also referred to appearances of divine beings.

Ballard separately interviewed 58 luminaries, celebrities, and ordinary people about their epiphanies. Two themes stand out. First, the epiphany seems to emanate from an outside source. Second, that source seems like God. In her introduction, she describes the experience as "a portal to the Divine" (6). And she adds, "All had to do with hearing a voice, either an inner voice or one from a Higher Power" (8).

For example, actress Ali McGraw recounts that her epiphany, "made me feel that I finally could, and absolutely had to connect with a Higher Power" (29).

An Anglican deacon, helping alleviate the suffering of drought victims in Africa, tells, "All of a sudden, as clear as daylight, this voice outside my left ear said, 'Three days." (165). Sure enough, three days later, it began to rain.

Another respondent states, "It wasn't my inner voice, or a voice in my head, but a man's voice outside of me to my left...It was what you would think a Higher Being's voice would sound like" (177). And she adds, "It might sound crazy, but I know I heard it, and I know it was real" (177). Similarly, a different interview subject declares, "For me that voice was God's" (179).

Now, we have every right to be skeptical of these accounts. In a way they appear to fall into the same dubious category as near death experiences. Also, the logic of using subjective reports to validate the existence of subjective causes seems to be a tad circular.

But take it for what it's worth. The concept of epiphany has endured for thousands of years. Many people believe in it. And, most of all, almost everyone interviewed describes the exact same experience. In particular, they say the vision comes from an outside source.

## A Top-Down/Bottom-Up Theory

Summary of the Concept

Consciousness is like plugging a wire into an electric outlet. The bottom-up part is the wire. And the top-down part is the outlet. Our nervous system is like the circuitry connecting two terminals: the stimuli we receive from the environment, at one end, and the wall socket the wire plugs into, at the other.

Let's extend the analogy a little more. Consider the diversity of appliances in our homes. Some deliver sights, like the TV. Some deliver sounds, like the stereo. Some deliver touches, like the razor. Some deliver smells, like the atomizer. They all convey different sorts of experience. But despite their diversity, they all plug into a single outlet. They all get turned on by a single electric force.

Until they're plugged in, they're all just fairly useless pieces of furniture. Even though some of them contain very complex and ingenious engineering, by themselves, they are inert.

The Universe, however, is like a vast power grid. On its own, our body is similar to one of those household appliances. Its circuitry is simply a set of wiring travelling in all directions. But when it plugs into the socket, then it becomes energized.

The process of plugging into the ultimate force of the Universe is an act of converting information into realization.
Summary of the Argument

I have argued that consciousness has two parts: bottom-up and top-down. Specifically:

1) Bottom-Up. Outside stimuli impact the surface of our bodies, activating specialized receptors. Those receptors, in turn, initiate a chain-reaction of neurons, leading from our body's surface to our brain. Once in the brain, electric and chemical signals travel to various areas responsible for sensory processing.

But there's a problem with this view of the nervous system. There seems to be no terminal point; no point where all of the signals are consolidated, and where somehow they can produce a unified impression. In the words of Thomas Huxley, quoted earlier, "How is it possible that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue?"

2) Top-Down. The top-down part of the argument rests on two assertions: first that the Universe is material, that it consists of matter, energy, and nothing more; second that even though the Universe is material (just like us); it contains a different kind of knowledge. It contains a kind of knowledge we could never have on our own.

That the Universe is material is the general view. It's also the scientific view, and it's based on our understanding of several billion years of cosmic evolution. The alternative view holds that the Universe is not material, but, rather, is made up of consciousness itself – a kind of spiritual substance. As Huxley suggests, how can "things" be conscious?

I agree that he is partly right. We humans, and other sentient beings, cannot produce consciousness on our own. The bottom-up part is insufficient. It does not and cannot tell the whole story.

But the kind of knowledge that consciousness consists of does come from somewhere. In my view, It comes from one place and one place only. It comes from the Universe.

How? How is that possible? It's because the Universe is different than us in some fundamental ways. First, the Universe embodies everything and everyone. It started out in the Planck Epoch as a single unified substance. That substance then took on many forms. Nevertheless, we are all still part of the unified substance that produced us.

The Universe embodies us. And that means it has knowledge of us inside and out. Nothing else has that advantage. I embody myself, but I don't embody you, or my computer, or a mosquito. To me these are all external. They aren't part of me. But for the Universe, and only for the Universe, they are all internal. They are in it, and it is in them.

The Universe differs from us in another fundamental way. It was conceived through itself. It started out as an act of self-realization. That continues to the present. The same cannot be said for the rest of us. We are not self-conceived.

The combination of universal embodiment and self-conception explains how the Universe has consciousness. Through embodiment, it has knowledge of everything and everyone. It has knowledge of us not just in the abstract, but intimately. Through self conception, the Universe realized itself into being. The very existence of the Universe was an act of knowing, and still is to this day. And the knowing of the Universe is contained in everything it embodies.

So, the Universe knows what it's like to be an apple, or what it's like to be you and me. It knows how we project ourselves to the world. And it knows what that projection means in terms of how it is received. The Universe knows how everything looks, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels.

As Searle (2013) maintains, "It's part of what it means for something to be red that it is capable of causing experiences like this . . ." It's capable of causing the perception of red.

On our own, we can't know these things. We don't embody the things we observe. Nor do we conceive them. But when our senses capture information about them and relay that information through the nervous system, we connect to the terminal source of knowledge. We connect to the ultimate force.

3) Being and Knowing. The interface between top-down and bottom-up is where being-as-knowing meets knowing-as-being. This can be expressed in the following formula:

B = K > K = B

The formula starts and ends with being. And in the middle, being is mediated by knowing. Being-as-knowing switches on knowing-as-being. The Universe gives us the experience of living by giving us the capacity for sensation.

The key to this interchange is the concept of being-as-knowing. As discussed in the previous section, this is how the Universe can be both material and conscious at the same time.

And I have argued that the Universe can be both material and conscious because it's different than us. The Universe is a product of self-conception. The Big Bang resulted in a unified force of energy that, at the same time, contained knowledge of everything that followed.

Being self-conceived, it not only knows everything, but it also knows what it knows.

That knowledge is the form of its being. And it contains: how everything is, what everything does, and the effect of what everything does on everything else. It contains the idea of sights, sounds, tastes, touches, and smells.
Summary of the Evidence

I have just described a bottom-up/top-down theory of consciousness. In the prior section, I summarized the arguments to support this theory. Arguments, however, are no substitute for proof. People were captivated when Einstein revealed his General Theory of Relativity. But they were convinced only when they saw how light actually bends around a massive object. Even for Einstein, proof matters. Therefore, in this section I will marshal some of the evidence to support the theory.

1. No other explanation fits. The strongest evidence for the theory may be the lack of evidence for any other approach. As Sherlock Holmes famously observed, "When you have eliminated all of which is impossible, then, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" (Conan Doyle, A., 1926).

Physicalism fails to explain qualia. Idealism fails to prove cosmopsychism. After all these years, consciousness, as Chalmers tells us, remains, "the most mysterious phenomenon in the Universe."

2. Materialism is proven. We live in a physical world, made up of matter and energy, and nothing else. One person alone could be wrong. One person alone might be dreaming about an apple and thinking it's real. But how likely is it that several people would be having the same delusion? How likely is it that 7 billion people would be having the same delusion? How likely is it that all of our scientific observations and knowledge are wrong? Idealism may be a convenient way to explain the phenomenon of consciousness, but there is no proof to support it.

3. Bottom-Up is proven. There is plenty of science to support how our nervous systems operate. Consider, for example, the ingenious discoveries about the frog's eye. In addition, we have ample FMRI evidence about how electric signals travel along our neurons and wind up in specialized areas of our brain.

