Wednesday, 30 January 2008
Sunday, 13 January 2008
Create your own reality
"Though quantum mechanics seems to deny the existence of a physical reality independent of its conscious observation, if our observation creates everything, including ourselves, we are dealing with a concept that is logically self-referential — and mind boggling."
(The Quantum Enigma, Rosenblum and Kuttner, Duckworth & Co., 2007).
The vexed question of whether the world exists independently of the conscious mind seems to have settled by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It seems there is no collapse of potential without observation. It is the act of observation that brings reality into existence — causing an infinite array of possibilities to take up one state or another
There is even the suggestion that new realities can be created by different acts of observation. This may seem far-fetched, but perhaps is not so far from the truth. For we know that we each experience reality differently, each of us has a unique take on the world. And given that different people at different times will see the world in vastly different ways, even ways that are completely incompatible, we could say that there is a valid sense in which we each create our own reality; we each observe a distinct set of probabilities collapsing.
(The Quantum Enigma, Rosenblum and Kuttner, Duckworth & Co., 2007).
The vexed question of whether the world exists independently of the conscious mind seems to have settled by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It seems there is no collapse of potential without observation. It is the act of observation that brings reality into existence — causing an infinite array of possibilities to take up one state or another
There is even the suggestion that new realities can be created by different acts of observation. This may seem far-fetched, but perhaps is not so far from the truth. For we know that we each experience reality differently, each of us has a unique take on the world. And given that different people at different times will see the world in vastly different ways, even ways that are completely incompatible, we could say that there is a valid sense in which we each create our own reality; we each observe a distinct set of probabilities collapsing.
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
The location of truths
The mistake perhaps is to imagine truth is sought from outside the mind, as though it were to be discovered externally — an independent property. But what we are really discovering are truths about the mind. We project truths into the world, just as we project our perceptions into the world.
Art and the fractured unity of consciousness
(Abstract submitted to Consciousness Reframed 2008)
Much recent scientific discussion of consciousness takes the view that it is unified, i.e. our perceptions, memories, thoughts and beliefs come together in a singular phenomenal experience. This has led many researchers to seek a singular neural correlate of consciousness in the human brain, or some other mechanism to account for this unity. At the same time it is frequently assumed this unified experience is essentially rational — that the perceptions, thoughts and beliefs of which we are aware must be logically coherent in order for our mental life to make sense.
In this paper I will question both of these views. Using an example of my experience when studying a painting, I will argue that my perceptions and beliefs are as much fragmentary and contradictory as they are unified and rational, consisting of quite distinct percepts and often incompatible thoughts. I will suggest that this multiplicity and inconsistency contribute in some way to the peculiar vibratory sense of lived experience, and that the conscious mind might be better characterised as a ‘fractured unity’ — to use a contradictory term.
I envisage two main objections: First, it could be argued that although our minds may contain numerous percepts, thoughts and beliefs it is their co-occurrence that creates a unity, without which our experience would be incoherent. Second, that we cannot entertain contradictory thoughts while retaining a rational mind because this would conflict with the basic rules of logic.
In countering these objections I will suggest that the concept of unity as normally defined is at best ambiguous, perhaps even itself contradictory. Moreover, despite intensive searches as yet no evidence has been found of a unifying mechanism for consciousness in the brain.
I will also point out that the European philosophic tradition is ideologically biased towards the search for singular explanations of phenomena and against contradictions. This is less so in other traditions, such as those of India and China, where there is greater willingness to accept the explanatory potential of diverse and conflicting propositions. Learning from these traditions may help us to build a more universal model of mind and arrive at a deeper understanding of consciousness.
Finally, I will show that many works of art are particularly rich in fragmentary associations and conceptual contradictions, and so may offer profound insights into the nature of human mind.
Much recent scientific discussion of consciousness takes the view that it is unified, i.e. our perceptions, memories, thoughts and beliefs come together in a singular phenomenal experience. This has led many researchers to seek a singular neural correlate of consciousness in the human brain, or some other mechanism to account for this unity. At the same time it is frequently assumed this unified experience is essentially rational — that the perceptions, thoughts and beliefs of which we are aware must be logically coherent in order for our mental life to make sense.
