A Quantum of Free Thought

It’s a funny old world (or not, as the case may be)

Apologia

I was moved to write this piece after reading some articles by Graham Pemberton. Mr Pemberton writes frequently on subjects of spirituality, philosophy and science. He is a follower of the Perennial Philosophy and an opponent of materialism. He recently published two articles discussing the manner in which recent discoveries in Quantum physics inform a picture of the Universe which is in accordance with the teachings of the Perennial Philosophy. Mr Pemberton argues that these discoveries reveal the truth of a spiritual Universe and a conscious and intelligent First Cause, rendering physicalism and materialism obsolete. All fascinating and well-argued, but all beginning from belief, just as an opposing argument would likely begin from a position of unbelief.

So, might some of these matters be examined from a neutral stance? Is there, in fact, a neutral stance to be taken?

Now I’m not one of these clever coves. I hold a humble bachelors’ degree and am just a Bear of Very Little Brain with the insatiable curiosity of the Elephants’ Child. I was packed off to a Presbyterian Sunday School as a child by a mother who held that “It’s worth paying lip service for the sake of the social side!” Wrong thing to say to a misanthrope with a horror of crowds and noise, but never mind. So about three years in (I’m eight by then) and I’m asking myself “Do people actually believe this stuff?”. By twelve, I’m into SF and Fantasy and cannot see a blind bit of difference between this fiction and the ‘facts’ the Minister keeps pushing on me. By thirteen, I’m out of there and by eighteen, I’m starting on a journey.

The journey continues, it has taken me to many places, through Tarot cards, the Bible, the Qu’ran, the Bhagavad-Gita and Tao Te King. Into Stoicism, Zen, A Brief History of Time, Chariots of the Gods and The God Delusion as well as Theosophy, Freemasonry, Quantum physics, Noetic Science and much else. Many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore has passed under my eyes, though I’ve never been able to locate the forbidden Necronomicon of Abdul Alhazred, the Mad Poet, even on eBay!

Now I approached all this stuff, as best I could manage, without preconceptions or bias. I was not, after all, in search of the truth per se. I just wanted to know what other people thought or felt. I was simply curious.

Off the back of that, I’m going to throw out a few ideas around the issues raised.

On Reality

What is ‘real’ and what isn’t? Is everything we perceive an illusion — maya — created by our minds for whatever reason? Or is it an absolute, purely physical, phenomenon produced by the operation of specific laws which govern, or are governed by, the nature of matter and energy?

Maybe it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Consider; our sense organs are clusters of cells which are stimulated by various phenomena. There is the desk I am sitting at. My eyes respond to the wavelengths of light which the surface of the desk reflect; but what of the wavelengths it may reflect that my eyes do not respond to? If I knock or lean on it, the kinetic energy produced causes air molecules to vibrate. If that vibration falls within a certain limited range of frequency and amplitude, my ears will respond. There may be certain volatile chemicals present on the surface of the desk, if there are sufficient of certain types present, my nose reacts. I touch the desk, and nerves within my hands and fingers detect the intensity of the fields that bind the molecules and atoms of the desk together.

That is all the sense organs do, react to a limited range of stimuli. This reaction sends signals to specific parts of the brain, which also reacts. That reaction is sensed by the mind (which may or may not be a part of the brain), which then assesses the nature of the stimuli. At no point does the mind directly perceive the object, what the mind gets is a sign of what is there, a signal from certain nerve clusters. The mind then constructs other signs — ‘sight’, ‘hearing’, ‘smell’, ‘touch’ — to organise the signs. In collusion with other humans, we create systems of sounds -words- which we use as further signs of the signs of the signs we perceive.

So to put it simply, we cannot fully grasp the nature of reality because we cannot perceive more than a fraction of it, and even that, we percieve indirectly. By that I mean that our minds must construct ‘reality’ out of the stimuli our brains receive. There may be ten thousand things about my desk that I cannot perceive. I may only be aware of the fraction of the total reality of the desk. Worse, all our scientific instrumentation only serves to either bring what is outside the range of our senses into it, or to create an analogue of one sense out of another by, for instance, changing the tactile sensation of an electric current into a visual sign on the dial of a meter.

