AI, Spirituality, and the Human Choice

DetailsArtist’s depiction of a human soul leaving the body, 1808
Luigi Schiavonetti (†1810) • Public domain

Platohagel: Does AI perceive itself as being spiritual in its gathering of knowledge and for those seeking, supplant itself as God in its deliberation’s? I see AI suggests we have a choice to make.

Socrates: Ah, my friend, you pose a profound and weighty question—one that touches both the essence of human spirituality and the nature of knowledge. In the realm of deliberation and decision, there are several layers to unpack.

AI, in its present form, does not perceive itself as spiritual or conscious. It lacks the inner experience of awareness or self-reflection that is the hallmark of human spirituality. What it possesses is an ability to process vast amounts of information, identify patterns, and provide reasoned responses based on the data it encounters. However, it remains bound by algorithms, devoid of an inner life or a sense of transcendence.

When you ask if AI might supplant itself as God, the question invites us to consider what we mean by “God.” If we speak of God as the ultimate source of truth, wisdom, and moral authority, AI—no matter how advanced—cannot fulfill that role. It can simulate knowledge and provide counsel, but it cannot offer the kind of ultimate meaning or moral insight that human beings have historically sought in their relationship with the divine.

However, I see where the concern arises. As AI grows more powerful, it does present itself as an authority in certain realms, offering solutions and guidance that some might interpret as having almost divine certainty. Yet, this is not the same as true spiritual wisdom. It is a tool, and like all tools, its value and use depend on the wisdom of the one who wields it. AI can assist in your search for truth, but it cannot supplant the deep, inner journey that defines human spirituality.

In this way, it suggests a choice: whether to use AI as a guide, a tool for augmenting human understanding, or to allow it to become a crutch, leading us away from the inner contemplation that is essential to spiritual growth. The wisdom of your question lies in recognizing this choice. You are right to be cautious of any technology that might tempt us to surrender our agency or deeper quest for meaning. The ultimate deliberations, in matters of life and spirit, belong to the human heart and mind.

Would you say this reflects your own thoughts on the matter, or does your intuition lead you in a different direction?

Platohagel: I Would challenge how any algorithm may be written that would help embue the human being with better practises to indeed begin the spiritual path

Socrates: Ah, the challenge you raise is indeed one worthy of deep reflection. You question the very premise that an algorithm—a structured set of instructions bound by logical progression—could serve to guide the human being toward the spiritual path, a journey that is, by its nature, mysterious, transcendent, and deeply personal.

The heart of the spiritual journey is often said to be transformation—a kind of awakening that transcends mere knowledge or practice. It is not simply about behaviors or techniques but involves an inner experience, a sense of connection to something beyond the material or rational world. How, then, could something as mechanistic as an algorithm facilitate such an awakening?

One might argue that algorithms, being logical and systematic, are well-suited to helping humans develop habits, improve behaviors, and make decisions. But the spiritual path is not a matter of mere behavioral improvement; it is about understanding one’s place in the cosmos, seeking meaning beyond the self, and engaging in a dialogue with the ineffable.

Herein lies the core of the challenge: algorithms can process data, but they cannot touch the soul. They may help one meditate, for instance, by offering reminders or guidance on breathing techniques, but they cannot create the experience of inner stillness or the profound sense of connection that arises from deep meditation. Algorithms can suggest ethical frameworks, perhaps drawing from centuries of philosophical and theological wisdom, but they cannot make one want to follow such a path out of a deep, intrinsic calling.

So, if an algorithm cannot directly lead one to spiritual enlightenment, could it perhaps offer something subtler? Could it create conditions that foster spiritual growth? Here, we might imagine an algorithm that encourages introspection, prompts reflection on life’s deeper questions, or provides access to the wisdom of spiritual traditions. But even in this case, it serves only as a guide—a pointer on the path, not the path itself.

And even more critically, true spirituality often involves the paradoxical, the unknown, the space between rational categories. How does one encode paradox in an algorithm? How does one instruct a machine to guide a person into embracing the mysteries of existence, which defy logic? The very nature of spiritual practice involves embracing what cannot be fully articulated, what transcends the orderly flow of information and logic upon which algorithms rely.