What bottom-up fails to show, however, is where all these signals terminate. Where is the end point where everything comes together to compose a single unified perception?

Also, what is the mechanism in the brain that translates all the multiple electrical and chemical signals into a sensation? Aaron White's dilemma (2016) remains valid. "The bigger question, for which there is no answer, is how activation of pain/pleasure pathways leads to the conscious experience of pain/pleasure."

4. Top-Down Is Improbable. I have argued that even though Kastrup, Shani and others are wrong about Idealism, they are right about a cosmic "ultimate." They are right that the Universe is conscious. And they are right that the consciousness of the Universe informs the consciousness in our minds.

This may be the point where I need help from Sherlock Holmes. It's because the Top-Down notion is certainly improbable. But maybe it's better than anything else. So, here is some evidence to back it up.

a. Nothing else works.

b. Studies of epiphany, however, suggest consciousness does work, in just the way the current theory describes.

c. We are all emanations of a single, unified substance. The Planck Epoch substance, consisting of near infinite energy, is what everything in the Universe is composed of today. That substance is in us, and we are of it.

Let's take a little flight of fantasy. Suppose one of us was captured by an alien. Suppose he took us up to his mother-ship and performed all sorts of invasive and degrading experiments on us. To his amazement, he would see that he had just uncovered all the basic secrets of the Universe. What a find!

By examining us, he would discover gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. He would discover quarks, electrons photons, and neutrinos. He would see all the basic elements of the Standard Model in physics. He would see this because the Universe embodies us. It's what we're made of.

d. Consciousness is an inherent property of the Universe. Consciousness exists. That's a fact. And everything that exists is composed of the unified substance. That, too, must be a fact.

Moreover, consciousness is universal. You have it. I have it. Frogs have it. So, it's not an individual or an isolated property. It's a universal force, like gravity or electromagnetism. As such, it is a property of the Universe, as a whole.

So, if consciousness is an inherent property of the Universe, and if we are composed of the substance of the Universe, we must get our consciousness from that source. The Universe must be the ultimate.

e. In addition, if consciousness does not come from our brain, per se, then, is it like gravity? Does it work like a universal force - not part of our bodies - but yet operating inside of us?

In other words, if it isn't in our brain, then where is it?

This summarizes the evidence I have for a top-down/bottom-up theory of consciousness. The bottom-up part is well supported and needs no further proof. The top-down part, however, rests largely on "circumstantial evidence." It benefits from the view that the alternative theories don't work, and from the anecdotal testimony of people who have had an epiphany. It also benefits from solid research on how the Universe has evolved, and the place of consciousness within that evolution.

Now, in the next section, I will try to shoot holes in my own theory.

## Objections

In this section I play two roles: me the Accuser and me the Defender. First, I accuse myself of inadequacies in the theory. Then, I defend myself – against myself – to the best of my ability. Here goes:

Accuser: The whole idea of an "ultimate force" is vague and sketchy. You haven't defined what the UF is or what it looks like.

Defender: You are correct. But for the sake of explaining the current theory, it wasn't necessary that I do so. In the next section on "What the Theory Really Means," however, I will attempt to fill in some of the blanks.

Accuser: Isn't the current theory just another version of Dualism?

Defender: No. Dualism literally means two different substances. Socrates laid it out in the Phaedo. One substance is visible, the other invisible. One is mortal, the other immortal. One is "extended," meaning it takes up space. The other does not.

I reject that distinction. I reject the notion of anything that can't be observed. And spirit – or soul – cannot be observed either in practice or in principle. We simply have to take it on faith. The top-down/bottom/up theory is monistic. It holds that everything is material and therefore, at least in principle, capable of being observed.

Accuser: If the ultimate force is physical (as opposed to spiritual), then why isn't it subject to the same mechanical limitations as our brain?

Defender: As I have argued, the ultimate force is unique. It's unlike anything else in the physical Universe. Nothing else is the single underlying substance for everything that exists. Nothing else embodies everything that exists. Nothing else is conceived through itself. For all those reasons, nothing else has the same type of knowing.

Accuser: You say nothing else is "conceived through itself." But doesn't Quantum Mechanics hold that the Big Bang was not an act of "self-conception," but rather the result of random fluctuation?

Defender: Yes. The "random fluctuation" supposedly occurred in the vacuum of space before the Big Bang. But my problem with this notion is: nothing means nothing. Until the instant of the Big Bang, there was nothing; no vacuum, no space, no vacuum of space, and no time. There was no such thing as "before."

Quantum Mechanics applies to a Universe of space and time. The "random fluctuation" could only have occurred in that context. At the instant of the Big Bang, however, there was no space, there was no time, and Quantum Mechanics did not apply.

Accuser: Isn't the Ultimate Force really just another type of energy field?

Defender: Perhaps. I will discuss the question of field theory in the next section. In the meantime, however, let me say that the UF wouldn't be "another type" of energy field. It would be the single underlying substrate for all energy fields.

Accuser: What does the interface between bottom-up and top-down look like? You don't describe it.

Defender: Our brains are constantly firing patterns of neurons. Every 40th of a second these patterns are banded together, and broadcast like Morse Code. That broadcast is captured and instantly interpreted as sights, sounds, tastes, touches, and smells.

How exactly is the broadcast captured and interpreted? That depends on the nature of the ultimate force, which we will explore in the following section.

Back to top

# WHAT THE THEORY REALLY MEANS

_God_

Generally speaking, scientists hate using the word "God." They will go to great lengths to invent pseudonyms for it. For example, Kastrup refers to the "cosmic ultimate." Shani discusses the "cosmic consciousness," the "ultimate subject," and the "absolute." To them, the "G" word denotes a superstitious belief in something that can't be proven.

Moreover, we often use the word as a blanket term for everything we don't understand. For example, why is there lightening? God's wrath. Why is the moon eclipsed? God took it. Why am I suffering? God's testing me.

So, the word "God" has come to be aligned with such fanciful creatures as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. It's not something any self-respecting scientist would want to be associated with.

That's why I myself have avoided using the term until now. I didn't want to freak you out. But my notion of God is a little different than the conventional view. I don't see God as a little old man with a white beard. I don't picture him as a Zeus-like figure, gazing down from Olympus. I don't even consider him as any kind of a person - man, woman, or child.

Instead I view God as the Universe, and the Universe as God. You want to see what God looks like? Look around!

A couple of years ago, I published the book Proving God Exists: Physics, Cosmology, and the Universal Mind," (2018). The premise of the book is that the existence of God can be proven empirically. But first we need to reexamine what we really mean when we use that word.

What we mean isn't Zeus, isn't Santa Claus, isn't Superman. What we mean is a figure that is: omnipotent and omniscient; omnificent, eternal, ubiquitous, existential, purposeful, beneficent, and conscious. All of these features are logical and necessary extensions of the one most important trait: omnipotence.

By definition, God must be omnipotent. He is the All-Powerful, the All-Mighty, the Supreme Being. Anything less would not be God.

Now, where would we look to encounter such a figure? Where could we find an omnipotent being, that is also eternal, existential, ubiquitous, and so forth? There is only one place – the Universe itself. The Universe embraces all the essential features that God must have. Only the Universe.

Plus, the Universe has the further advantage that it can be observed. It is a material entity, not a spiritual one. As such it can be investigated, measured, and empirically documented. And if I am correct, that the Universe is God, then, God's existence can be proven.

So, now, let's simplify things. Let's take all the pseudonyms I have been using up to now, such as unified substance, cosmic ultimate, ultimate force, and substitute for them the one word: God.

In that case, when I discuss bottom-up and top-down, what I specifically am referring to as "top-down" is God. Our consciousness is half us and half Him. And we are seeing the world through God's eyes. Or, rather, He is seeing the world through our eyes.