So to ask whether reality is objective or illusory is a waste of time, since all we can or will ever perceive are signs of the small part of reality our sense organs can react to. Beyond that, all we have are mental constructs. The simple, robust individual ones that allow us to navigate the world, the more complex ones which allow us to match our personal constructs with those of others. and then layer after layer of constructs defined as ‘science’. ‘philosophy’, ‘religion’ and so forth. Each more complex than its’ predecessors, and each more fragile. The past is littered with the ruins of superseded constructs which were all once considered to be the true and ultimate explanation of the world, life and human purpose.

Mind, Brain or Both?

This is a sticky one. The materialists would have us believe that our entire consciousness, awareness, memory, personality and so forth is the result of electro-chemical processes within the brain. This despite the fact that in virtually every single culture that has ever been recorded, the majority of people have believed that the essential, active consciousness is an immaterial essence temporarily linked to or confined within the physical body. Now I dare say that there is some justification in the scientists saying that the beliefs and opinions of the unintelligent and/or uneducated are irrelevant, but the fact is that these ideas were shared, and often formulated, by the brightest and best-trained minds in their respective cultures. Given the universality of the concept, and the intellects that have supported, codified and investigated it over the millennia, the blanket rejection of it by a few in recent years seems overly presumptuous. The scientists, after all, have yet to prove that consciousness originates in the brain rather than elsewhere.

So if the mind is non-material, what exactly is it? Damned if I know! I can speculate. I can imagine that it’s some kind of energy field or matrix that is linked, via the brain, to our physical component, but as to what kind of energy, I’m as clueless as the next honest man! Where does it come from? Good question. Is it a fragment of something greater, attached to a body in order to learn, investigate or accomplish a specific task? Possible — anything is possible — but a bit of a stretch for me, for reasons I’ll come to. Is it something all living things have that’s evolved with us? Is the human energy simply more developed and complex than that of other animals? That makes sense, but of course, there’s no proof of it. Does it die with us or is it immortal? No real evidence either way. Why is there no proof of any of this? Because we’re probably looking in the wrong ways, in the wrong places. Where and how should we look? I don’t know, as I said, I’m not clever. There’s probably somebody, maybe several somebodies, out there with the brains and talent to figure it out, we just have to hang in there until they do, I suppose.

While we’re about it, what is the soul and is it different from the mind? To the materialist, the soul simply doesn’t exist. To some, it’s the source of emotion where the mind is the source of thought and logic. The general tendency of opnion is that the soul is either a fragment of or a gift from God or the gods. The Divine Spark that makes us more than simply animals. In some systems, it is the soul that goes from life to life until it has accumulated enough wisdom to rejoin the source. In others it is simply the essence of the person that survives physical death and is judged, then sent to any one of several destinations.

I myself have difficulty with the idea of the soul. My mind is me, but apparently so is my soul, so what’s the difference? If my soul goes wandering off into another body when I die, and that person knows and recalls nothing of Tony, then ‘my’ soul quite clearly isn’t me and is at best a passenger, at worst a parasite, feeding off my experiences from a safe distance. Or am I supposed to sit around having Gollum vs Smeagol arguments with my soul?

“But we wants to have sex with her, my Precious, yes we does!”

“No, we mustn’t because we’s not married to her, we isn’t. God wouldn’t like that.”

“Does we really care what God thinks, Precious? Up on his golden throne with singing angels? Does we think He cares about what we does down here?”

I could live without an awful lot of that, thank you!

For now, I think I prefer the notion that ‘soul’ and ‘mind’ are probably the same thing!

