Author Archives: Kip Welch

We may be important after all

The universe is vast, and we are small. If we vanished tomorrow, the universe would go on much as before. If our solar system vanished, or the entire Milky Way galaxy, the result would be the same. Against the backdrop of the universe, our existence seems insignificant to say the least. And if the macrocosmic universe itself is an illusion, is that not final proof of our ultimate insignificance in the great scheme of things?

And yet four centuries after Galileo, we still imagine ourselves at the center of all things. We insist that we have a role to play on even the greatest stage. But do humans really have such a purpose? Are our tiny lives important to the universe? Or is it arrogance alone that makes us think so highly of ourselves?

Are we as insignificant as we seem to be?

In all likelihood we are exactly that insignificant. But before we accept the obvious answer, perhaps we should examine what we know.

First, we are a legitimate part of the universe. We have no reason to assume that we are less legitimate than other elements of this vast all. If our part of the universe is insignificant, we likely must conclude that other parts of the universe are just as insignificant. We might have to ask whether the universe itself has any discernible significance.

Alternatively, if we assume that all elements of the universe have some significance—for no other reason than each element plays a role in the functioning of the whole—then we must conclude that our existence also has at least that much significance. We play some role. We are not accidental to the mechanism of the universe, but rather part of the functioning of that mechanism. Even the illusion of self may have some minor part to play in the illusion that is the whole macrocosmic universe.

Does the universe want or need us to exist?

Second, as far as we know, we and other conscious entities are the consciousness of the universe. And since our knowledge of conscious entities is limited, it is conceivable, if unlikely, that we ourselves are a primary source of consciousness in the universe. Even if we are not alone, we are a means for the universe to experience conscious existence.

To state the obvious, that experience includes the basics such as observation, awareness, and intentionality, but also more intangible things such as language, imagination, creativity, literature, philosophy, science, civilization, not to mention friendship, love, loss, and even death.

What if the universe can know itself and all these things only through us and other conscious entities? Is that our role? Does that give our existence meaning and importance?

Are we part of the purpose of the universe?

Third, what if in addition to knowing itself through us, the universe also finds purpose through us? Not because we are its purpose, but because we search for purpose. In other words, through us the universe experiences a search for purpose.

We need not assume that we are the reason for the universe or that the universe was created for our sake. We can accept what seems obvious from the tiny scope of our existence, i.e., that we are not the most important part of the universe. But we are a part of it. And we happen to be a part that looks for purpose, both our own and the purpose of the universe itself.

Is our search for purpose important?

Could our seemingly insignificant lives help the universe find its purpose? Does the universe even have or want a purpose?

Again, all we know for sure is that the universe has conscious entities within it that search for purpose and meaning. Just as the universe experiences consciousness through its components with consciousness, the universe may experience meaning through its conscious components that search for meaning.

Is that enough? Can the universe rely on conscious components to find meaning and thereby create the universe’s own meaning?

Does the universe need more meaning than that?

We often imagine that the underlying meaning and purpose of reality is discoverable, something known out there that we cannot see. We spend lifetimes studying the universe or meditating to uncover its secrets. But could it be true that the universe has only what we give it, that it has the meaning that conscious entities within it search for and create?

The universe may or may not have a purpose, but it has a search for purpose. It has us.

“I don’t want to die”

Leave a reply

If we are as we seem to be—organic mechanisms with consciousness—how did we come to be? Why did the universe generate life forms such as us? Was it an accident? Is consciousness an accident?

There are two central questions here. First, how did life come to be? Was it an accident of chemistry or were there forces in the mechanism of the universe that caused it to generate life? Second, once life came to be, how did consciousness also come to be? Why did we with our many questions come to exist? Why is the universe not populated by organisms with simpler brains and far fewer questions?

For the time being, I will leave the first and most difficult question to others.[1] It may be that the creation of life as we understand it was an accident of chemistry. For now I will say only that when the Big Bang created the diversity of matter and energy that came to form the macrocosmic universe, it perhaps was not surprising that such diversity included the raw materials of evolution, awareness, consciousness, and self-examination of the universe itself.

The second question is marginally easier to address than the first. It comes down to how and why natural selection generates beings with consciousness as we know it. Is consciousness an accidental artifact of evolution or is there a mechanism or principle that biases natural selection toward the evolution of consciousness?[2]

Does natural selection select for consciousness?

It may be true that consciousness, once it exists, is a trait that increases reproductive success. A gradual and incremental evolution of consciousness may be a natural result of the increasing survivability of species that develop efficacious systems for maintaining awareness of the outside world and the potential threats and opportunities that can be found there. That by itself may be sufficient to explain the existence of consciousness as a survival mechanism. But is it enough to explain conscious intellectual life as we know it? Or does some other characteristic or refinement of consciousness result in life forms that ask philosophical questions?

