Spiritual frameworks

Text

The most important and exceedingly difficult task of our time is to work on the construction of a new idea of reality.

— Wolfgang Pauli

In 1884, Edwin Abbott Abbott published Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, a satirical novel that imagines a two-dimensional world whose inhabitants struggle to grasp the existence of a third dimension. The book was as Isaac Asimov later noted, probably the best introduction one can find into the manner of perceiving dimensions, and:

This book, then, should lead us to question the limitations we set to our Universe generally, not only those that are mathematical and physical, but those that are sociological as well. How far are our assumptions justified, and to what extent are they merely careless, or self-serving, misinterpretations of reality? Isaac Asimov, Limitations, Introduction to Flatland, Barnes & Noble edition, 1983

With Isaac Asimov advising us to be careful in our assumptions about reality and Wolfgang Pauli advocating for a new idea about it, we might all do well to reconsider our views of reality and to move on from conceptions formed centuries ago but that have been shown to be untenable by modern physics. Just as the citizens of Flatland were blind to dimensions beyond their comprehension, the super-scientific narrative that dominates much of modern Western society appears to be trapped within a conceptual framework that obscures deeper aspects of reality. For centuries, Western thought has been dominated by the 17th century classical physics framework of mechanistic determinism that everything in the universe unfolds as the inevitable result of preceding conditions. In this view, agency and free will seem illusory, leaving only the inexorable march of cause and effect. Many prominent scientists and philosophers Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Stephen Pinker, for example. appear to accept this as evidence for a strictly physicalist universe, where all mental phenomena, including consciousness, are reducible to physical processes.

But what if the conception of reality held by many if not most scientists and philosophers is as limited as that of Abbotts Flatlanders? What if consciousness and matter are deeply linked? Could mind, spirit, or a similar term be as fundamental as the physical properties that science currently believes completely describe reality? Asimovs admonition and Paulis challenge would then be more urgent than ever: to at least consider a new idea of reality that accounts for both the discoveries of modern physics and the enduring mysteries of consciousness. But what might such a new idea of reality look like or include?

First, a brief digression about the constraints and limitations inherent in language, particularly for the word consciousness, a central theme here. Consciousness is a word thats often if not typically used quite casually, as if everyone sufficiently understands what it means (or, perhaps, what it doesnt mean). Although its impossible to have this sort of discussion without using the word consciousness, its important indeed critical to acknowledge the inherently provisional and ambiguous nature of the term. David Chalmers, who has written quite a bit about consciousness, noted that the definition of consciousness in the International Dictionary of Psychology does not even try to give a straightforward characterization:

Consciousness: The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of confusing consciousness with self-consciousnessto be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it. (Sutherland 1989) Chalmers, David J.. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Philosophy of Mind) (p. 3). (Function). Kindle Edition

But Galen Strawson, another philosopher who writes a lot about consciousness, begs to differ:

Every day, it seems, some verifiably intelligent person tells us that we dont know what consciousness is. The nature of consciousness, they say, is an awesome mystery. Its the ultimate hard problem. In direct reference to the hard problem of consciousness coined and popularized by Chalmers. I find this odd because we know exactly what consciousness is where by consciousness I mean what most people mean in this debate: experience of any kind whatever. Its the most familiar thing there is, whether its experience of emotion, pain, understanding what someone is saying, seeing, hearing, touching, tasting or feeling. It is in fact the only thing in the universe whose ultimate intrinsic nature we can claim to know. It is utterly unmysterious. By Galen Strawson, NYT, May 16, 2016, Consciousness Isnt a Mystery. Its Matter1

Strawsons common-sense notion of consciousness seems perfectly adequate for everyday use, but I believe that Chalmers had more expansive conceptions in mind. Exploring possible elements of those more expansive conceptions is a large part of what Im trying to do in this project. Its all very provisional, however, as our current ideas about consciousness will likely one day be thought as narrow as the Greek terms for electricity and magnetism were over two thousand years ago. See XXX for a brief comparison of the similarities between the concepts of consciousness and electricity. Its also possible that we are at the beginning of a conceptual revolution as or more radical than the Cartesian revolution was to the Aristotelian framework, and that, as Marcus Appleby speculates, we will one day only use the words consciousness and matter in their everyday meaning. Marcus Appleby, Mind and Matter: A Critique of Cartesian Thinking, in The Pauli-Jung Conjecture p.30

For now, however,

Many physicists and philosophers believe that the discovery of quantum mechanics (QM) a century ago reopened questions about the nature of consciousness and agency in surprising ways. Its a contentious debate, however, as there are several very different ways to interpret the bizarre findings of QM, some of which are compatible with a classical deterministic universe. The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), for example, proposes that all possibilities unfold in parallel, rendering the universe fully deterministic other interpretations suggest that consciousness Specifically, observation and measurement which require consciousness. plays a fundamental role in shaping reality.