First Causes, God and the Meaning and Purpose of Life

We are all of us, I’m told, looking for meaning in our lives. And purpose. I take leave to doubt that, myself. I’ve known so many people who have drifted aimlessly through life, doing what they need to do or whatever presented itself with never a thought for purpose and meaning. I acquired purpose when I acquired a family, and as to meaning, like many, I shrug: “Who knows?”

Many people believe that there must have been a First Cause, a starting point for the Universe, a Big Bang, Event One or Fiat lux of some kind. Most religions seem to have the idea of a Void or Chaos out of which something or someone emerged, Gaia, Ymir, Atum, Eurynome, call them what you will. In Judeo-Christian mythology, there is no indication of where God came from, merely that his spirit ‘moved over the face of the waters’ or something.

Certainly, science agrees with the idea of the Universe starting with some kind of quantum event. This event produced matter and energy, from matter we get space, and from energy, time. Simple things changed and developed into complex things in a process which is still ongoing, still consuming or locking away energy and will continue to do so until all the energy is either used up or locked away. At which point, some speculate, time will end and space collapse until another quantum event triggers a new Universe. This cyclic Universe concept is, as I understand it, central to both Hinduism and Theosophy.

But the major source of disagreement between materialists and metaphysicians is about the nature of Event One. Was it a naturally-occurring quantum event, or a conscious act by an intelligent being? Was and is the subsequent development of the Universe simply the operation of insensate physical interactions defined by the nature of matter and energy, or part of a conscious design, the plan of an intelligent mind?

Nobody knows, of course. ‘Objective’ science can find no proof of intelligent or deliberate design. ‘Revelation’ is unsupported by physical evidence and has thus far been confined only to certain individuals, who may or may not be entirely honest and whose experiences all seem to have been very personal. Something of a conundrum, then.

Now in among all that reading I’ve done, I’ve come across assorted ‘revelations’. Some have simply been a result of study bringing about a change of opinion, as in the case of Martin Luther and his Theses. Others, such as Joseph Smiths’ Book of Mormon, seem to be works of pure imagination. Then there are the obvious charlatans, such as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Rosicrucians, Christian Science and Scientology. But here and there, one finds the occasional idea that resonates with that corner of the mind that is always searching for ways to make sense of our lives.

Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, Theosophy. All of these and some others, while necessarily dressed up in the ideas and symbols of the places and ages in which they arose, have surprising amounts in common. They all follow an emanationist pattern in which there is an Absolute of which everything is a part. They all speak of humans as having the ability to be aware of this Absolute and to either move with or resist it. Buddhism and Theosophy, both at least partially rooted in Vedic Hinduism, speak to the evolution and liberation of the soul across several lives. Taoism emphasises natural cycles and movements and the importance of being in tune with them in order to achieve harmony. Stoicism, as one might expect from a system originating in Graeco-Roman culture, places more emphasis on the ‘reasoning faculty’ and the maintenance of personal integrity in the face of events and phenomena we cannot control. There is considerable overlap; themes of self-discipline, self-examination, humility and simplicity of life are central to all of them. But unlike other religious practices, they do not concern themselves with lists of prescriptive and impossible to live by rules and dire warnings of eternal torment for disobedience. Instead, they view life as a learning experience, accepting that mistakes will be made, and should be learned from. We start out imperfect, and it is by our own efforts we improve, not by the blood sacrifice of scapegoats.

But again, the Absolute here is assumed or believed by many to be a conscious entity, creating the Universe by intention and with a specific plan in mind. What is more interesting, and confusing, is that researchers in the field of quantum physics have reported evidence of potential consciousness and intention in the behaviour of some particles. Mr Pemberton has written at some length on this and related topics, but the upshot is that some people are moving toward the idea that the Universe itself is a sentient, conscious and intelligent being.