Does natural selection require organisms that want to live?

A rock does not care about its survival. It does not have “wants”. So we ordinarily do not think of a rock as having consciousness or a desire to ask philosophical questions. Nor do we think of a rock as being subject to natural selection.[3]

At a certain point in the development of the universe, however, organisms appear that are subject to natural selection. They live and die and pass on hereditary characteristics to successors. It may seem obvious, but simultaneously or at some subsequent point, organisms appear that not only live and die and exist, but also have a desire to exist—to eat, to mate, to create a future. They want to survive and not to die. That “want” is almost certainly a trait that evolution selects for success.

Admittedly, it may play only an indirect or minor role in evolutionary success. The simple desire not to die surely must be present in all surviving species with any sense of awareness, so it is likely neither a differentiator among species or organisms, nor a statistical predictor of reproductive success. However, it is perhaps a precondition to the success of species like ours. Does that precondition help explain not only rudimentary consciousness but also the development of intellectual life as we know it?

“I don’t want to die”

To have the desire to live and not to die, an organism needs a definite boundary between itself and the external world, including other organisms. It must have at least some nebulous sense of self or “I”—the thing that does not wish to die. It also needs some awareness of “death” as loss of that thing. The desire to live and not to die therefore bears within it some fundamental questions about existence:

What is I? What is self?
What is death?
What does it mean for “me” to “die”?
Is it possible for me not to die?

These basic questions are germinated within the most basic desire of any living organism—the desire not to die—and they are the recognizable seeds of philosophy and intellectual life.

As other traits evolve to make an organism more successful, the seeds of expanded consciousness grow and develop along with the intellectual capacities of the organism. They accompany the evolution of bigger brains that enable the manipulation of tools and the environment. They are there when language is created, hovering in the back of the conscious mind, ready for expression in the culture that language enables.

Organisms use their big brains to survive and build better, and the process of survival itself encourages the introspection that drives intellectual development. The one simple desire—wanting not to die—puts life on a path toward expanded consciousness. Even if the will to live is not a differentiator among species, it is a necessary ingredient for natural selection, and it may open a door that cannot then be closed, leading inevitably to full consciousness, self-awareness, and intellectual self-examination. The will to live may or may not make us stronger, but it does make us more philosophical.

Consciousness may be no accident at all

All in all, there may be a clear path from that first moment of wanting to full sentience and human consciousness. Natural selection may be a biological and philosophical exercise, a way for the universe to evolve its own understanding of itself.[4] If that is true, then the gradual evolution of consciousness is a natural and expected result. It is not an accident. It is grafted onto the roots of the origin of species.[5]

[1] Thomas Nagel in Mind and Cosmos frames both questions and offers a far-ranging discussion of the pros and cons of philosophical theories that purport to answer them. Nagel (2012).

[2] Or is this one of an infinite number of universes with all possibilities realized in at least one? Hmm…. I am with Thomas Nagel on this possibility. “Well, there is the hypothesis that this universe is not unique, but that all possible universes exist, and we find ourselves, not surprisingly, in one that contains life. But that is a cop-out, which dispenses with the attempt to explain anything.” Nagel (2012), p. 95, footnote 9.

[3] Although it may be worth considering whether there could be some inorganic equivalent of natural selection that guides the evolution of substances and particles and processes in a way that is comparable to how natural selection guides the evolution of living things?

[4] “Each of our lives is part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.” Nagel (2012), p. 85. “We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” Carl Sagan.

[5] For the perspective of a neuroscientist on the biological origins of consciousness, see Seth (2021), p. 281. “The totality of our perceptions and cognitions—the whole panorama of human experience and mental life—is sculpted by a deep-seated biological drive to stay alive. We perceive the world around us, and ourselves within it, with, through and because of our living bodies.” (Italics in original.)

We are Data

Leave a reply

Data is a living robot made from synthetic materials who possesses intellect and consciousness

“Data” is the name of the character played by Brent Spiner in the Star Trek films and television shows.[1] He is a synthetic life form constructed from metallic alloys, circuitry, and organic-like materials that simulate a human body, and he has both great intellectual capabilities and a form of sentience and self-awareness.

“Diamond Planet Robots” by Mark Garretson

Data struggles to understand humanity. Over the course of his fictional life, he obtains a programming upgrade that allows him to experience emotion, which leads him to struggle even more with what it means to be human. Gradually he expands his consciousness and becomes a more fully developed sentient being. He ultimately sacrifices himself to save his human crewmates.