In this paper I will question both of these views. Using an example of my experience when studying a painting, I will argue that my perceptions and beliefs are as much fragmentary and contradictory as they are unified and rational, consisting of quite distinct percepts and often incompatible thoughts. I will suggest that this multiplicity and inconsistency contribute in some way to the peculiar vibratory sense of lived experience, and that the conscious mind might be better characterised as a ‘fractured unity’ — to use a contradictory term.
I envisage two main objections: First, it could be argued that although our minds may contain numerous percepts, thoughts and beliefs it is their co-occurrence that creates a unity, without which our experience would be incoherent. Second, that we cannot entertain contradictory thoughts while retaining a rational mind because this would conflict with the basic rules of logic.
In countering these objections I will suggest that the concept of unity as normally defined is at best ambiguous, perhaps even itself contradictory. Moreover, despite intensive searches as yet no evidence has been found of a unifying mechanism for consciousness in the brain.
I will also point out that the European philosophic tradition is ideologically biased towards the search for singular explanations of phenomena and against contradictions. This is less so in other traditions, such as those of India and China, where there is greater willingness to accept the explanatory potential of diverse and conflicting propositions. Learning from these traditions may help us to build a more universal model of mind and arrive at a deeper understanding of consciousness.
Finally, I will show that many works of art are particularly rich in fragmentary associations and conceptual contradictions, and so may offer profound insights into the nature of human mind.
Saturday, 5 January 2008
Nested views of reality
Disputes about mind and world etc. can be avoided if we adopt the following stance:
[1] Common realism, in which there is a world of material objects that we partially perceive through our senses, is fine as a daily utilitarian view of being. It has widespread support and is perfectly applicable in most daily situations, including most scientific investigations. However, it is insufficient where one is seeking a more refined or high-resolution view of reality, in the same way low-resolution images are fine for day-to-day snapshots but inadequate for close scrutiny.
[2] A more subtle and finely grained view recognises that common realism is insufficient to account for the ubiquity of mind in forming our view of reality. The fact that everything we know, and can ever know, is through the mind — idealism in one form or other — is acknowledged, and that external objects, while they may well exist and give cause for sensation, cannot be known ‘in themselves’. In other words, we know the appearance, but not the essence of the world. The common realist view [1] is nested within this idealist view [2].
[3] I would propose a further level of resolution, within which idealism [2] is nested: That the mind is ubiquitous, and identical with reality. There neither is or is not anything outside the mind; prior to or beyond minds things neither do or do not exist. What is real is mind, and what is mind is real. This view approaches the limits of our capacity for conception.
[1] Common realism, in which there is a world of material objects that we partially perceive through our senses, is fine as a daily utilitarian view of being. It has widespread support and is perfectly applicable in most daily situations, including most scientific investigations. However, it is insufficient where one is seeking a more refined or high-resolution view of reality, in the same way low-resolution images are fine for day-to-day snapshots but inadequate for close scrutiny.
[2] A more subtle and finely grained view recognises that common realism is insufficient to account for the ubiquity of mind in forming our view of reality. The fact that everything we know, and can ever know, is through the mind — idealism in one form or other — is acknowledged, and that external objects, while they may well exist and give cause for sensation, cannot be known ‘in themselves’. In other words, we know the appearance, but not the essence of the world. The common realist view [1] is nested within this idealist view [2].
[3] I would propose a further level of resolution, within which idealism [2] is nested: That the mind is ubiquitous, and identical with reality. There neither is or is not anything outside the mind; prior to or beyond minds things neither do or do not exist. What is real is mind, and what is mind is real. This view approaches the limits of our capacity for conception.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
Part of the whole
The world is unlike the mind that perceives it.
— Mind and world are distinct.
The world as we perceive it is the mind.
— Mind and world are the same.
Rationally, we are able to accept each separate premise and outcome as valid, yet we cannot hold both simultaneously.
The world can feel itself, and think about itself. When we reflect upon the world it is the world reflecting upon itself.
We are at once part of and the whole of the world.
— Mind and world are distinct.
The world as we perceive it is the mind.
— Mind and world are the same.
Rationally, we are able to accept each separate premise and outcome as valid, yet we cannot hold both simultaneously.
The world can feel itself, and think about itself. When we reflect upon the world it is the world reflecting upon itself.
We are at once part of and the whole of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)