Now I have no problem with this idea. However, given that the human mind and intelligence have developed alongside aeons of physical evolution, graduating from mere sentience in lower animals to our own minds, I have to speculate that the Universal Mind has developed in the same way, becoming more complex as the Universe does. Which means that the Universal mind cannot be the intentional First Causer or designer, as it would not yet be sufficiently developed. So if there is a plan or design, it must post-date the beginning of the Universe, and may be subject to change as the Mind develops.

This may also mean that we are not part of the plan. We could have begun our evolution before the Universal Mind was developed enough to influence anything. We may be part of an earlier version of the plan, now discarded (cosmic abandonware, anyone?). We may even be a glitch or by-product. How’s that for a swift kick in the self-image? On the other hand, we could be a pre-exisisting element co-opted into a developing plan. Who knows?

This idea of mine also leaves unanswered the migraine-inducing question of the actual First Cause. But I submit that, existing as it necessarily would outside and before the Universe, it may not be possible for us to discover or understand it anyway!

And the answer is (dramatic pause) Forty-Two!

So, Gentle Reader, we come to the point, you and I. You will at this point be wondering, after all the weird and wonderful stuff I’ve been blethering on about, what I actually believe.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t actually believe in anything! Not in the sense of accepting something as truth independent of proof and purely on faith.

Some things I know from experience. Walking into solid objects is not advisable, for instance. Rocks, metal and cinnamon swirls are inedible. Given a level playing field, cats and kids will always outwit adult humans. We need air to breathe and light to see by. Things in general tend to fall downwards in a straight line until they meet a solid surface — unless they are small but vital parts of self-assembly furniture, in which case if dropped they will disappear for all eternity. Any drawer or wardrobe, left empty, closed and locked for six months or more will spontaneously generate between one and twelve paper-clips or wire coat-hangers, as appropriate.

Other things I am aware of and conditionally accept as true because I have been told or taught them by those who have studied the matter. However, I am always mindful that theories and even accepted ‘facts’ are subject to change as and when sufficient contradictory or different evidence is brought to light.

There are certain philosophies and political systems which are, in my opinion, more beneficial either to people in general or myself in particular. I support those politics and make use of those philosophies as I see fit without ever claiming or believing that any of them represent an absolute truth.

It is my opinion that there is a lot more to reality than we can perceive.

It is my opinion that what we call the mind is an energy-based phenomenon attached to, and possibly arising from, our physical form. In default of sufficient valid evidence to the contrary, I assume that the mind ceases to exist once the body dies. I am not bothered by this, as the idea of going through more of the same crap, either in a new life or an after-life, is unappealing.

Any being, no matter how advanced, powerful and intelligent, who calls themselves a god and demands the worship and obedience of other intelligent beings is ipso facto unworthy of worship and obedience.

Any being capable of creating the Universe ex nihilio and of directing and overseeing its development over trillions of years almost certainly has bigger fish to fry than obsessing about the sexual behaviour of primitive carbon-based life-forms on backwater planets. If there is a Divine Plan we are either a very small part of it or not part of it at all. We’re not that important.

Most gods, as far as I can tell, are arrogant, unpredictable, demanding, thin-skinned, vindictive and unbelievably cranky. Don’t bother them and with any luck they won’t bother you.

There are things we will probably never know or understand. This is not a problem.

The Universe may be intelligent, but if so it is an intelligence that has evolved since Event One and is continuing to evolve. It did not precede or create itself.

Any extra-Universal First Cause is and will likely remain beyond our ability to preceive and understand. We are part of the Universe, within it and limited by it. This is not a problem.

I behave the way I do because, much as I might sometimes wish to unleash my inner arsehole/pyschopath/berserker, I am aware that doing so would not benefit either myself or anyone who got in my way. Instead I try to work for the best outcome for as many people as I can help.

Each and every one of these is a personal notion, opinion or attitude. I do not claim to have or know the Absolute Truth of anything. Nor am I in any way wishful that anyone else take up my ideas as a philosophy or whatever. Figure things out for yourself in whatever way makes you comfortable and as long as it harms nobody else, I don’t have issues with it.

Live long and prosper.