Data stands in a long line of fictional characters who are artificially created beings—robots, golems, puppets, statues, and monsters.[2] The fictional device often has been used as a metaphor for what it means to be human, or as a way to provide an outsider’s commentary on humanity.

Data is that type of metaphorical character, but that is not what I mean when I say that we are Data. No, my meaning is not metaphorical in the same fictional sense at all.

Humans are living robots made from organic materials who possess intellect and consciousness

We are not just like Data. We are of the same kind as Data.

In other words, we are robots of organic construction. Instead of metal substructure and silicon circuity beneath our skin, we have bone and carbon-based cellular structures that support a complex system of vessels, communication lines, nerve endings, and synapses. Our species of Homo sapiens is an emerging life form that appeared on our planet in our current form only about three hundred millennia ago. Our brains did not learn the rudiments of language until one hundred thousand years ago, and since then over a relatively short geological time span, our brains have evolved to develop advanced intellectual, social, and cultural capabilities based on language. We quite literally have become living robots of the same category as a creature like Data, evolving and developing new capacities as we learn to be who and what we are.[3]

Like Data we struggle with what it means to be human

Our species did not come into being with full knowledge of how to use our capacities and how to live as self-aware sentient creatures. A hundred millennia into the development of language, we do not understand our own humanity or how to communicate clearly even some of our most basic needs and desires. We have emotions and feelings, but they confound us. Our consciousness is hard to define, but it defines us, even if we cannot explain it fully or pin it down in our brains, and even if what we often imagine as “self” is indeed an illusion. Like Data we are learning machines, struggling to understand who we are, creating what it is to be human in real time.

That is how we are most like Data. We are organic mechanisms attempting to become human, while simultaneously exploring both what it means to be human and the universe in which we live. And that is fine with me. I do not consider it reductionist in the slightest. We don’t need to imagine ourselves more than organic machines. It is enough that we struggle to be human. That is what is important and most interesting about us.

It is also what is most interesting about the universe. Why does the universe generate living machines such as us? Why do we have the capacity to examine ourselves and question who and what we are? Why do we want to become more than what we are? To be what we imagine we could be?

Perhaps because we are exactly like Data.

[1] Data was introduced as a character in the Star Trek: The Next Generation television series in 1987. Wikipedia 2022. Data (Star Trek). Last edited on June 13, 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(Star_Trek)

[2] The many examples include movies such as Her and Blade Runner, the Pinnochio story, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the myth of Pygmalion, Hal 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey, even C3PO and R2D2 of Star Wars.

[3] If it seems difficult to conceive of humans as advanced robots, read one of our most accomplished cognitive scientists and natural philosophers. Daniel Dennett describes the evolution of the complex operations of the brain over thousands of years of natural selection and concludes that consciousness can be defined as a virtual machine operating on an organic substrate. In his widely held view, humans are exactly like living robots running on advanced software and organic parts. “’Of course we’re machines! We’re just very, very complicated, evolved machines made of organic molecules instead of metal and silicon, and we are conscious, so there can be conscious machines – us.’” Dennett (1991), pp. 431-432.

The holodeck is real

Leave a reply

“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players….” William Shakespeare, As You Like It (Act 2, Scene 7)

The entire macrocosmic universe is an illusion

What does it mean that the world around us and the heavens above us are all an illusion?

What we know is that objects appear to be solid, but are not. Space appears to be empty, but instead is full of energy. Energy and matter are interconnected and interchangeable, comprising one vast connected energy field spanning the entire universe.

The atomic and subatomic components of matter in that field are not solid. They are both particles and waves and even bundles of waves. They move constantly at dizzying speeds, but have no definitive location and momentum. In their essence they are hardly things at all, but subparts or subzones of that vast interconnected field of energy that is everywhere and everything. The universe is defined by interactions among the subparts and subzones, the constant exchange of energy and energy particles.

Macrocosmic time is not constant, but relative. Objects moving at different velocities experience time differently, with time coming almost to a halt for objects approaching the speed of light. Beneath the macrocosm in the quantum world of energy particles in a universal energy field, time as we know it may not exist at all, with nothing but waves upon waves of superpositioned possibilities constantly evolving, pulsating, changing, and therefore always the same.

Our entire macrocosmic universe is sewn together from a subatomic fabric of interconnected energy. Our world—the stage on which we humans play out generations of our existence—may be nothing more than a temporary knot of energy in that vast fabric.

So yes, the holodeck is “real”

It is not real in the sense that we live in a simulation, a pretend world generated by a complex software algorithm. We do not live in a zoo created by an advanced alien species. The illusion in which we live is not fake. It is real. It is what the universe does and is.