Einstein (1930) alluded to this connection between man and God in discussing the "cosmic religious feeling." He observed, "In my view it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."

In my 2018 book, I divide the necessary features of God into two broad categories: omnipotence and omniscience. The one is objective and the other subjective. The objective features are easy enough to prove. They include ubiquitous, existential, eternal, and omnificent (all creative). The Universe clearly fits all these descriptors. The Universe is omnipotent.

Things get a little trickier when it comes to omniscience. Clearly all knowledge is contained within the Universe. But the Universe is more than just a repository of information. The key ingredient to omniscience is something else. The key ingredient to omniscience is consciousness.

Without consciousness, the Universe may contain knowledge, but not be aware of the knowledge it contains. And that means, without consciousness, the Universe cannot be omniscient. And without omniscience, the Universe cannot really be omnipotent. After all, knowledge is power.

Without consciousness, the power of the Universe is the force of nature. And clearly, the laws of nature dominate our lives. They have omnipotent power over us. But without consciousness, the Universe has no awareness of the power it possesses, and no control over it. Without consciousness, the Universe can't really be God.

So, I devoted many pages in the earlier book to examining the question of consciousness. There are numerous pieces of evidence to support it. But I felt that more needed to be said. If one could prove the Universe is conscious, then the evidence for God would be air-tight. Moreover, the connection between God and man would also be manifest.

Remember, the title of my book was _Proving God Exists: Physics, Cosmology, and the Universal Mind_. And so, it is the question of God's consciousness, the question of the "Universal Mind" which I will now explore.

## The Universal Mind

God Is the Rock

If God is the Universe, then everything in the Universe is part of Him. This includes you, me, my pet kitten Taffy, and it even includes such things as rocks, stones, and pebbles. God is everything that is.

This means God contains knowledge of everything that is. And that knowledge is not only abstract – like the kind of knowledge you and I have – but it's also concrete. For example, consider the rock. God incorporates all the atoms and molecules in the rock. But He also contains all of its "supervening" features. He contains its hardness, its sharpness, its grayness. He incorporates knowledge of all the ways the rock projects. And this incudes visceral knowledge of how the rock looks, feels, sounds, tastes, and smells. All of these aspects are knowledge about the rock.

All of these aspects are qualia. That is the basis for God's consciousness. It's the basis for what I call God's "Universal Mind." And the Universal Mind is the basis for our consciousness, as well. Therefore, the key to the hard problem is the Universal Mind.

That's what I shall argue in the following sections of this book. First, we'll look at the evidence – the scientific evidence – for a Universal Mind. Then, we'll explore quantum field theory, to get an understanding of what the UM might consist of. And finally, we'll draw a connection between the UM, quantum field theory, and consciousness in ourselves.
Evidence for a Universal Mind

Does the Universe think? On the face of it, that sounds preposterous. When we gaze out into space, we see a bunch of rocks and fireballs. We see blinding light and pitch blackness. We see dust clouds and rays that, at any moment, could randomly head in our direction and zap us into oblivion. Does all that look like something that thinks?

My answer is yes. It thinks. Ridiculous as that may sound, I say yes it thinks. And in this section I will present ten pieces of evidence to support that contention. However, because the evidence is both detailed and extensive, I shall begin with a simple analogy, one that encapsulates everything that follows.

Analogy: the Universal Mind can be compared to a human brain. Like the brain, the UM is located in a single body – God, aka the Universe (1). Like the brain, the UM is built for thought (2). Like the brain, the UM processes information in frames (3). Like the brain, the UM is logical (4). Like the brain, the UM has an undeniable potential for conscious thought (5). Like the brain, the UM remembers (6). Like the brain, the UM is purposeful (7). Like the brain, the UM conceives (8). But unlike the brain, the UM conceives itself (9). And unlike the brain, the UM conceives everything that exists (10).

So, now, in the order presented in the analogy above, here is evidence for the Universal Mind.

(1) Like the brain, the UM is located in a single body – God, aka the Universe.

Outwardly, the Universe looks like a vast collection of solid objects separated from each other by immense stretches of nothingness. It certainly doesn't look like a body. The distance between our sun and the next closest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.24 light years, or some 25 trillion miles. In between? Emptiness.

But looks can be deceiving. Scientists have recently created a simulation for a vacuum of space. And, it turns out, empty space is not empty. At the quantum level, it is alive with frothing, foaming, and bubbling activity (Hamer, 2017). Moreover, all of our latest scientific knowledge supports that view. Whether it's String Theory, or Loop Quantum Gravity, or Quantum Field Theory, they all point to the same conclusion. The Universe is a single body. It is connected end to end by particles and forces that bind everything together into a unified whole.

(2) Like the brain, the UM is built for thought.

P.W. Atkins, an Oxford philosopher – and atheist – declares, "The Universe itself is self-conscious" (1981, p. 71). He bases this primarily on how the Universe is structured, with three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. This means the Universe turns in on itself, like a knot. And that turning creates reflection.

In addition, others have noted how much the mega-structures of the Universe resemble the neurons, axons, and dendrites of the brain. Galaxies combine with galaxy groups, combine with galaxy clusters, combine with ten million galaxy superclusters. Each of them are connected with the others through tendrils of light.

(3) Like the brain, the UM processes information in frames.

As we have seen, the brain consolidates information every 1/40 of a second into frames. Remarkably, it turns out, the Universe does the same thing.

Scientists tell us that space cannot be subdivided an infinite number of times. You can't take an inch, and divide it in half, then divide that into half, and so forth, forever. You come to a point where the sub-dividing has to stop. That point is called the Planck length. And it's equivalent to 10-35 meters. Theoretically, if you tried to cut that tiny chunk in half, you would get two chunks the same size as the first.

Now, time is a matter of movement through space. So, that means, if space is made up of tiny, indivisible chunks, then so is time. And those chunks of time constitute a frame. The Universe processes information one frame at a time (Smolin, 2001, p. 62).

(4) Like the brain, the UM is logical.

The Universe isn't just logical. It's hyper logical. It operates according to a rigid set of laws. These include general and special relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, the laws of motion, the standard model, and, above all, symmetry. The principle of symmetry and the conservation of energy dominates all walks of life, including physics, biology, aesthetics, and even ethics (Levi, 2019). Combined, these laws work always and everywhere. They are inflexible and universal. The Cosmos is neither chaotic nor disordered. It is governed in an orderly, logical, and intelligent manner.

(5) Like the brain, the UM has an undeniable potential for conscious thought.

We can go back and forth about whether the Universe is conscious. But one thing there can be no argument about is whether the Universe has the potential for consciousness. That is undeniable. The evidence is all around us. The evidence is you and me, dogs and cats, and even frogs. We are conscious. We are part of the Universe. The Universe produced us. So the Universe must have consciousness, at least as a potential.

That potential must have existed from the first instant of the Big Bang. It must have been inherent in the Universe from the beginning. Otherwise, where did it come from?

(6) Like the brain, the UM remembers.

With powerful telescopes, we can look at events, for example, at a given location at noon 13 billion years ago. One year later, even though we have moved billions of miles away from that location, with ever more powerful telescopes, we can see the exact same events at the exact same time. In that sense, those events – and all events – are immortal. They are eternally fixed in the memory of the Universe (Levi, 2018, p. 116).

(7) Like the brain, the UM is purposeful.

Did the laws of the Universe, along with all of the elements and forces, happen by accident? Or did it all happen on purpose? Logically, those are the only two possibilities: by accident or on purpose. Two of the world's leading scientists – both of whom are atheists – say it had to have happened on purpose. Lee Smolin, one of the founders of the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity, calculates the odds of it happening on purpose as 10220 (2013, p. 197). Fred Hoyle, Cambridge astronomer, who coined the term "Big Bang," says the odds are 1040,000. These are astronomical odds. They're the closest thing we have to certainty.