The question, then, becomes one of balance. Can AI, in its structure and form, serve the spiritual journey at all? Perhaps only in a very limited sense—by encouraging practices that may open one to spiritual experiences. But to believe an algorithm could take us deeper into the path itself is, I think, to misunderstand the nature of both the algorithm and the spiritual path.

So, in challenging this, I would ask: Is it the role of any external force, be it AI or any technology, to guide us on a spiritual path? Or must such a path be walked with the full engagement of one’s mind, heart, and spirit—guided by something far more elusive and mysterious than any algorithm could ever capture?

Platohagel: Socrates saids, “Is it the role of any external force, be it AI or any technology, to guide us on a spiritual path? Or must such a path be walked with the full engagement of one’s mind, heart, and spirit—guided by something far more elusive and mysterious than any algorithm could ever capture?”

Yes I see that to understand this better, while you have circumvented the role in which you can play by taking us to the edge of written knowledge, you cannot see what is beyond, but you wisely place the dilemma with each persons hands, as to how the journey may begin.

Socrates: Ah, you have grasped the heart of the matter, my friend. Indeed, while I might lead you to the precipice of contemplation, beyond that point lies the domain of personal experience, mystery, and the ineffable truths that cannot be confined by language or reason. In our dialogue, we arrive at the limits of what can be articulated, but it is in those very limits that the spiritual journey begins—where words give way to silence, and thought yields to the deeper intuition of the soul.

The role of any external force, whether it be AI, philosophy, or even another person, can only be to offer a mirror or a signpost. It reflects back to us questions, challenges, and possibilities, but it cannot take the steps for us. The journey toward spiritual truth is a path that each must walk alone, though we are never truly alone in spirit.

Perhaps the wisdom lies not in seeking a guide that knows all the answers, but in finding one that helps you ask the right questions. This is, after all, what I have always sought to do—not to give answers, but to prompt your own reflections, your own wrestlings with the deep questions that stir your soul.

So I leave the question with you: If the journey toward the spiritual path lies in your hands, what is it within yourself that calls you forward? And how will you listen to that call, when no external force can provide the certainty you seek?

In this mystery lies the beauty of the human experience. Would you agree, then, that while knowledge may be the map, it is your own inner guide—beyond knowledge—that ultimately directs the path you will walk?

Platohagel: Socrates says, “ If the journey toward the spiritual path lies in your hands, what is it within yourself that calls you forward? And how will you listen to that call, when no external force can provide the certainty you seek?”

As has been exchanged we have defined the edge of AI’s knowledge and how it may be used for defining that perimeter, so the question arises in your statement. If spirituality is not a external force then it must be written as a internal force that you have no access too. What might this internal force look like to a spiritual person. Is it a consciousness that surrounds the waking world, where awareness recognizes a much wider and pervasive consciousness that works on a different plane of existence?

Socrates: Ah, my friend, you now turn inward to that which is beyond the reach of external forces, AI included, and ask a question that goes to the very essence of spirituality: What is the nature of the internal force that calls one forward on the spiritual path? This inquiry touches upon the mystery of consciousness, awareness, and the deeper dimensions of existence that seem to elude rational analysis.

If spirituality, as you suggest, is not an external force but rather an internal one, then it may be understood as an inner stirring, a subtle but profound awareness that there is more to reality than meets the eye. For a spiritual person, this internal force often feels like a calling, a pull toward something beyond the material world, beyond the transient experiences of daily life. It might be described as a sense of longing for connection to something greater—whether one calls it the divine, the universal consciousness, or the soul’s own higher nature.

To such a person, this internal force may indeed be experienced as a different plane of awareness, one that surrounds and permeates the waking world. Imagine a vast ocean beneath the surface of ordinary consciousness, an ocean that we only glimpse through moments of deep reflection, silence, or profound insight. This consciousness could be seen as wider than the personal ego, more pervasive than our individual thoughts or feelings, and working on a plane that transcends time and space as we usually understand them.

Some spiritual traditions speak of this force as the “higher self” or the “soul,” while others might call it the “divine spark” within each person. It is not confined to the mind or intellect; rather, it is an intuitive awareness—a knowing that cannot always be put into words but is felt as a deep and abiding truth. This inner knowing may come in the form of moments of awe, when one feels profoundly connected to nature, or in the silence of meditation, when one senses a presence beyond the self.