The universe is indeed a vast engine of energy and matter that continuously generates the macrocosmic world in which we live. The generation of our world is not an accident or a collateral effect. It is a physical phenomenon that follows from the logic of the universe, as intended and intentional as any element of material reality can be.

Why does the holodeck exist?

That is perhaps the biggest and most foolish question of all. What is the meaning of the holodeck?[1] Is there any meaning? If we are in an illusion, should we conclude that existence has no meaning? Is the holodeck and its macrocosmic illusion final proof of our insignificance?

Alternatively, if the universe is a system, should we ask if the holodeck serves a function in the system? What mechanism or logic in the universe necessitates the creation of a macrocosm that is essentially an illusion?

This alternative statement of the question suggests a different way to think about the significance of existence. For some yet unexplained reason the universe has created and is creating a stage every moment of its existence. Is it logical to assume that the performance on the stage has no significance? Could the play be insignificant? Or is the play somehow important to the functioning of the system?

And if the play is important, and we are players, are we important in some way? Are our small, seemingly insignificant lives important to the functioning of the universe? Must the play go on?

There are possible explanations of the great illusion which suggest precisely that.

[1] “The Holodeck is a fictional device from the television franchise Star Trek which uses “holograms” (projected light and electromagnetic energy which create the illusion of solid objects) to create a realistic 3D simulation of a real or imaginary setting, in which participants can freely interact with the environment as well as objects and characters, and sometimes a predefined narrative.” Wikipedia. 2022. “Holodeck.” Last modified March 20, 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodeck#:~:text=The%20Holodeck%20is%20a%20fictional,interact%20with%20the%20environment%20as

Is self an illusion?

Leave a reply

If consciousness is part of the physical universe, and if connected consciousness is real, to what extent is individual consciousness, our sense of self, an illusion?

The simple answer is “yes.” The complicated answer is also “yes.”

A recurring theme in human spirituality is the experience of some form of connected consciousness outside the self. Mystics speak of the self as an illusion, and the study of spirituality and consciousness often leads to a conclusion that the self is an illusory construct of the mind.[1] Meditation is said to bring an experience of “pure consciousness” different from the experience of self—an empirical cognitive awareness that need not be religious in nature. Even a committed atheist can experience a connection to pure consciousness within one’s own mind.[2]

Some scientists and philosophers also speak of consciousness as an illusion, nothing more than an incorrect perception of reality or a temporary accident of neuroscience.[3] Others believe that all intangible things that exist only in subjective perceptions are not real in the objective sense. Some argue the opposite view that objective reality is an illusion because humans cannot experience anything other than our own subjective reality.

So who is correct? Is pure consciousness the true underlying reality? Is individual consciousness a temporary accident? Is everything intangible an illusion? Or is the entire vision of objective reality an illusion?

The answer to all these questions is “yes.”

The self is an illusion because it is impermanent

Consciousness exists and is part of the physical world, but it is likely that the self is characteristic of only one phase of physical existence. To the best of our knowledge, we experience the self only while the components of consciousness that comprise our existence are part of a living individual. During our lifetimes we may glimpse pure consciousness, but our primary experience is one of individual consciousness as a distinct component of the all.

That primary experience is temporary. If death does not destroy consciousness, surely it means the loss of self and a return to pure, undifferentiated existence. The illusion ends and we lose ourselves in the lake of matter and energy and connected consciousness from which we came.

The self is an illusion because the macrocosmic universe is an illusion

All of “reality” also is in some sense an illusion. That includes both the objective reality of traditional physical scientists and the subjective perceptual reality in which we humans live.

We commonly perceive the universe as comprised of solid objects and quantifiable forces that cause interactions between objects in space and time. When we look into the sky, we see an enormous collection of stars, planets, and galaxies whirling through the vastness of empty space.

That vision of the macrocosmic universe is an illusion. Objects are not solid in the way that we perceive. They consist of tiny particles of interchangeable matter and energy orbiting other tiny particles at relative distances that are almost unimaginable on the macroscopic scale. An atom is almost entirely empty space in which particles orbit and interact across vast stretches. We perceive objects as solid because the extreme velocity of the tiny particles (in the very small atoms that comprise slightly less small molecules) creates the illusion of solid objects in space.[4]

The tiny particles themselves are not solid in any traditional sense. They may be waves or particles depending on how they are perceived. They may exist in multiple places at once and may have no definite location or velocity until we attempt to observe and measure them.