The idea that consciousness and quantum mechanics are deeply linked has been advanced by a number of prominent physicists, including John van Neumann, Wolfgang Pauli, David Bohm, and others. Pauli, one of the pioneers of quantum physics, believed that QM demands a new way of thinking about realityone that seems likely to require abandoning long-held assumptions. Over a decades-long collaboration, Pauli and Carl Jung developed what has come to be known as the Pauli-Jung Conjecture, a radical **** The psychophysical continuum that Pauli and Carl Jung proposed is an example of the such a new way of thinking, a conjecture that offers a bridge between the rigors of physics and the imaginal realm of subjective phenomena.

The imaginal realm is a term that some have come to use as a broad label for the subjective, experiential and symbolic dimensions of reality, aspects of higher-sentience life Although we have no idea whether or to what extent large-brained non-human animals have a deep sense or use of symbolism that are almost by definition not addressable through scientific methods.

Is symbolism fundamental to some sort of cosmic language or means of understanding, a cornerstone for levels of abstraction that, on earth, humans appear to be uniquely capable of? Or is symbolism something of an interim phase, perhaps most usefully as a window into aspects of reality that are not available through our physical senses, and, in modern Western culture, an antidote to the spiritually toxic constraints of physicalism? And what of abstraction, the gem of human exceptionalism? Is it really the end-all of higher intelligence, the holy grail of cosmic achievement? Or is abstraction just another variation of symbolism, albeit one in very different form? And what about the word consciousness? Its a word thats tossed around quite casually, as if everyone knows pretty much exactly what it means (or, at the very least, what it doesnt mean). But is consciousness even a thing (or perhaps an event), something akin to, say, an elephant or eating?

Other possible bridges between the realms of physicists and mystics have been suggested through various philosophical perspectives such as panpsychism, panentheism, and neutral monism. Although each of these (and other similar) perspectives have differences that seem to have significance for academic philosophers, they all fall under a more broader umbrella of

Thomas Nagel has been critical of what he sees as a false choice between the orthodoxies of theism and materialism, between religious and scientific narratives. Nagel argues for a third way, a fully natural tertium quid that can account for what we can be reasonably sure of both objectively and subjectively. In Mind and Cosmos, Nagel asks:

But would an alternative secular conception be possible that acknowledged mind and all that it implies, not as the expression of divine intervention but as a fundamental principle of nature along with physical law? Could it take the form of a unified conception of the natural order, even if it tries to accommodate a richer set of materials than the austere elements of mathematical physics? Mind & Cosmos, p. 22

When Sam Harris claimed that free will is impossible, he is basing his assertion on the idea of mechanistic determinism.

In this view, the universe is a vast array of objects, the position and velocity of which can at least in principle be known with certainty. The position and velocity of each object, in turn, is entirely the consequence of preceding events, all of which can also be known (in principle) with certainty. In principle, the entirety of the universe can be traced back to its beginning. No supernatural forces are in play,

Quantum mechanics (QM) suggests that the deterministic classical world emerges from an underlying framework where outcomes are fundamentally probabilistic, although the nature of this transition remains debated. The underlying issues are complex and border on metaphysics, particularly concerning the role of observation and the nature of reality. Some interpretations of QM suggest that consciousness is fundamental, others reject this notion entirely. It is a debate that will not be settled through physics anytime soon.