So, if it's true the Universe is intelligently governed, the odds are overwhelming it's governed by an intelligence.

(8) Like the brain, the UM conceives.

In the 1677 work Ethics, the Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza inscribed his reasoning on God. "Thought," he asserts, "Is an attribute of God" (Part I, Proposition 25, Corollary). Why is that so? Spinoza answers, "Particular thoughts are modes which express the nature of God." What he means is that God encompasses everything. So, to the extent that thought exists, God must have it.

(9) But unlike the brain, the UM conceives itself.

More to the point, in Part III, Spinoza writes, "By SUBSTANCE, I understand that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; that is, that, the conception of which does not depend on the conception of another thing, from which conception it must be formed."

He defines conception as an active action of the mind. And what he means is that whereas everything is caused by something else, whatever came first logically had to be caused by itself. And, furthermore, that act of causation was also an act of conception. As he states, the original substance was "formed" from a "conception."

The Universal Mind not only conceives – like the rest of us – but, unlike the rest of us, it conceived itself. How else could it have occurred?

(10) And unlike the brain, the UM conceives everything that exists.

In the _Ethics_ , Part II, Proposition 3, Spinoza writes, "In God, there necessarily exists, not only the idea of His essence, but also the idea of all the things which follow necessarily from His essence."

And he further states in Part I, Proposition 25, "Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner."

In other words, whatever came first is the basis for everything else. And to the extent that the initial "substance" conceived itself, by the same token, it must have conceived everything formed from it.

These ten points are my evidence for a Universal Mind. The evidence may not be conclusive. Many may be skeptical, or poke holes in the reasoning. But on the whole, I think the evidence is pretty good. Good enough, I hope, to allow us to proceed to the following sections, and look even deeper into the link between the Universal Mind and ours.

## The Quantum Field
Introduction

Earlier in this book, I presented a theory of consciousness that consisted of two parts: bottom-up and top-down. What I mean by bottom-up is pretty straightforward. It's the nervous system. But what I mean by top-down remains somewhat ambiguous.

My characterizations of the top-down force has morphed from unified substance, to ultimate force, to God, to the Universal Mind. These changes are not the result of early-onset absentmindedness on my part. They were on purpose. I have been circling this topic cautiously, because I did not want to introduce it all at once.

With each iteration, I have tried to be more specific and more precise. So far, we have refined the meaning of "top-down," from unified substance to Universal Mind. In the course of doing so, I have been guided by two basic principles:

1. that the Universal Mind is ubiquitous. It is everywhere and contains everything.

2. that the Universal Mind is material. It is not some separate and unobservable spirit entity. It is solid and real like the rest of us.

Now, I would like to go one step further, before finally zeroing in on the topic of how our minds and the Universal Mind interact with each other. In providing evidence for the Universal Mind, I focused primarily on what it does. It acts logically; it behaves purposefully; it conceives.

But what exactly is it? What does it look like? If it's material, we should be able to see it. In the following sections I will attempt to answer these questions.
The Standard Model

Where do we look for something that's both ubiquitous and material? Well, we can start with the elements. The Periodic Table contains some 118 of them, ranging from hydrogen to helium to oxygen to tennessine to oganesson. These are what everything in the material world is made of.

But, of course, they aren't the final word. We know we can break the elements down even further into electrons and atomic nuclei. And we can break atomic nuclei down even further into their tiniest constituent parts. That brings us to the Standard Model.

The Standard Model has been called the most successful theory in physics, because it is always correct, and it has never been disproven. It describes the tiniest constituent parts of the Universe and how they behave.

The Standard Model describes three basic matter particles and four basic force particles. The matter particles are electrons plus two quarks: the up quark and the down quark. The force particles are photons, gluons, weak gauge bosons, and (possibly) gravitons. The status of gravitons remains a little iffy.

But that's not all. It turns out that the basic matter particles have another two different versions of themselves. These are exotic particles that have been spotted mainly in laboratory colliders, and exist for the minutest fraction of a second. For example, the two other versions of the electron are the muon and the tau, 200 and 3000 times the electron mass respectively (Tong, 2017).

Furthermore, there is an additional matter particle, the neutrino, that appears to interact with nothing. Plus we must add the recently discovered fifth force particle, the Higgs boson. So, in all, there are twelve matter particles and five force particles. Together, they explain what everything is made of and how they all interact.

But that's not all.
Quantum Fields

It turns out that particles are not the final word. Particles are just the tip of an iceberg. There are actually substances even more basic still.

The more basic substances are called "fields." And I'm not talking about places where cows graze. In quantum mechanics, fields are defined as: "the fundamental constituents of matter. They are broken into an infinite sum of harmonic oscillators, every one of which gains or loses energy in the form of quantized excitations (elementary units) which we perceive as particles under the right circumstances" (Toth, 2019).

Or, more simply, fields are: "fluid like substances spread throughout the entire universe." And they "ripple in strange and interesting ways" (Tong, 2017). Physicist David Tong calls them "the true fundamental elements of the universe" (2017).

Fields are like waves in an invisible ocean. They cover the Universe, taking specific values at every point in space. These values constantly change. Consider, for example, a rotating magnet. It radiates lines of force which we can't see. But what we do observe is how iron filings move around as the magnet spins. Or consider the electro-magnetic field. It's what enables cell phones to contact the other side of the world instantaneously. It also enables us to see light.

Individual particles are ways that fields vibrate (Robinson, 2017). They consolidate the energy of the field into tiny packets, or "quanta." For that reason, whenever we see a particle, we know there has to be an underlying field. For example, it was the discovery of the "Higgs boson" particle, after a 40 year search, that confirmed the existence of an underlying Higgs field.

Because there are 16 basic particles, that means 16 basic fields. Add to that, the Higgs particle, and the total comes to 17. With them, the Universe is alive with a "fluid and ever fluctuating exchange of forces" (Levi, 2028, p. 126).

But that's not all.
The Unified Field

In the beginning, everything was one thing. In the Planck Epoch, from the instant of the Big Bang to 10-43 seconds, there were no particles, and there was only one field. The next period after that is called the GUT Epoch, short for "Grand Unification Theory." Scientists gave it that name because at the time, everything remained one thing, until gravity split off and became a separate force.

After that, as we have seen, the Strong Force and the Weak Force, the Electro-Magnetic Force, quarks, electrons, and neutrinos also separated out. But all of these various fields and particles are different aspects of the original substance from which they were formed.

So, if fields are the basic underlying entities of the Universe, the GUT field, according to science, is what underlies them all (McMahon, 2008). It corresponds to that Spinoza calls "the first substance."

That makes the GUT field the best candidate for a Universal Mind.

At the instant of the Big Bang, the compressed unity, the intensity, and the energy of the Universe were almost infinite. And in that flash, all of the fundamental forces and laws that shape the destiny of our lives today were conceived" (Levi, 2018, p. 114).

## Consciousness and the Universal Mind
Introduction

So, here's where we stand. I have proposed that consciousness consists of two components: bottom-up and top-down. I have defined the top-down component as the Universal Mind. And I have equated the Universal Mind to the Planck Epoch quantum field, the origin of all other fields, forces, particles, and laws.

Now, to complete the theory, we need only to answer two additional questions:

1. Is there a connection between our consciousness and the quantum field?

2. If so, how does that connection work?

In the sections that follow, I intend to answer both questions. And I also intend to provide compelling evidence to back those answers up.

The Connection between Consciousness and the Quantum Field

The double slit experiment back in 1909 is what blew everyone's mind. It was hard – if not impossible – to escape the conclusion there's a link between our consciousness and reality; in particular, quantum reality.