Atoms with their tiny particles or waves interact in patterns constantly, forming a vast fabric of pulsating energy that is the underlying substance of the microscopic universe. What we perceive as objects may be nothing more than concentrations of energy morphed into knots of matter that can morph back into energy again.

Time may not exist in any ordinary sense for this microcosmic quantum reality that forms the underlying fabric of the universe. There are no definite events; there is no progress of history. All possibilities exist side by side with each assigned an amplitude of something like probability. An entangled universe evolves with waves of interlocking superpositions that make all things possible and nothing definite or real as we know it. There is only a vast field of pulsating energy that forms all things and subverts all things. Nothing is permanent but that one massive field of throbbing energy, constantly changing and therefore possibly never changing.[5]

Objective reality and subjective reality are both part of the same illusion

If the microscopic quantum world reveals objective macroscopic reality as a superficial illusion, subjective reality is nothing more than our human perception of that illusion. The self and all things tangible and intangible may be little more than temporary concentrations of energy in the fabric of the universe, part of a macroscopic illusion that can change in an instant.

So yes, self is an illusion, but perhaps no more than our sun, our galaxy, or the macrocosmic universe itself.

What matters is the significance of the illusion

The interesting question is not whether self and consciousness are illusions, or even whether objective and subjective reality are illusions. The truly interesting question is not whether we live in an illusion, but why. What is the significance of this illusory reality? What does it mean that the universe is a pulsating energy field that inexplicably creates a constant stream of illusory experience? What does it mean that we are here to observe it, or at least that the illusion of observation is created inside this pulsating energy field? Why should we or any of these illusions exist at all?

These are fundamentally abstract questions. They suggest others only slightly less abstract:

Does time exist in any form for this microcosmic quantum reality? What is time and is it real? Is time part of the illusion?
Why does the illusion of spacetime exist? Is spacetime real? What causes macrocosmic reality to seem to exist at all?
Why does the universe generate an illusion of consciousness and self? What purpose does it serve in the mechanics of the universe and the illusion of macrocosmic reality?
What does it mean that the universe is expanding continually at an increasing velocity? Is some core change happening in the universe at a macro or micro level? Does the universe have a trajectory or is it never-changing and timeless? Is the seeming trajectory of the expanding universe just another illusion?

These abstract questions are precisely big and foolish enough to fit squarely within the theme of this collection of essays. In attempting to address them going forward, I will rely on scientific investigation where accessible to an amateur investigator. But if you are reading this, I hope you have a taste for logical conjecture and even imaginative philosophical speculation, because some foolish questions are not amenable to definitive empirical resolution. We will ask them anyway, of course.

[1] For a striking comparison, see Dennett (1991), pp. 426-427. “A self, according to my theory, is … an abstraction defined by the myriads of attributions and interpretations (including self-attributions and self-interpretations) that have composed the biography of the living body whose Center of Narrative Gravity it is.”

[2] Harris (2014).

[3] Perhaps even a “controlled hallucination.” Seth (2021).

[4] “These high velocities make the atom appear as a rigid sphere, just as a fast rotating propeller appears as a disc.” Capra (1975), p. 70.

[5] And based on the little we know, even that may be impermanent.

Does the universe have consciousness?

Leave a reply

On one level this question has a very simple answer. The universe has consciousness because it has us. We are conscious beings, and we and other conscious beings exist in the universe. Therefore the universe has consciousness within it. On that purely logical level, it is not possible that the universe can be without consciousness.

On another level, the question is not whether the universe has consciousness, but whether it has individual consciousness. Does the universe have individual consciousness as an entity separate from the conscious entities within it? That question has no simple answer.

It is conceivable that the universe has no separate, individual consciousness, that consciousness exists in the universe solely as a concatenation of conscious experiences within the universe. There may be no universal consciousness separate and apart from the experience of conscious beings.

Is connected consciousness sufficient for universal consciousness?

We have already concluded that all consciousness is connected. The physical properties of matter and energy do not allow a single consciousness to be cut off from other matter and energy or from other consciousness in the universe. We live, breathe, and interact in a lake of matter and energy that forms the foundation of all consciousness. The connections between us cannot be assumed away.

With all consciousness connected, is it possible that the web of connected consciousness does not exist separately from the consciousness of the individual entities within it? And if the connected thing exists separately, must it have a separate consciousness of itself?

To think of it another way, is the sense of connectedness felt by individual consciousness a form of collective consciousness? Could such a thing as Jung’s “collective unconscious” be an abstraction of the connected physical consciousness experienced by all conscious beings?

Does consciousness require experience of separation?