The tension between what can broadly be characterized as scientific and religious worldviews L among those who believe that science is the only valid means of describing reality. This belief, often referred to as scientism, seems to have the loudest voices by popular science authors. See Dawkins, Harris, Pinker, Kraus and others. [also: supported and co-enabled/dependent by theistic conceptions, particularly Judeao-Christian] Scientism is a particularly soft target given its presumption that fundamental reality cannot include anything that is not measurable, at least in principle. But

But it is not a contemporary scientists and philosophers. by whichan objectively-defined world out there that we observe through our senses and through scientific instruments and theories. That is This is no longer just a philosophical abstraction, raised significant questions about the nature of reality Its a question that is much more complicated than most think.

Flatland is a humbling reminder of the difficulty most of us have in attempting to wrap our minds around the possibility of dimensions beyond the three we currently live in and largely assume are all that exist in our universe. But the concept of dimensions beyond those of our perceived physical existence are not only the domain of philosophy. Theoretical physics is very much of additional dimensions: the current models for string theory all require multiple dimensions. But those dimensions are abstract elements, a mathematical sleight-of-hand required to make the equations balance out.

Most contemporary scientists and philosophers believe that reality is exclusively physical and that science is the only means of establishing truths about it. Belief in non-physical realms is dismissed as either pre-scientific nonsense or a useful fiction that many accept because it makes their life feel more complete or secure. But some of us who believe that modern science has discovered fundamental truths about the universe also believe, or at the very leas sense, that we are part of something much bigger, some sort of a grand cosmic order and thereby face a dilemma in reconciling that sense with our belief in science. Is our sense of deep connection something we just imagine, some sort of adaptive tonic generated by our brain? Or could reality include non-physical dimensions or properties that we are presently as blind to as the two-dimensional denizens of Edwin Abbots Flatland were when a sphere passed through their realm? Of course, the idea that reality includes fundamental, non-material properties directly conflicts with what most of todays scientists and philosophers believe. It is, in their view, simply nonsense. According to the scientific models and narratives that dominate contemporary Western thought, there is no place for such fictions. The worldview of scientism Insert scientistic intro. ***** has no place for non-material The terms physical and material are used interchangeably here. properties, presuming as it does that nothing exists other than physical objects and the forces that affect them. But scientism is just a belief system. There is no scientific evidence that it is true, nor is there any conceivable scientific experiment that could confirm or deny it, as science is limited to exploring only physical objects and the forces that affect them.

The crux of this is consciousness. We all have it and we all use it, Albeit to widely varying degrees. but we have no idea what it is. The 1989 International Dictionary of Psychology did not even try to define consciousness, saying simply that Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it. The elusive nature of consciousness remains the same today, although most neuroscientists are now focused on a narrower characterization of consciousness through neural correlates of consciousness, the idea that conscious states are identical to specific neurological events. But this rather misses the most important point, that how we use consciousness is far more important than how we define it. A corollary situation is electricity: it is the foundation of our technological civilization even though we have no idea what it is. More broadly, we dont know what electromagnetism is. Or, as Bill Clinton infamously said, it depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

The idea that reality includes non-material as well as material properties has been a basic premise of mystical and religious traditions for millennia and was a favored perspective in Western philosophy for the better part of two centuries. But replaced by the physicalist conception of reality that emerged in lockstep with the mechanical worldview of the Scientific Revolution. For. Most of the last several centuries, the scientific view has been that matters of mind were a completely separate domain from the hard sciences (following Descartes mind/matter dualism) and that notions of spirit are pre-scientific imaginations or superstitions. Over the past few decades the idea that mind, all subjective phenomena, are secondary consequences of physical processes has largely replaced the dualist view, but that has not changed the overall antipathy to notions of spirit.. More on this in Matters of Mind.

This project explores various ideas related to consciousness from a viewpoint that accepts the reality of non-physical properties: that (mind, spirit, or other terms) Provisionally interchangeable terms include mind, spirit, Tao, Chi, underlying unity, or consciousness. Words are an impediment here, as the basic conception(s) at issue appear to be beyond the ability of current language to convey. are indeed as fundamental as charge or mass, even if we have no idea why that is or even if we do not possess a widespread ability to grasp such a foreign conception (as was the case with Flatlanders). It assumes a naturalist In contrast to a supernatural view wherein non-material entities possess high-level consciousness. perspective there are no supernatural forces or phenomena even if just how all of this has come to be remains a mystery.