This link was so strong and so convincing that it led Nels Bohr to declare that until we're conscious of something, it doesn't exist. It led Erwin Schrödinger to place his poor cat in a state of limbo - being neither dead nor alive - until someone could open its box and, by observing it, cause it to become one thing or the other.

The double slit experiment has been replicated again and again with the same results. Oxford science writer Philip Ball addresses these results in his article, "The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics" (2017). He poses the question, is it all "just mystical woo?" No, he concludes. The "observer effect" is real. If you look at the light indirectly, it's a wave. If you look directly, it's a particle. The same result applies to electrons, atoms, and molecules.

Ball sums up the attitude of the entire field of quantum mechanics, when he concludes, "It is hard to avoid the implication that consciousness and quantum mechanics are somehow linked" (2017).

So, is there a connection between consciousness and the quantum field? Absolutely, yes.
What's the Connection?

Two things quantum theorists agree on: there is a link between our consciousness and quantum reality; and, second, it's mysterious. The mystery is how our consciousness could possibly affect reality. How can we possibly determine what something is, simply by observing it?

But maybe the link is the other way around. Maybe it isn't our observation impacting the quantum world, but rather the quantum world impacting what we see. Others have come to a similar conclusion. Philip Ball observes, "Today, some physicists suspect that whether or not consciousness influences quantum mechanics, it might, in fact, arise because of it. They think that quantum theory might be needed to fully understand how the brain works" (2017).

Earlier in this book, in the section on Gilbert Ryle, I suggested that consciousness consists of two parts: an action verb and a passive state. It consists of something we do, and something that is done to us. For example, when we say, "I see the cockatoo," what we really mean is: I look at the cockatoo, and as a result of my looking, I see it.

Now, I would like to suggest that the looking is the bottom-up component. But the seeing is where top-down comes in. "Seeing," per se, is not an action verb. It's the state we find ourselves in, after something is done to us. It is, I suggest, what the quantum field does to us.

The hard problem, as Chalmers frames it, is how physical things can produce qualitative experiences. Nothing we have seen so far, coming from the materialist school, or from neuroscience, answers this question. We are basically biological machines. If there's no way that we, ourselves, could have qualia - that we ourselves could "see" - then, something besides us must be doing it.

In that case, we are not seeing the world through God's eyes. God is seeing the world through our eyes.
Analogies

What do I mean that "God is seeing the world through our eyes?" Here are three analogies to help explain it.

1. The Dream. Suppose you were having a really vivid dream. You are dreaming about the OK Corral in Tombstone, Arizona. It's the late 1800s. Wyatt Earp is facing off against the Clanton brothers. The heat is merciless and dust devils are swirling on the street where opposing sides are facing off. One of the Clantons sneers, "Earp, you're a yellow-bellied coward." Earp feels his heart racing. Beads of sweat break out on his forehead. He reaches for his gun.

Now, none of this is real. Everything and everyone in the dream is just a projection of your imagination. All of the characters are really you. In the dream it feels like what they're seeing, hearing, and feeling are their own personal experiences. In fact, however, all of those sights, sounds, and feelings are really yours.

2. The Camera. Of course, dreams are basically thoughts. But can something like it happen in the real world? Suppose you were holding a camera. It's a very sophisticated piece of machinery. It does an excellent job of capturing and storing images. In effect, the camera does what we do when we "look." But, of course, the camera can't "see." That's what you do. The camera looks, and you see.

Now, suppose you're invisible. You've always been invisible. So, all anyone sees is the camera. They don't see you holding it. All you yourself see is the camera. And, as far as you're concerned, you are the camera. In that case, everyone thinks the camera is not just looking, but also seeing. You think so, too, because the camera is the only thing visible.

3. The Cyborg. The camera analogy covers one of the senses: vision. What about the other senses: hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling? To cover all of the senses, and not just one, consider the cyborg. The cyborg is basically a robot, with you the human inside of it.

Because you're inside, no one sees you. And, again, you don't see yourself. Plus, to complete the picture, suppose you've been encased in a cyber suit since birth. Every interaction you have with the outside world is by way of the cyber suit. When you want to drink a beer, you see the cyber arm taking the bottle and hoisting it to the cyber lips. Therefore, wouldn't it be natural for you and everyone else to think you are the cyber suit. And when you drink that beer, wouldn't it be natural, for you to think it was the cyber suit tasting it?

That's what I mean by "God is seeing the world through our eyes." The three analogies above show not only that it's logically conceivable, but also how it can happen.

The dream analogy shows how the hard problem could be solved, in theory. The camera and cyborg analogy - although wildly improbable – show how the hard problem could be solved in fact.

We, in effect, are the cyber suit, and God is the mind. Our bodies and our brains are, of course, immensely more complex. Recall the 100 trillion synapses zapping around in our heads. In addition, we think and we remember. We use logic and reflection. And all of that is part of our biology, as humans.

The question of God is also more complex. I am not talking about a Spirit, or a little old man with a white beard. I am talking about a Universal Mind, in the form of a unified quantum field. It is a quantum field that conceives, and contains absolute knowledge about everything that exists.

In that context, here's what I mean by "God is seeing the world through our eyes." We do the looking. God does the seeing. We capture images; we process them; and every 1/40th of a second, we create frames of reality. Those frames, like the frames on a movie screen, are now ready for viewing. But it is the unified quantum field that reacts to those frames with sight.
How Does It Work?

I have described a symbiotic relation between our brains and God's mind. But issues remain about how exactly this relationship works. In this section, through a question and answer format, I will address those issues.

Question: Why do we think it's us?

If we're doing the looking, but the UM is doing the seeing, then why do we think it's only ourselves having that experience? Here's my answer. First, it's because we're unaware of the UM. We don't know the feelings we're having are coming from a different source.

Beyond that, however, it's because the feelings I have are associated with my body. If I see a pin stick into my arm, and I immediately feel pain, I naturally think that pain is mine. If I focus my eyes on a tree in a forest, and I see it, then everything points to it being my vision. That vision is where I am and where the tree is, and it's where my eyes are focused. No one else is around.

Question: Why do we feel what God feels?

It's because we are part of God. The unified quantum field is everywhere and incorporates every thing. And that certainly includes us. In us, it takes the form of a biological entity and a quantum force. We feel what it feels, because we're part of it.

Question: Why don't we all feel the same thing?

Why don't humans, frogs, cats, and mice all have the exact same subjective experiences? After all, they're all getting their feelings from the same source, the Universal Mind. The answer is because we all have different equipment. In effect, the frog is a cheap camera. We humans are very expensive ones. So the signals we broadcast are very different, and the interpretation of those signals varies accordingly.

Question: How exactly does our brain interface with the quantum field?

Every 1/40th of a second our brain produces a frame. That frame binds together all the stimuli we receive from our five senses. Until that happens, consciousness cannot occur. Now it's ready for interpretation. The unified quantum field connects encoded information from the frame to the knowledge it has about the entities being observed. That knowledge is qualia.

Question: Why can't we do it on our own?

If we are material entities, and the Universal Mind is a material entity, then why can't we do what it does? The answer is because the UM is a special kind of material entity. It's one of a kind. It conceives everything; it contains everything; it incorporates everything. It doesn't just perceive the tree. It is the tree.

So, when my brain broadcasts signals about a particular tree in my back yard, visual, sensual, audible knowledge about that particular tree lights up in the Universal Mind.

In sum, these answers bring us to the limits of specificity. Certainly, many questions remain. Much more research will need to be done. But for now, the theory of Consciousness and the Universal Mind is complete.

Now, let's look at the evidence.

## Evidence God Sees through Our Eyes

The double slit experiment handed a sharp rebuke to the physicalist school of mind. The assumption that the operation of our brains completely accounts for consciousness was upended. Instead, that experiment, and all the replications that followed, established a link between observation and the quantum world.