Consciousness gives us a sense of self. It makes us feel distinct from the world around us and from other beings. We conceive of connected consciousness because we feel disconnected. Can consciousness exist without that sense of separateness? Without awareness of separation from other forms of existence?[1]

If the universe is all, could it have a sense of self or the capacity to feel distinct from anything around it? Without that, could it experience consciousness at all?

Does consciousness require the possibility of death?

The most profound separation experienced by humans is death. Does consciousness require a beginning and an end?[2] Does the sense of self intrinsic to individual consciousness depend on the separation created by potential loss of consciousness and awareness of death? Can separate consciousness exist without the possibility of the loss of separate consciousness?

What we know

As a general rule, we experience consciousness only through ourselves. Outside the context of mystic experience, we are seldom aware of experiencing universal consciousness. Consequently, we do not know for certain whether universal consciousness exists or, if so, in what form it exists.

We do know that the universe has consciousness within it and that the universe experiences consciousness through us. As far as we know for certain, we may be the only way the universe experiences consciousness.

We also know that the universe experiences death only through the death of entities within the universe. We are not aware of any means by which the universe itself experiences death other than through us.[3] It may be then that the universe itself cannot experience full consciousness because it cannot experience death or separation. In fact, we ourselves may be the consciousness of the universe.

The one and the many

If that is so, the list of things that the universe experiences only through us may be long indeed. Could such a universe have no sense of distinct consciousness at all?

Or could the universe have the unique capacity to experience the less integrated consciousness of its separate components? Could it experience our consciousness and that of other conscious entities within it? Could the universe be conscious because (1) we are conscious and (2) we share our experience of separation and death with the unseparated and undying universal consciousness?

Perhaps again the mystics are correct that we experience oneness and eternity by connecting with universal consciousness. Perhaps also the universe experiences separation and death—and creates its own consciousness—by connecting with the consciousness of the many.

[1] Advocates of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) have a clear opinion on this question, postulating that “any conscious experience is definite, with borders.” “Thus the Anima Mundi or world soul is ruled out….” Koch (2019), pp. 163, 165.

[2] In the language of IIT theorists, if a conscious experience must be definite, does that include a definite period of time? Does consciousness require borders in time as well as space?

[3] Scientific cosmologists and physicists talk of the potential for “heat death” at the end of time and may establish at some point that the universe can or will die. But the concept may be beyond the ken of humans. Despite theorizing among physicists about “many worlds”, parallel universes, and the state of reality before the Big Bang, we humans commonly conceive of the universe as consisting of the all — all that is and ever was and ever shall be. How can such a thing cease to be?

Is connected consciousness real?

Leave a reply

If consciousness is an attribute of material reality, and all material reality is connected, must all consciousness also be connected? The logical answer is yes, a conclusion which we have accepted as a consequence of the connections between matter and energy in space and the existence of consciousness as part of the material universe.

The physical connections are obvious. Space is not empty but instead inhabited by forces and fields that surround objects throughout the universe, shaping even the progress of light and time. “Objects” are not themselves unique and separable, but intimately intertwined at the quantum level.[1] All material reality is connected. Once we accept that consciousness is a core component of material reality, the fact of connected consciousness is as obvious as the bending of light around large objects in spacetime. All consciousness is connected because all matter and energy are connected.

It is simple logic, but still an abstract theoretical conclusion. What does it mean practically? How do we experience connected consciousness?

Consciousness may be shared as matter and energy are shared

Consciousness is a component of physical reality and is built on a shared physical foundation. Atomic and subatomic particles of matter are the same across the universe. It does not matter what system the particles comprise; particles of matter, physical forces, and energy are the same elements regardless of the system. They share characteristics and are part of the same reserve of matter and energy that forms all material reality.

Logically, instances of consciousness may exist in different forms in different systems, but still must share some characteristics because they spring from the same reserve of matter and energy and the same entangled quantum microcosm that comprises physical reality. It may seem obvious, but consciousness does not appear to be unique to each conscious entity or each instance of consciousness; rather consciousness as an experience is shared in different forms among all conscious entities, with the primal desire “not to die” as perhaps the most fundamental shared feature of all consciousness.

Certainly human consciousness is not unique to each human being. At times it may seem vaguely plausible to imagine that each person experiences consciousness differently from others, but the proposition is nonsensical when weighed against the vast physical and mental similarities that allow humans to create overwhelmingly shared experiences such as language, culture, and civilization. Looking at the history and volume of shared experience and shared consciousness among our species, individual consciousness seems more a temporary loan from the group mind than an unshared, unique experience.