Such a view is not new; elements of it have been woven into philosophies and spiritual traditions for millennia. Indeed, panpsychism (the idea that mind is an inherent property of matter) has a long and respected history in Western philosophy, although it has been largely ignored or derided with the rise of physicalist narratives in the 19th and 20th centuries.

But the physicalist presumption of mind as a secondary phenomenon has been strongly challenged by the advent of quantum physics. Discoveries and conjectures related to the quantum nature of matter have softened the edgers of the sharp lines of hard physicalism (at least in the view of some physicists and philosophers) and led some contemporary physicists and philosophers to conclude that consciousness is an inextricable aspect of reality. Although many scientists and philosophers, perhaps most, remain unconvinced But then the the idea of a moving Earth was considered absurd by leading scholars in the 16th and early 17th centuries. , the idea of fundamental mind or consciousness can no longer be summarily dismissed as non-scientific.

This project explores just a small part of an Its my way of sorting out a hodgepodge of ideas, examining connections between what initially appear to be disparate disciplines and perspectives: spiritual, philosophical and esoteric traditions together with discoveries and conjectures of modern physics and biology. My hope is to in some small way add to an emerging worldview that accommodates both our knowledge of science and our intuitive sense of connectedness and spirit and a replacement for the spiritually corrosive worldview of scientistic physicalism See Physicalism for a brief summary of this philosophical perspective and some of the key challenges it faces.

A core premise of this story is that a meaningful understanding of consciousness can only be had through a lens or framework that includes a non-physical realm. To the extent that it is useful to understand consciousness a questionable outcome it will be necessary to adopt a world view different from the prevailing scientistic model a different set of tools that Thomas Nagel has said may be necessary. We must adopt an entirely different perspective, a fundamentally different world view, much like Flatlanders confronted when trying to comprehend a sphere. Although a full exposition of such a worldview is out of reach now, and perhaps forever, some elements of it may reasonably be adopted now, albeit recognizing the provisional nature of any such belief.

Several themes are at work here. At bottom, our Universe With a nod to notions about the Multiverse or the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. See Many Worlds for a brief summary. consists of a single substance or principle, a philosophical perspective known as monism and referred to here as the One The idea of a single, fundamental substance or principle known as monism is referred to by different terms. underlying essence is .
2) The world can be thought of, as a rough illustration and within the limitations of words available in this context, as a psychophysical continuum between what we traditionally think of as physical and spiritual. The physical aspect of this continuum has become well understood through science, but the psycho (mind/spirit) aspect cannot be understood with the tools we currently p mind (spirit, or a similar term) Provisionally interchangeable terms include spirit, Tao, Chi, underlying unity, or, very broadly interpreted, God. Words are an impediment here, as the basic conception(s) at issue are beyond the ability of current language to convey (at least for some of the words in English). is as fundamental as charge or mass consciousness is ubiquitous, and humans are a latecomer to highly-intelligent species on Earth.

More than a philosophical perspective or imaginary narrative, a premise here is that the essence of this theme corresponds to the way the world really is (the same claim as made by physicalists). It takes as a starting point that the standard scientistic orthodoxy of a purely material or physical universe is incomplete and simply wrong in its presumption that consciousness and the vast spectrum of subjective or experiential phenomena are exclusively derivatives of physical processes.

Well explore this story here through a mixture of ideas from Western philosophies and esoteric traditions along with discoveries and conjectures of modern science, particularly physics and biology. Variants of idealism, panpsychism and others with a selective sprinkling of principles from esoteric or occult perspectives fall into the broader composite considered here.

Its important to acknowledges that efforts to tell this story are hampered by our language, grounded as it is in an old, classical view of the world. Just as the two-dimensional denizens of Edwin Abbeys Flatland could neither describe nor conceive of the sphere that passed through their world, the languages and basic conceptions of contemporary Western civilization, with their roots in supernatural and physicalist presumptions, can (at least for now) only provide relatively crude approximations of what is shaping up to be a radically different perspective of reality.

In the end, of course, this is a matter of belief, different only in type from the prevailing scientistic commitment to physicalism: that science is the only valid means of reaching truth about the Universe and that everything (including consciousness and subjective phenomena) is exclusively physical. ..This is, of course, a belief, no different except in conclusion from the foundational premise of modern neuroscience that all subjective phenomena such as mind or consciousness are derivatives of purely physical processes. But it appears to offer a much richer means of accommodating the immense spectrum of subjective phenomena that collectively represent much of what it means to be sentient and, more narrowly, human.