In the double slit experiment, if scientists waited for light to pass through the slits and register on a screen, what they saw was light as a wave. But if they placed a detector next to the slits, what they saw was light as a particle.

Weirder still was when they passed photons – or electrons – through the slits one at a time, they got the same results. A single photon could appear as either a particle or a wave. It seemed that observation, per se, altered the nature of quantum reality.

A subsequent experiment, however, raised another possibility. Perhaps, it's not observation affecting quantum reality, but quantum reality affecting observation.

In 1978 theoretical physicist John Wheeler devised a series of thought experiments to determine at what point the electron – or photon – "decided" to become a particle or a wave. He called it the "delayed choice" experiment. And in 1984 it was actually performed (Jones, 2019).

It involved a device called an "interferometer," two "beam splitters," and a detector. After encountering the first beam splitter, the photon should travel through the device as a particle. But after it hits the second splitter, it should become a wave. What the scientists did was to quickly either insert or remove the second splitter at the last moment. They then observed the photon beforehand.

The astounding result was that the photon remained a particle before the splitter was removed, but became a wave before the splitter was inserted. In other words, the photon anticipated what the scientists were going to do!

The scientists concluded, "It's as if nature knows not just if we are looking, but if we are planning to look" (Ball, 2017). Another proclaimed, "It must have gone back in time and changed its decision" (2017).

It appears not that observation was creating quantum reality, but rather that quantum reality was creating observation. The photon seemed to read the scientists' minds. Or, rather, we can say the quantum field read their minds. It then projected what it knew they were about to do.

To be clear, I am not saying the quantum field altered reality. Photons and electrons can actually take the form of either a particle or a wave. Rather, the quantum field illuminated the particular aspect of the photon that the researchers expected to encounter.

There is no way the researchers could have done this themselves. The actual physical manipulation didn't happen until later. But the photon changed identities before that manipulation occurred.

In sum, both the double slit and the delayed choice experiment establish a real link between our brains – our nervous systems – and the quantum field. But the delayed choice experiment, in particular, shows it's the quantum field that determines what we see.

Back to top

# CONCLUSION

In the ceiling of the Vatican's Sistine Chapel, you can see Michelangelo's famous depiction of God creating man. This act of creation is portrayed by a finger touch. God's finger touches man's. To me, this is an apt symbol for the theory of Consciousness and the Universal Mind. The finger touch represents knowledge. God's knowledge enables man's knowledge. Man's knowledge enables life.

The theory advanced in these pages consists of two parts: bottom-up and top-down. And if we apply Ryle's "philosophy of ordinary language" to the question of consciousness, what we see, in fact, is that all of the senses are actually two-part. Seeing involves both looking and seeing; hearing is listening and hearing; smelling is sniffing and smelling; tasting is eating and tasting; feeling is touching and feeling. In each case, we have both an action verb and a state of being which results from that action. Not only are there two parts, but the second part involves something that's done to us. Not something that we actively do.

The first part is bottom-up. It's how our nervous systems capture, process, and broadcast external and internal stimuli. That's the action part. But the second part is different. It's a state of mind. How do we achieve that state of mind? That's the question which Chalmers calls "the hard problem."

Now, I just might have said, "God does it," and left it at that. But such an answer would be a cop-out. It's what people say when they don't know what to say.

So, in the final pages of this work I have attempted not only to specify, but also to prove, what I mean by top-down. Yes, I mean God. And by God I mean Kastrup and Shani's "cosmic ultimate." And by cosmic ultimate I mean Universal Mind. And by Universal Mind I mean the unified quantum field. That is the Planck Epoch force field, from which everything in the Universe is conceived.

That's what I mean by God. But, then, how does the Universal Mind impact our senses? How does it work? The answer is "knowing." The UM knows stuff that we don't know, and never can know. That's because the UM, by definition, embodies everything. It doesn't just "know about" things. It is those things. It embodies those things. It knows them in the most concrete and visceral way, including their effects. It knows how they taste, smell, look, sound, and feel. It knows qualia.

Our brains process information and consolidate it into 1/40th second frames. At that point, our observations and the quantum field interact. The quantum field is impacted by those frames. It is impacted according to the qualia – or qualities of experience – corresponding to what the frames project. Because we are part of the quantum field, it seems like we are feeling what it feels.

To some, all this may appear a bit improbable; or, as Shani says, "a tad speculative." Some are still waiting for the science of neurobiology to come up with the answers. Those answers, they feel, are just around the corner.

I would contend, however, that much of what I'm describing is supported by science, and mainstream science, at that.

1. Let's start at the beginning. Even before anyone ever heard of the Big Bang, Spinoza speculated that there was a first substance; that it was conceived through itself; and that it incorporated everything formed from it. Now, physics and cosmology have proven that to be true. Everything emerged from one thing. That one thing was – and is – the most basic substance we know of, the unified quantum field.

2. Part of what it means to contain everything in the Universe is to have knowledge of everything in the Universe. For example, before the 1960s, no one ever heard of the Higgs field. But it existed. And so did knowledge of its existence. Where was that knowledge, if we didn't know about it? It resided in the Universe itself.

3. A link exists between the quantum field and our observations. The whole field of quantum mechanics is built around that link. To maintain that our observations alone account for our consciousness is to ignore science. It may be an inconvenient truth, but the quantum world is a component of our experience.

4. How the nervous system works, and how our brains, in particular, work is well documented. It's based in a biology that traces its evolution back for billions of years. Maybe this is all a dream. Maybe Idealism is real. But it's highly unlikely. It flies in the face of science. And it flies in the face of common sense. Whatever else consciousness consists of, it's part of the material world.

All of the above is based on well documented science. By no means is it "mystical woo." But in addition to the science, let's look at the logic.

1. Consciousness isn't just part of the game. It is the game. Without it, game over. Without the ability to see, hear, taste, touch, or smell, we are brain dead. We couldn't even hear our own thoughts. Each of these senses is a form of knowing. There's knowing how things look, how they sound, etc. Without knowing, we have no inner life.

2. There's a good reason why mirrors, cameras, and robots aren't conscious. Even though they all capture – and in some cases process – visual information, they are just mechanical devices. There is nothing in them that can feel.

We, too, are a sort of mechanical device. Our mechanics are based on biology. That biology is immensely impressive. We have an astounding 100 trillion synapses in our brains. But they still work in a mechanical way. Not only can we not locate any part of those mechanics that can "feel," but – most significantly – we can't think of any logical way that could occur. Recall Huxley's introductory quote: "How is it possible that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness, comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue?"

3. It makes sense that the Universe itself is conscious. As Spinoza argued, it didn't just pop into existence. There was a first substance. That first substance had to have created itself. What else was there? That act of creation was purposeful. It resulted from a "conception."

4. Finally, if it's true that the Universe is conscious, then the whole question of our own consciousness is no longer any kind of mystery. The hard problem is solved. We are conscious because the Universe is.

The Universe exists as an act of conception. We exist though acts of perception. Consciousness is where Being-as-knowing and knowing-as-being connect.

###

Back to top

# REFERENCES

Allsop, B. (2019). Qualia Are Physical Qualities. For presentation at the _Long Island Philosophical Society 2019 Conference._

Aristotle (1907, 350 B.C.). _De Anima_. C. Shields, transl., New York: Oxford University Press.

Astraye, A. (2016). How do we see? _YouTube_ , Mar. 13.

Atkins, P.W.,

____ (1981). _The Creation_. W. H. Freeman and Company: Oxford and San Francisco.

____ (2003). _Galileo's Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science_. Oxford University Press: Oxford and New York.

Ball, P. (2017). The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics. The Big Questions, _Psychology_ , Feb. 12.

Ballard, E. (2011). _Epiphany: True Stories of Sudden Insight to Inspire Encourage, and Transform_. New York: Harmony Books.