We know little about how other known species experience consciousness, but even apart from the desire not to die, we observe various forms of awareness and intelligence that seem both shared within the species and of a general nature that is not completely alien to our own sense of consciousness. We know even less about conscious entities elsewhere in the universe. But given the shared characteristics of matter and energy across the universe, and the assumption of consciousness as an attribute of material reality, it is not unreasonable to conclude that consciousness has some shared characteristics across all conscious entities in the universe.

To put it metaphorically, just as there is a lake of connected matter and energy that is shared across the universe and comprises all physical reality, there very likely may be a lake of connected consciousness that is shared across the universe as well.

Consciousness affects other consciousness

Consciousness has the ability to affect other consciousness. The actions and decisions of conscious entities have an impact on other conscious entities and material reality. Those effects cannot be removed or destroyed or assumed away. Consciousness is connected in that way, just as matter is connected to other matter.

Consciousness seeks and creates connection with other consciousness

We often think of connected consciousness as a form of mystical oneness. But at an empirical level, there are many ordinary, non-mystical ways that conscious beings create connected consciousness.

Conscious entities are known to communicate and form connections through communication, even to create language specifically for the purpose of connection. Conscious entities mate and reproduce, form simple and more complex societies, and create culture, all premised on some form of innate or constructed connected consciousness among a group. Desire for connection among conscious humans is so great that we have created a global hive-mind in which we share the minutest details of our lives with every other conscious being of our species. The connections between conscious humans are intense and pervasive.

Consciousness has the ability to experience intense connectedness

While the internet provides recent evidence of global connected consciousness, our species has more longstanding and fundamental means of experiencing intensely connected consciousness. Either due to natural selection or the core properties of physical existence, our species has experiences such as desire, empathy, and love—empirically verifiable experiences that connect conscious beings in deeply intense ways.

The existence and intensity of these experiences may be evidence of a capacity for connected consciousness that exists both in our species and in the universe. The experience of love may be premised on the ability of consciousness to connect with other consciousness—in other words, on the underlying reality of connected consciousness. Alternatively, even if love is nothing more than an illusion promoted through natural selection as a means of propagating the species, it is a shared illusion of intense connectedness. And a shared illusion itself may be a form of connected consciousness, possible only because all consciousness is connected just as all matter and energy are connected.

Is connected consciousness a daily reality as well as a mystical experience?

If consciousness is a core component of the physical universe, do we prove the existence of connected consciousness simply by communicating with other conscious beings? Does connecting with other consciousness through our intentional acts offer sufficient observed, empirical proof that all consciousness is connected? In fact, is interaction among a universe of conscious components the true definition of connected consciousness?

Perhaps the mystics are correct that conscious humans experience oneness through meditation by glimpsing a form of connected consciousness within the universe. Perhaps we also experience oneness directly—with more than a glimpse—simply by connecting with other conscious beings.

[1] Even more than we can imagine or explain. Quantum entanglement, what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance,” although not yet fully explained, exists empirically and plays a more and more important role in quantum theory and mechanics.

What happens to consciousness after death?

Leave a reply

If consciousness is embedded in the substances and processes that make up the matter and energy of the universe and cannot be destroyed, what happens to human consciousness at death? If there is a law of the conservation of consciousness, what does that mean for consciousness after death?

What is the meaning of death?

That question is bigger and more foolish than most. But is it as big a mystery as we imagine?

We know that mass and energy can be transformed without being destroyed. We know that human bodies are comprised of matter and energy that also can be transformed, but not destroyed. Our bodies break down into constituent elements and components as we decompose. We return to the earth and the universe in a different form.

The matter and energy of our existence remain part of the universe when we die

Our core hypothesis is that consciousness is embedded in the matter and energy of the universe, and by extension, in the matter and energy of our human bodies. Consciousness is not supernatural, but a fundamental element of our natural physical existence. Logically, therefore, the matter and energy of our consciousness should break down into constituent elements and components as we decompose in a similar way to how our bodies break down. Essentially, the matter and energy of our consciousness return to the earth along with the matter and energy of our entire bodies.

Our consciousness remains part of the universe when we die

Therefore, as with other matter and energy in the universe, the components of our consciousness are transformed, but not destroyed. When humans die, our consciousness returns to the earth, the world, and the universe.

Consciousness is transformed at death, but not destroyed

That is the obvious corollary of our core hypothesis.

The beginning

Sitting apart on a summer afternoon,
listening to the singsong calls
and slapping feet
of humans gathered at a swimming pool,
I wondered why. 

At first it seemed an ordinary question,
with an undoubtedly ordinary answer
that I couldn’t quite recall.
I found myself puzzled,
as if I had misplaced
a common word
on the tip of my tongue.
I looked around quickly
and almost caught it,
lurking outside my field of vision.
I was certain it was there.