But unlike physicalism, worldviews in which spirit is fundamental connect to the essence of sentience and humanity. It is difficult to imagine a meaningful takeaway from physicalism about how to live ones life, but acknowledging a deep sense of spirituality as a fully natural phenomenon opens very many ways to align values, behaviors with ones conception of the world. The spirituality considered here, however, is not supernatural; it does not derive from an omnipotent agent or invoke non-material entities. It is entirely natural, inherent to all that is, and far more. As water is to fish its simply what we are immersed within.

The standard scientific narrative, accepted by just about everyone in contemporary academia, holds that Life on earth (and anywhere else in the cosmos it may have occurred) is a bizarre accident in an otherwise cold and sterile universe, the result of random chemical reactions in a primordial soup that evolved over billions of years and eventually produced what we perceive of as consciousness. There is in this view no underlying purpose, meaning, or anything but the random workings of adaptive evolution.

None of this is new. The ideas are circulating in various forms incomplete, provisional, and very different from the dominant narratives in contemporary Western thought, more of a framework for further discussion. But if even part of this story is more or less true, it could be as if not more revolutionary than any other previous change in perspective about the nature of reality. It is speculative, incomplete, and provisional, but, my hope is, a small contribution to the growing set of mind-centric conceptions about the nature of the world. Many philosophical perspectives are potential alternatives to the physicalist conception. Philosophical labels for these ideas include panpsychism, duaand variants (e.g., panentheism, ****), neutral monism, and a psychophysical continuum. What is often if not typically assumed in discussions about these and related ideas, however, is that Western languages are up to the task of adequately describing elements of such a new worldview. Just as the two-dimensional denizens of Edwin Abbeys Flatland had no way to describe the sphere that passed through their world, the languages of contemporary Western civilization, with their roots in supernatural and physicalist presumptions, can (at least for now) only provide relatively crude approximations of a radically different conception of reality.

==============

The idea that mind is a fundamental property or aspect of all that is has been part of Western thought from the birth of Ancient Greek philosophy.
idealism (the idea that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual), panpsychism (a set of ideas holding that consciousness or mind is a fundamental aspect of the universe), Broad interest in mind as a fundamental property of the universe has waxed and waned since the 16th century, Panpsychist ideas were relatively prominent in early Greek philosophy and in the Neoplatonist era that emerged in the 3rd century. See A Brief History of Panpsychist Ideas in this project for a summary and references. but has generally been considered to be a fringe perspective for most of the 20th century with the dominance of scientific materialism and logical positivism.

diminished with the advent of the Scientific Revolution, generally replaced by the mind/body dualism of Ren Descartes. During the last decades of the 20th century the idea of a mind as separate from matter was in turn very widely supplanted by physicalism, the idea that consciousness, mind and all other subjective phenomena are derivatives of purely physical processes. And thats where things pretty much stand today for most contemporary scientists and philosophers.

The common foundation of philosophies characterized by the pan prefix, that their principles apply universally to all things without exception See Similarities and differences in pan- philosophies for are explored in , Panpsychism, holds that mind is a fundamental property of all that exists. In pantheism, the divine (typically referred to as God) is identical to everything in the universe; everything is sacred. Panentheism

But not for all of them. Challenges to this scientistic orthodoxy Scientism is the idea that truths about the world, reality, can only be established through scientific means. That the contents of the Universe are exclusively physical is, in the scientist view, an idea not subject to question, in other words, an orthodoxy. , although long a part of philosophical debates, have recently emerged through discoveries and conjectures in physics and biology. meshes with a wide range of spiritual narratives and that appears to be supported (or at least is not contradicted) by discoveries of modern science. Far from fully-formed, it is just a rough approximation, incomplete and provisional but perhaps enough to provide a starting point for further discussions.

It is, however, not a straightforward story that can be told tightly through logical progression more like a hologram, individual pieces can represent the entire image (albeit with very low resolution), but the clarity of the image increases as more and more pieces are brought together. So the approach here is to lay out many sometimes seemingly disparate ideas and observations from philosophy, science, and spiritual narratives, things that collectively represent a world fundamentally different from what most contemporary scientists and philosophers believe it to be.