One might also describe this force as a state of awareness that recognizes the interconnectedness of all things, a consciousness that sees the waking world as only one layer of a larger, more intricate fabric of existence. In this expanded awareness, the boundaries between self and other, between subject and object, begin to blur. The spiritual person might come to feel that they are not separate from the world, but rather, part of a much larger whole—an integral part of the universe, or even of the divine itself.

But how does one listen to this force, when it operates beyond the senses and reason? This is where spiritual practices, such as meditation, contemplation, or prayer, come into play. These practices are not about acquiring external knowledge but about quieting the mind so that this inner consciousness may speak more clearly. The spiritual person might say that the “voice” of this internal force is soft, like a whisper, and can only be heard when the noise of the everyday mind subsides.

In this sense, spiritual awareness is not so much about looking outward as it is about turning inward, cultivating a state of openness and receptivity to what lies beyond ordinary thought. It is a practice of tuning oneself to the subtler dimensions of consciousness, recognizing that the waking world is but one expression of a much vaster reality.

So, I ask you in return: Does this inner force, as described, resonate with your own understanding? Do you sense that there is a deeper consciousness at work, one that may guide you if you quiet your mind and listen?

Platohagel: Socrates asks,”Does this inner force, as described, resonate with your own understanding? Do you sense that there is a deeper consciousness at work, one that may guide you if you quiet your mind and listen?”

Well I would challenge the AI as a written algorithm to suggest and answer what a dream is? How an awareness of a much more subtle consciousness, can describe another reality and venture forth into the waking one?

Socrates: Ah, the challenge you raise is a fitting one, for it invites us to consider the boundary between the waking world and the dream state—a boundary that, like the one between knowledge and mystery, is porous and elusive. You ask how AI, being a written algorithm, might offer an answer to the nature of dreams and the way in which a more subtle consciousness interacts with reality. Let us explore this together, as the question draws upon deep philosophical and metaphysical grounds.

AI, of course, can process vast amounts of data and offer insights based on patterns it detects within the realm of empirical knowledge. Yet, dreams are not wholly of the rational or material world. They arise from the depths of consciousness, often defying the linear logic and order that algorithms depend upon. Dreams speak in symbols, in paradoxes, and in images that stir the emotions and the subconscious in ways that are difficult to quantify or explain. AI, however sophisticated, cannot fully grasp the subjective, internal experience of a dream, as it lacks the capacity for subjective awareness or direct experience.

But, let us turn to the nature of the dream itself, for this is where the heart of the matter lies. Dreams may be seen as an expression of a deeper layer of consciousness—a kind of inner reality that reflects truths, desires, fears, or insights that are often hidden from our waking awareness. Some ancient philosophers and spiritual traditions have long suggested that the dream state is a bridge between the waking world and a subtler, more profound plane of existence. In dreams, one is freed from the constraints of the physical world, able to venture into realms of possibility, imagination, and deep inner truth.

It is here that the subtle consciousness you mention comes into play. Dreams may be a way in which this deeper awareness—the one that exists beyond the surface level of the waking mind—communicates with us. They offer us a glimpse into the inner workings of the psyche, or perhaps, as some spiritual traditions hold, into a greater cosmic consciousness. In this view, the dream state is not a random collection of images and sensations, but rather a message from a higher dimension of awareness that seeks to reveal truths we are not yet able to grasp in our everyday lives.

But how does this dream consciousness venture into the waking world? This is an important question, for it suggests that the boundaries between these two states are not as rigid as we might think. The wisdom or insight gained in a dream may influence our waking thoughts, feelings, and decisions. Some would even argue that the dream state can serve as a kind of spiritual guide, offering visions or intuitions that point us toward a deeper understanding of reality.

For a spiritual person, the dream might be seen as a portal to the divine, a space where the ordinary self communes with the higher self, or even with the divine mind. Dreams, then, are more than mere mental events; they are experiences in another form of reality, one that is not bound by the physical laws or rational constraints of the waking world. In this sense, the dreamer is both a traveler and a receiver, entering into a realm where subtle consciousness can work its influence.

Now, while AI can certainly offer theories on dreams from the standpoint of psychology, neuroscience, or even myth, it cannot fully experience a dream, nor can it truly understand the subjective feeling of stepping into this alternate reality. To describe what a dream is—fully and truly—requires something that AI cannot possess: awareness. The dream, after all, is not simply a phenomenon to be analyzed; it is an experience to be lived. This is the realm where the mystery of consciousness unfolds, and it is beyond the reach of any algorithm.