Bergland, C. (2014). The neuroscience of pleasure and addiction: Neuroscientists identify how reward signals are transmitted in the brain. _Psychology Today_ , May 31.

Beyer, C. (2016). Husserl. _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_. Nov. 1.

Bishop, M. (2004). Can Computers Feel? Retrieved from http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas02mb/Selected%20Papers/2004%20Can%20Computers%20feel.pdf

Blakeslee, S. (1998). How the Brain Might Work: A New Theory of Consciousness, (232-237), in Wade, Nicholas, Ed., _The Science Times Book of the Brain_. Lyons Press: New York.

Bonevac, D. (2017). Gilbert Ryle, systematically misleading expressions, _YouTube_ , Feb. 20.

"Can Computers Have Emotions?" (2019). _Informatics Forum_.

Carter, R. (2019). _The Human Brain Book_. Penguin, Random House: New York, pp. 82-89.

Cartwright, J. (2007). Quantum Physics Says Good-bye to Reality. _Physics World_ , Apr. 20.

Carroll, S. (2018). Sean Carroll's mindscape. _YouTube_. Dec. 3.

Chalmers, D.,

____ (2019). Am I my brain? _YouTube_ , Jul. 8.

____ (2019). The meta-problem of consciousness. _YouTube_ , Apr. 2.

____ (2014). How do you explain consciousness? _TED_ , Jul. 14.

____ (2008). Supervenience. In Bedow, M. & Humphreys, P. eds., _Emergence: Contemporary Readings in Philosophy and Science_. MIT Press: Cambridge, pp. 411-425.

____ (2003). Consciousness and Its Place in Nature. In S. Stich and T. Warfield (eds.), _The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind_. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

____ (1996). _The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory_. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cherry, K. (2018). The Psychology of Awareness. _Verywell Mind_. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-consciousness-2795922

Chorost, M. (2011). _World Wide Mind: The Coming integration of Humanity, Machines, and the Internet_. Free Press: New York.

Cole, D. (2014). The Chinese Room. _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.

Coleman, S.,

____ (2014). Phenomenal Consciousness in the Physical World. _Prague Academic Conference_ , Jun. 2-4.

____ (2014). The Real Combination Problem: Panpsychism, Micro-subjects, and Emergence. _Erkenntnis_ , 79, 19-44.

Conan Doyle, A. (1921-1927). Adventure of the Blanched Soldier. _The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes_. London: _Strand Magazine_.

"Consciousness." (2019). _Wikipedia_.

Damasio, A.,

____ (2011). The quest to understand consciousness. _TED_. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/antonio_damasio_the_quest_to_understand_consciousness

____ (1999). _The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness_. New York: Harcourt-Brace.

Danbolt, N.C. (2001). Glutamate as a neurotransmitter – an overview. _Prog. Neurobiol_. 65, 1-105.

Dennett, D. C.,

____ (2019). Daniel Dennett. _Encyclopedia Britannica_.

____ (2018). Information and Artificial Intelligence. _Artis Modus_ , Dec. 25.

____ (2003). The Illusion of Consciousness, _TED_.

____ (1995). The unimagined preposterousness of zombies. _Journal of Consciousness Studies_ , 2:4, 322-6.

____ (1993). Quining qualia. _Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science_. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 381–414.

____ (1991). _Consciousness Explained_. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

____ (1987). _The Intentional Stance_. MA: MIT Press.

Descartes, R.

____ (1970). Descartes, René. Discourse on Method. E. Haldane and Ross, G. R. T. _The Philosophical Works of Descartes_ , Vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp. 170-131.

____ (1974). _Ouerves de Descartes_ , 11 volumes, C. Adams and P. Tannery, eds., Paris: Chez F.G. Levrault.

____ (1984-1991). _The Philosophy and Writing of Descartes_ , 3 vols., J. Cottingham, R. Stroothoff, D. Murdoch, and A. Kenny, transls., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eddington, A.., "Idealism," _Wikipedia_. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Einstein, A. (1930). The cosmic religious feeling. Editorial, _New York Times_.

Fink, S. (2016). The limbic system and hypothalamus. _YouTube_ , Jul. 9.

Forterre, P., Filee, J., & Myllykallio, H. (2007). Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries. _Madame Curie Bioscience Database_.

Friston, K. (2017). The Mathematics of Mind-Time. _Aeon_ , May 18.

Goffman, E. (1959). _The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life_. New York: Anchor Books.

Gossip Guest (2019). Category mistake by Gilbert Ryle in the contrary of Descartes' dualism, _YouTube_ , Mar. 12.

Gotquestions.org, (2002-2017). What Is an Epiphany? Retrieved from http://www.Gotquestions.org/epiphany.html

Graham, G. (2019). Behaviorism. _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.

Gulik, R.V. (2014). Consciousness. _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.

Hamer, A. (2017). Empty space isn't empty, and quantum researchers now have direct evidence. _Curiosity.com_ , Mar. 9.

Hay, M. (2014). Could a Machine or an AI Ever Feel Human-Like Emotions? _Vita Modularis_ , Apr. 22.

Holinger, P. C. (2016). What Are Feelings? How Are They Related to Drives or Instincts? _Psychology Today_ , March 21.

"Hominidae." (2019). _Wikipedia_.

"How were electrons created after the big bang?" (2009). _Yahoo Answers_ , May 27.

Hoyle, F. (1981). The universe: past and present reflections. _Engineering & Science_. Nov.

Huxley, T. H., (1866). quoted in Block, N. (2013). The Harder Problem of Consciousness. _The Journal of Philosophy_ , XCIX(8), Jan.

Inspiring Philosophy (2013). Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism. _YouTube_ , Nov.1.

Jackson, F., (1982). Epiphenomenal Qualia. _Philosophical Quarterly_ 32 (April):127-136.

Jaynes, J. (1976). _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_ , New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co.

Jeans, J. (2019). Idealism. _Wikipedia_. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism.

Jones, A.Z. (2019). Can quantum physics be used to explain the existence of consciousness? _ThoughtCo_ , Jun. 11.

Kant, I. (2019 1787). _Critique of Pure Reason_ , S. Meiklejohn, transl., Murine Publications LLC online.

Kastrup, B.

____ (2018a). The Universe in Consciousness. _Journal of Consciousness Studies_ , vol. 25, nos. 5-6, pp. 125-155.

____ (2018b). The Next Paradigm. Future Human Image," Volume 9, 2018: _DOI_ : 10.29202/fhi/9/4

____ (2018c). On the Plausibility of Idealism: Refuting Criticisms. _Disputatio_ , Vol. 9, No. 44, pp. 13-34.

____ (2017). The Hard Problem of Consciousness. _Scientific American_ , Sep. 19.

____ (2015). Bernardo Kastrup's small theory of everything. _YouTube_ , Jun. 15.

Klein, S.A. (2017). Using Psychic Phenomena to Connect Mind to Brain and to Revise Quantum mechanics. The Free Library.

Levi, K.,

____ (2019). _The Moral Symmetry of Good and Evil_. Smashwords. Retrieved from http://smashwords.com/books/view/915811

____ (2018). _Proving God Exists: Physics, Cosmology, and the Universal Mind_. Smashwords. Retrieved from http://smashwords.com/books/view/774772

____ (1982). _Violence and Religious Commitment: Jim Jones and the People's Temple Movement_. The Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park and London.

____ (1981). Becoming a Hit Man: Neutralization in a Very Deviant Career. _Sage Journals_ , April 1.

Lewis, T. (2014). Scientists Closing in on a Theory of Consciousness. _LiveScience_ , Jul. 30.

Lettvin, J.Y., Maturana, H., McCulloch, W.S., & Pitts, W. (1959). What the Frog's Eye Tells the Frog Brain. _Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineering_ , vol. 47, pp.1940-1951.