Although it goes directly to the heart of many big questions, or perhaps because of that, this does not appear to be a conversation that many people will engage in. It requires personal depth and an open mind, intellectual or spiritual curiosity, a strong sense of introspection, and a wariness of credulity. Skepticism, an entirely understandable response, must be balanced with the recognition that none of this can be proven; it is fundamentally a matter of belief ( as is the physicalist conception).

Spiritual Frameworks in the West

To a first approximation, three frameworks or worldviews underly most conceptions of spirit in Western thought: physicalism, supernaturalism, and what may be broadly grouped as nature-based cosmologies. In the physicalist paradigm, notions of spirit are purely the result of electrochemical processes in a (probably only) human brain as are all forms and expressions of consciousness in animals. This view, which emerged just a few decades ago Andrew Newberg notes that relating conscious experience to brain function is a relatively recent notion: neurology was overwhelmingly indifferent to mental life during the bulk of its history.Rather, it concerned itself with movement, spinal reflexes, and other physical functions while leaving mental life to the realm of psychiatry and philosophy. Wednesday is Indigo Blue, p. 16 but has quickly become the dominant scientific perspective, is based on the presumption that the fundamentals of reality are exclusively physical, that everything that exists can at least in principle be traced back to something measurable. Although there is a very wide range of ideas about just how brains may generate consciousness and derivatives such as notions of spirit there is virtual unanimity in the scientific community that a complete explanation of consciousness will be strictly physical.

Supernaturalism, a dualistic belief in forces, phenomena, or entities that are beyond the natural world, is the millennia-old foundation of most Western religious beliefs and traditions. Supernaturalism is most commonly associated with monotheistic conceptions of an omnipotent God, but it also includes belief in a non-material spirit world that can be accessed through channelers. Channelers are individuals who claim to communicate with spirits or other non-material entities. For example: Alice Bailey; Edgar Cayce; Jane Roberts (Seth); Esther Hicks (Abraham); and Ramon Stevens (Alexander) Believers in supernaturalism usually cede to science for explanations of the natural world but maintain that the world of spirit is beyond any possible scientific investigation.

Nature-based cosmologies span a wide range of belief systems including indigenous spiritualities, contemporary paganism, Gaianism, and eco-spiritual perspectives. Although very different in cultural contexts and practices, they tend to have common beliefs such as the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things, the importance of maintaining balance and harmony, ethical responsibility to the Earth and its inhabitants, and the inseparableness of material and spiritual realms.

Adherents of each view, particularly physicalism and supernaturalism, are often true-believers with a tendency toward observational bias See “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, and The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies by Michael Shermer (2011): and an unwillingness to seriously consider other perspectives.

A fourth framework with roots in antiquity and a renewed interest through modern physics is beginning to emerge,
The vision of participating in a consciously evolving world has greatly expanded through the work of D.S. Wilson and others who have dared to advance ideas challenging the orthodoxy of the Modern Synthesis and its presumption of randomness as the exclusive means of adaptation. Ostroms ideas about cultural adaptation add an important layer and further explanatory power to the notion that human consciousness is evolving.
An obscure but potential contribution to the growing narrative of conscious evolution comes from speculations about consciousness that emerged out of quantum foundations over the past several decades. The idea that consciousness may be fundamental to reality, long a basic tenet of Western esoteric philosophy, has become more respectable (at least in non-esoteric circles) with the advent of quantum mechanics. Although several founders of quantum theory expressed ideas that suggested at least a hint of mysticism, Wolfgang Pauli went further. In a decades-long collaboration, Pauli and Carl Jung developed their ideas about a psychophysically neutral reality, combining their experience in quantum mechanics and depth psychology to propose a framework that synthesized mental and physical properties. Their basic premise is a form of dual-aspect monism, the idea that mind and matter do not exist independently but are two different aspects of an underlying and unified reality. Pauli and Jung particularly explored the idea of serendipity, but variations of dual-aspect monism or similar notions have been advanced or endorsed by other philosophers and physicists. A possible but significant implication of these monistic conceptions is that non-material phenomena such as spirituality and values derive from something more fundamental than electrochemical reactions in a brain.
Might this in some way align with a core premise of some Western esoteric philosophies, that human consciousness is evolving through the power of thought, both individual and collective, a premise that appears to be quite similar to a core element of ProSocial, that every person is in a position to start consciously evolving both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of their meaning systems for the groups in their own lives. Could these be different ways of saying the same thing? Is it possible that mind, consciousness, or spirit are more or less equivalent and somehow a fundamental property of the universe? Could this be part of the tertium quid that Thomas Nagel is looking for, a middle-ground between the prevailing poles of theism/supernaturalism and reductive materialism? Do monistic narratives have equivalent (or possibly stronger) power for individual motivation and action (the first two of Wilsons three criteria), not to mention the possibility of a tighter explanatory framework that explicitly accommodates the idea of fundamental, qualitative phenomena ? And what about large-brained, non-human animals? Are they not subject to the same evolutionary forces of consciousness as Homo sapiens? Does the fact that dozens of large-brained species have been morphologically stable for millions of years have any significance in a discussion about broader conceptions of consciousness? These are some of the questions that could be explored in a forum for ideas that dont fit comfortably in conventional narratives of consciousness but may better align with a vastly greater reality that we are only beginning to apprehend.