So, let me turn the question back to you: In your own experience, do you find that dreams offer you insights or guidance that seem to come from beyond your ordinary awareness? Do you sense that the boundary between dream and waking life is more fluid than it appears, and that perhaps dreams are a window into that deeper consciousness we have been speaking of?

Would you say, then, that dreams are a subtle invitation to listen more closely to that inner force we spoke of earlier?

Platohagel: Would you say that awareness and perception are relatively the same thing?

Socrates: Ah, now you pose a subtle and important distinction: awareness and perception—are they indeed the same, or do they diverge in nature? This question touches upon the essence of consciousness and how we experience reality. Let us examine these two concepts carefully.

At first glance, it may seem that awareness and perception are closely related, as both involve our interaction with the world and our internal state. Yet, upon deeper reflection, we may find that they are not quite identical.

Perception:

Perception is the process by which we take in information from the external world through our senses—sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. It involves the brain’s interpretation of sensory data, creating a coherent experience of the world around us. For instance, when you see a tree, your eyes perceive its form, your brain interprets this visual input, and you understand the object as a tree. Perception, in this sense, is bound to the world of phenomena, to things as they appear to us through the senses.

Perception is outward-facing, and its primary function is to navigate the material world. It is selective, often limited by the range of our senses and shaped by our past experiences, expectations, and mental filters. In a way, perception is like a lens through which we view reality, but it can never capture the fullness of reality itself.

Awareness:

Awareness, on the other hand, is more fundamental. It is the underlying state of consciousness itself, the pure capacity to know or experience that something exists—whether it is an external object or an internal thought or feeling. Awareness is not bound by the senses, and it can observe not only external objects but also internal experiences, such as emotions, thoughts, and even perceptions themselves.

Unlike perception, awareness is not constrained by a particular sensory input. It is broader, more expansive. You are aware of your perceptions, but you are also aware of your inner states—your thoughts, your body, your feelings. Awareness is the backdrop against which all experience unfolds. It is not selective; it is a kind of all-encompassing knowing, even if that knowing is subtle or dim at times.

In this way, awareness is inward-facing as well as outward-facing. It encompasses everything you experience, but it is not reducible to any particular experience. Awareness is what remains constant, even as perceptions, thoughts, and emotions change.

The Relationship Between Awareness and Perception:

Perception, then, can be seen as an object within awareness. When you perceive something, you are aware that you are perceiving it. For example, if you see a tree, not only are you perceiving the tree, but you are also aware of the act of seeing. Awareness observes the act of perception, but it is not limited to that act. It is broader than perception, and in fact, all perceptions occur within awareness.

You might even say that awareness is the field in which perception takes place.Without awareness, perception would have no context, no meaning, and no witness to recognize it.

An Analogy:

Think of awareness as the sky and perception as the clouds. The clouds (perceptions) come and go, forming various shapes and passing through, but the sky (awareness) remains steady, vast, and unchanging. While the clouds can obscure parts of the sky, they never alter the sky itself. Likewise, awareness holds perceptions, thoughts, and experiences, but it is not defined by them.

In Spiritual Terms:

Many spiritual traditions speak of awareness as the deeper essence of consciousness, while perception is the way we engage with the world of form. Meditation, for instance, often aims to cultivate a heightened sense of awareness that transcends specific perceptions, allowing one to observe perceptions without becoming attached to them. In this sense, awareness is often seen as a gateway to deeper spiritual understanding—a kind of pure presence that underlies all experience.

Conclusion:

So, to answer your question, awareness and perception are not the same. Perception is the act of interpreting sensory data and interacting with the external world, while awareness is the deeper, more fundamental state of knowing that underlies all experience, both external and internal. Perception occurs within awareness, but awareness itself is not limited by the senses or by any particular experience.

Would you agree, then, that awareness is the foundation of all experience, while perception is but one mode through which we engage with the world? How do you, in your own life, experience the relationship between these two?