But like an alien floater,
bent and twisted 
on the surface of my eye,
the more I fixed upon it,
the more it slipped away.

It was absurd to not know why
this gaggle gathered there
to do what they did.

There had to be a reason,
but it disappeared that day
and didn’t come back.
I don’t know why.

Consciousness has characteristics like those of matter and energy

Leave a reply

The conservation of mass and energy is a fundamental law of the understood universe. Physical reactions in the universe neither destroy nor create mass and energy. A reaction may transform one or the other, but mass and energy do not disappear like magic. Even when energy and mass are transformed into each other, the combined quantity of energy and mass is preserved through that transformation. In fact, energy and mass are different forms of the same thing and can be viewed as equivalents.

Similarly, all energy and mass are connected in space. Space is not an empty void; it is inhabited by energy fields and gravitational forces[1] created by the mass and energy of objects in space. Those fields and forces interact and connect all matter and energy in a web of spacetime. At an even deeper quantum level, the universe lacks fundamental separability.[2] Objects consist of processes and interactions, not discrete particles, and when these “objects” interact, they become entangled in a way that creates a fabric of connectedness extending across the entire universe. Universal connection is not a mystical dream, but a core feature of physical reality.

Just as mass and energy cannot be destroyed, the effects of matter and energy on the universe cannot be removed or destroyed. The effects that matter and energy have on the universe, no matter how small, cannot be reversed and in that sense are permanent.[3] They are part of the experience of the universe as it exists in space and time.[4]

Like matter and energy, consciousness is connected to and affects other entities in space

If we accept the hypothesis that consciousness is not supernatural, but real and embedded in the substances and processes that make up the matter and energy of the universe, then consciousness itself both exists in space and is connected to the universe through the matter and energy that exist in space. The components of our consciousness are part of the components of the material universe, and our consciousness affects other entities in space through the connections between all matter and energy.

We live and breathe in space the way that fish live and breathe in water. Waves created by the constant breathing and movement of fish travel through the water and affect other things that exist in the ocean. Humans live and breathe in the earth’s atmosphere in almost exactly that way. Our inhalations and exhalations, our movements, our decisions—create waves that affect the atmosphere around us, including conscious beings and other things that exist in the atmosphere. Those waves and their effects exist and reverberate in the universe as do the waves and effects of all matter and energy.

The effects of consciousness are permanent

A natural corollary is that the effects of our consciousness on the universe cannot be removed or destroyed, just as the effects of matter and energy in general cannot be removed or destroyed. The effects of consciousness on the universe, no matter how small, cannot be reversed. They become part of the experience of the universe—literally part of the information that describes the complete state of the universe in that moment. In that specific sense, therefore, consciousness itself is permanent and eternal.[5]

The substance of consciousness cannot be destroyed

So if consciousness is real and part of the substance of the material universe—embedded in the substances and processes that make up the matter and energy of the universe—and if consciousness is permanent and eternal through its permanent effects and impact, then can we conclude that consciousness also cannot be destroyed? Is there a law of conservation of consciousness that is a logical corollary to the laws of conservation of mass and energy and conservation of information?[6]

[1] Otherwise described as curvatures in spacetime.

[2] “That our actual world does not have separability is now generally accepted, though admitted to be a mystery. In principle, any objects that have ever interacted are forever entangled, and therefore what happens to one influences the other. Experiments have now demonstrated such influences extending over more than one hundred kilometers. Quantum theory has this connectedness extending over the entire universe.” Rosenblum and Kuttner (2006), p. 188.

[3] Even if many laws of physics are time symmetric and theoretically could apply either forward or backward in time, events themselves are not reversible for any practical purposes. Moreover, time symmetry implies that the past is knowable and the future predictable from the current state of the universe. In other words, in neither direction can the effects of matter and energy be lost or destroyed.

[4] Physicists talk about the conservation of information. “Conservation of information implies that each moment contains precisely the right amount of information to determine every other moment….[W]hat we might call the ‘microscopic’ information: the complete specification of the state of the system, everything you could possibly know about it. When speaking of information being conserved, we mean literally all of it.” Carroll (2016), p. 34.

[5] To put it more simply, the universe has a “permanent record”, and we are part of it whether we like it or not.

[6] See Feldman (2019). Compare Carroll (2016), p. 2, “Life is not a substance, like water or rock. It’s a process, like fire or a wave crashing on the shore. It’s a process that begins, lasts for a while, and ultimately ends.” Professor Carroll likely would agree, however, that water and rock, like all substances, are also processes, just slower processes than the process of life as we know it.