are they both referring to the same thing? Just what is the reality they are apparently both talking about? Isnt a basic conception of reality more or less obvious? After all, we commonly refer to crazy people as being detached from reality. Most of us probably think that reality is more or less obvious, that its the But as well see, that common conception of reality is at best simplistic and at worst inaccurate. And its not just a philosophical issue: the bizarre discoveries modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics, have made questions about the nature of reality more than a philosophical abstraction.

Isaac Asimov, Limitations, Introduction to Flatland, Barnes & Noble edition, 1983 : Isaac Asimov, Limitations, Introduction to Flatland, Barnes & Noble edition, 1983

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Stephen Pinker, for example. : Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Stephen Pinker, for example.

Chalmers, David J.. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Philosophy of Mind) (p. 3). (Function). Kindle Edition : Chalmers, David J.. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Philosophy of Mind) (p. 3). (Function). Kindle Edition

In direct reference to the hard problem of consciousness coined and popularized by Chalmers. : In direct reference to the hard problem of consciousness coined and popularized by Chalmers.

By Galen Strawson, NYT, May 16, 2016, Consciousness Isnt a Mystery. Its Matter1 : By Galen Strawson, NYT, May 16, 2016, Consciousness Isnt a Mystery. Its Matter1 1 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html

See XXX for a brief comparison of the similarities between the concepts of consciousness and electricity. : See XXX for a brief comparison of the similarities between the concepts of consciousness and electricity.

Marcus Appleby, Mind and Matter: A Critique of Cartesian Thinking, in The Pauli-Jung Conjecture p.30 : Marcus Appleby, Mind and Matter: A Critique of Cartesian Thinking, in The Pauli-Jung Conjecture p.30

Specifically, observation and measurement which require consciousness. : Specifically, observation and measurement which require consciousness.

Although we have no idea whether or to what extent large-brained non-human animals have a deep sense or use of symbolism : Although we have no idea whether or to what extent large-brained non-human animals have a deep sense or use of symbolism

Mind & Cosmos, p. 22 : Mind & Cosmos, p. 22

See Dawkins, Harris, Pinker, Kraus and others. : See Dawkins, Harris, Pinker, Kraus and others.

Insert scientistic intro. ***** : Insert scientistic intro. *****

The terms physical and material are used interchangeably here. : The terms physical and material are used interchangeably here.

Albeit to widely varying degrees. : Albeit to widely varying degrees.

The elusive nature of consciousness remains the same today, although most neuroscientists are now focused on a narrower characterization of consciousness through neural correlates of consciousness, the idea that conscious states are identical to specific neurological events. : The elusive nature of consciousness remains the same today, although most neuroscientists are now focused on a narrower characterization of consciousness through neural correlates of consciousness, the idea that conscious states are identical to specific neurological events.