Leibnitz, G.,

____ (1992). _Discourse on Metaphysics_. Montgomery, G.R., transl., New York: Prometheus Books.

____ (2014/1714). Strickland, L., _Leibnitz's Monadology: A New Translation and Guide_. Edinburgh: University Press.

Locke, J. (1689). Essay Concerning Human Understanding, London: _The Basset_.

Marley, T. (2018). Qualia and Artificial Sentience. _Tire Labs_ , Feb. 21.

McMahon, D. (2008). _Quantum Field Theory Demystified_. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Melchert, N. (2014). _The Great Conversation_. Oxford University Press: New York.

Merriam-Webster (2018). Anonymous Brain. _Merriam Webster Dictionary_.

Merriam Webster (2014). Perception. _Merriam Webster Dictionary_.

Nagel, T. (1974). What Is It Like to Be a Bat. _The Philosophical Review_ , 83 (4):435-450.

Noback, C.R., Strominger, N.L., Demarest, R.J., Ruggiero, D.A. (2005). _The Human Nervous System: Structure and Function_. Humana Press: Totowa, New Jersey.

Ohio State University (2015). The first three minutes. _YouTube_ , Dec. 7.

Pandit, S. (2018). Structure and function of the nucleus accumbens explained in detail. _Bodytomy_ , Mar. 5.

Penrose, R. Hameroff S.,

____ (2014). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory. _Phys Life Rev_ , Mar 11(1):39-78.

____ (2019). Beyond algorithms. Conscious Entities. Retrieved from http://www.consciousentities.com/penrose.htm.

Pierre, J. (2019). Intentionality. _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.

Pinker, S.

____ (2009). Consciousness. In Kluger, J., ed., _Your Brain: A User's Guide_. Time Inc. Home Entertainment: New York, pp. 12-23.

____ (1997). _How the Mind Works_ , New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

Plato (1961/ 380 B.C.). Phaedo. Tredennick, H., transl., in Hamilton, E., & Huntington, C., _The Collected Dialogues of Plato_. New York: Pantheon Books.

Pockett, S. (2012). The electro-magnetic field of consciousness. In _The Nature of Consciousness_ , JC Studies, 191-223.

Pontin, J. (2014). The importance of feelings. _MIT Technology Review_ , June 17.

Reply, R., (2014). Artificial Intelligence. _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.

Robertson, M., Joyce, G.F. (2012). The Origins of the RNA World. _Cold Springs Harbor Perspectives in Biology_ , May 4 (5).

Robinson, S. (2017). The first quantum field theory: spacetime. _YouTube_ , Jun 28.

Robson, D. (2011). A Brief History of the Brain. _New Scientist_ , Issue 2831, Sept. 24.

Ryle, G.,

____ (1949). _The Concept of Mind_. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

____ (1956). Sensation. Lewis, H.D., ed. _Contemporary British Philosophers_ (Third Series). Routledge: New York.

____ (2009). _Critical Essays_. Routledge: New York.

____ (2019). Gilbert Ryle's Criticisms of Cartesian Dualism. https://primetimeessay.com/gilbert-ryles-critique-of-cartesian-dualism/.>

Rosenblum, B. & Kuttner, F. (2006). _The Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness_. New York: Oxford University Press.

Saint Augustine (426 A.D.). _City of God_. New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm.

Schaffer, J., (2010). Monism: The Priority of the Whole. _Philosophical Review_ , 119, 31–76.

Schneider, S. (2007). Daniel Dennett on the Nature of Consciousness. In Velmans, M., and Schneider, S., eds., _The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness_ , pp. 313-324.

Searle, J.,

____ (2002b). The Problem of Consciousness. In _Consciousness and Language_ , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 7–17.

____ (2013). Perception and Intentionality. _YouTube Seminar_ , June 4.

____ (1997). The Mystery of Consciousness. _NYRB_ , pp. 1-18, 135-176.

____ (1993). Review of Searle, The Rediscovery of the Mind. _Journal of Philosophy_ , 60 (4) 193-205, Apr.

____ (1992). _The Rediscovery of Mind_ , Cambridge: MIT Press.

____ (1980). Minds, Brains and Programs. _Behavioral and Brain Sciences_ , 3: 417–57.

Shani, I. (2015). Cosmopsychism: a holistic approach to the metaphysics of experience. _Philosophical Papers_ , 44 (3), pp. 389-437.

Silk, J. (2016). The first three minutes of creation. _YouTube_ , Dec. 26.

Sincero, S. M. (2013). Skin Senses: Touch. Retrieved from https://app.assistertselvhjelp.no/ en/skin-senses-touch.

Smith, D.W. (2013). Phenomenology. _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.

Smolin, L.

___ (2013). _Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe_. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: Boston, New York.

___ (2001). T _hree Roads to Quantum Gravity_. Basic Books, New York.

Ström, P. (2016). Dopamine. _Quora_ , Dec. 13.

"The Suicide of Socrates, 399 BC." (2003). _EyeWitness to History.Com_. Retrieved from http://www.eyewitnessto history.com.

Spinoza, B. (1677). _Ethics_. Parkinson, G.H.R., transl., Everyman Classics: New York, 1989.

Tanney, J. (2015). Gilbert Ryle. _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.

Sutherland, Stuart (ed.) (1989). _The Macmillan Dictionary of Psychology_ , London: Palgrave.

Thompson, D.L. (1986). Intentionality and Causality in John Searle. Canadian _Journal of Philosophy_ , 16 (March): 83-97.

Tong, D. (2017). Quantum fields: the true fundamental elements of the universe. _YouTube_. Feb. 15.

Tononi, G. (2016). Is Consciousness Entirely Physical? _YouTube Seminar_ , May.

Toth, V. (2019). Fields are the fundamental constituents of matter," _Quora_ (online).

Turing, A.M. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. _Mind_ 49: 433-460.

Tye, M. (2017). Qualia. _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.

Tyler, T. (2019). The RNA World: The Origin of Life. Retrieved from http://www.originoflife.net/rna_world/

Vintiadis, E. (2010). Emergence. _The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.

Weinberg, S. (1977). _The First Three Minutes_ , New York: Bantam Books.

White, A. (2016) How does the brain make us feel pleasure or pain? _Quora_ , Dec. 31.

Wigner, E. (1983). Remarks on the Mind-Body Question. In Wheeler, J.A., and Zurek, W.H., _Quantum Theory and Measurement_. Princeton: Princeton Legacy Library, p.169.

Witthuhn, T. (2014). Ryle's ghost in the machine. _YouTube_ , May 1.

"The World's Hardest Problem." (2011). _New Scientist_ , Sept., Issue 2018. Retrieved from https://www. newscientist.com/issues/2011.

Zverina, J. (2012). Network Cosmology," _San Diego News_ , Nov. 19.

Back to top

# ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I grew up in Boston, moved to Ann Arbor, where I received my Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Michigan, then moved again to San Antonio, where I taught Sociology at the University of Texas. I am the author of four books:

_Violence and Religious Commitment_ , about the suicide and murder of over 900 members of the People's Temple Church in the Jonestown massacre.

_Proving God Exists: Physics, Cosmology, and the Universal Mind_ , about evidence for God, based - not on faith, or mysticism, or religion - but on hard science.

_The Moral Symmetry of Good and Evil_ , about how the science of symmetry not only pervades all of physics, nature, biology, and art, but also determines good and evil in everyday life.

_Knowing: Consciosness and the Universal Mind_ , the current book concerning the "hard problem" of consciousness, and a composite theory about how to solve it.

In addition, I have published several articles on violence, crime, and delinquency, including "Becoming a Hit Man" (Sage Publications), which has since been cited in 99 other books and articles.

Back to top