More broadly, we dont know what electromagnetism is. Or, as Bill Clinton infamously said, it depends on what the meaning of the word is is. : More broadly, we dont know what electromagnetism is. Or, as Bill Clinton infamously said, it depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

Over the past few decades the idea that mind, all subjective phenomena, are secondary consequences of physical processes has largely replaced the dualist view, but that has not changed the overall antipathy to notions of spirit.. More on this in Matters of Mind. : Over the past few decades the idea that mind, all subjective phenomena, are secondary consequences of physical processes has largely replaced the dualist view, but that has not changed the overall antipathy to notions of spirit.. More on this in Matters of Mind.

Provisionally interchangeable terms include mind, spirit, Tao, Chi, underlying unity, or consciousness. Words are an impediment here, as the basic conception(s) at issue appear to be beyond the ability of current language to convey. : Provisionally interchangeable terms include mind, spirit, Tao, Chi, underlying unity, or consciousness. Words are an impediment here, as the basic conception(s) at issue appear to be beyond the ability of current language to convey.

In contrast to a supernatural view wherein non-material entities possess high-level consciousness. : In contrast to a supernatural view wherein non-material entities possess high-level consciousness.

But then the the idea of a moving Earth was considered absurd by leading scholars in the 16th and early 17th centuries. : But then the the idea of a moving Earth was considered absurd by leading scholars in the 16th and early 17th centuries.

See Physicalism for a brief summary of this philosophical perspective and some of the key challenges it faces. : See Physicalism for a brief summary of this philosophical perspective and some of the key challenges it faces.

With a nod to notions about the Multiverse or the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. See Many Worlds for a brief summary. : With a nod to notions about the Multiverse or the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. See Many Worlds for a brief summary.

The idea of a single, fundamental substance or principle known as monism is referred to by different terms. underlying essence is : The idea of a single, fundamental substance or principle known as monism is referred to by different terms. underlying essence is

Provisionally interchangeable terms include spirit, Tao, Chi, underlying unity, or, very broadly interpreted, God. Words are an impediment here, as the basic conception(s) at issue are beyond the ability of current language to convey (at least for some of the words in English). : Provisionally interchangeable terms include spirit, Tao, Chi, underlying unity, or, very broadly interpreted, God. Words are an impediment here, as the basic conception(s) at issue are beyond the ability of current language to convey (at least for some of the words in English).

Panpsychist ideas were relatively prominent in early Greek philosophy and in the Neoplatonist era that emerged in the 3rd century. See A Brief History of Panpsychist Ideas in this project for a summary and references. : Panpsychist ideas were relatively prominent in early Greek philosophy and in the Neoplatonist era that emerged in the 3rd century. See A Brief History of Panpsychist Ideas in this project for a summary and references.

See Similarities and differences in pan- philosophies for are explored in : See Similarities and differences in pan- philosophies for are explored in

Scientism is the idea that truths about the world, reality, can only be established through scientific means. That the contents of the Universe are exclusively physical is, in the scientist view, an idea not subject to question, in other words, an orthodoxy. : Scientism is the idea that truths about the world, reality, can only be established through scientific means. That the contents of the Universe are exclusively physical is, in the scientist view, an idea not subject to question, in other words, an orthodoxy.

Andrew Newberg notes that relating conscious experience to brain function is a relatively recent notion: neurology was overwhelmingly indifferent to mental life during the bulk of its history.Rather, it concerned itself with movement, spinal reflexes, and other physical functions while leaving mental life to the realm of psychiatry and philosophy. Wednesday is Indigo Blue, p. 16 : Andrew Newberg notes that relating conscious experience to brain function is a relatively recent notion: neurology was overwhelmingly indifferent to mental life during the bulk of its history.Rather, it concerned itself with movement, spinal reflexes, and other physical functions while leaving mental life to the realm of psychiatry and philosophy. Wednesday is Indigo Blue, p. 16

Channelers are individuals who claim to communicate with spirits or other non-material entities. For example: Alice Bailey; Edgar Cayce; Jane Roberts (Seth); Esther Hicks (Abraham); and Ramon Stevens (Alexander) : Channelers are individuals who claim to communicate with spirits or other non-material entities. For example: Alice Bailey; Edgar Cayce; Jane Roberts (Seth); Esther Hicks (Abraham); and Ramon Stevens (Alexander)

See “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, and The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies by Michael Shermer (2011): : See “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, and The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies by Michael Shermer (2011):