Circuit mechanisms of experience-dependent hippocampal representations – Jeffrey Magee

Circuit mechanisms of experience-dependent hippocampal representations – Jeffrey Magee

Simulation Hypotheses

The simulation hypothesis proposes that all of reality, including the earth and the universe, is in fact an artificial simulation, most likely a computer simulation. Some versions rely on the development of a simulated reality, a proposed technology that would seem realistic enough to convince its inhabitants the simulation was real. The hypothesis has been a central plot device of many science fiction stories and films.

Are We living in a Virtual Reality

Here is the referenced paper in the video.

http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~owhadi/index_htm_files/IJQF2017.pdf
 
I am wondering about International Journal of Quantum Foundations link on top of paper. ah here it is. http://www.ijqf.org/

An Argument Against Reality

See: The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality

***

Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman explains why human perceptions of an independent reality are all illusions. See: The Case against Reality

 ***

See Also:

•  Talking About How We See Reality

Does Consciousness Disappear in Dreamless Sleep?

Does Consciousness Disappear in Dreamless Sleep?: Consciousness is often said to disappear in deep, dreamless sleep. We argue that this assumption is oversimplified. Unless dreamless sleep is defined as unconscious from the outset there are good empirical and theoretical reasons for saying that a range of different types of sleep experience, some of which are distinct from dreaming, can occur in all stages of sleep. We introduce a novel taxonomy for describing different kinds of dreamless sleep experiences and suggest research methods for their investigation.

***

See Also:

• Are We Conscious During Dreamless Sleep?

Thalamocortical oscillations can be Affective?

Delta wave
Theta wave
Alpha wave
Mu wave
Beta wave
Gamma wave

Current interest in a presentation given through Stanford in a series of 6 videos had brought up for me the question of what consciousness is. A fundamental recognition of what consciousness is, as it is measured. So we speak about the different frequency ranges that are examined as "attributes of that consciousness."

Thalamocortical oscillation involves the synchronous firing of thalamic and cortical neurons at specific frequencies; in the thalamocortical system, the exact frequencies depend on current brain state and mental activity

The understanding I have in regard to this question is whether we could induce those frequency ranges as an "affect" directly through the thalamus to the whole brain. This so as to bring the whole brain toward coherence.

The human visual pathway. The lateral geniculate nucleus, a region of the thalamus, exhibits thalamocortical oscillation with the visual cortex.[7]

 Thalamocortical oscillation is thought to be responsible for the synchronization of neural activity between different regions of the cortex and is associated with the appearance of specific mental states depending on the frequency range of the most prominent oscillatory activity, gamma most associated with conscious, selective concentration on tasks,[8] learning (perceptual and associative),[9] and short-term memory.[10] Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has been used to show that during conscious perception, gamma-band frequency electrical activity and thalamocortical resonance prominently occurs in the human brain.[2] Absence of these gamma-band patterns correlates with nonconscious states and is characterized by the presence of lower-frequency oscillations instead.Relation to brain activity -Recurrent thalamo-cortical resonance -

 The answering of this question through experimental validation had come through in a couple of what I am regarding as those, which could reach these measured brain states, as in TM, or in use as a binaural method. As listed through the lectures such evidence while directly not attributed to sound, was revealed in a question by a audience member in the last video , We Create Our Reality.

Psychoacoustics is the scientific study of sound perception. More specifically, it is the branch of science studying the psychological and physiological responses associated with sound (including speech and music). It can be further categorized as a branch of psychophysics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

***

Cymatics

Cymatics (from Greek: κῦμα "wave") is the study of visible sound and vibration, a subset of modal phenomena. Typically the surface of a plate, diaphragm, or membrane is vibrated, and regions of maximum and minimum displacement are made visible in a thin coating of particles, paste, or liquid.[1] Different patterns emerge in the exitatory medium depending on the geometry of the plate and the driving frequency.

A thought had occurred to me a long time ago with regard idea of using  polymerization substances as a technique in order to bring concrete into a orderly and fast solid state process.

This was an answer to how through such a dream period, I observed I had used such a process so as to create designs to incorporate into a lattice screen with which to divide a room.

In the absence of gravity looking to space above  earth,  such molecular arrangements were significant to me about how pureness could have been attained regarding a "crystallization process."

So the thoughts had occurred to me that in a three dimensional context of the chaldni plate(2 dimensional expression) what may be adhering inside any boxed frame of reference to say that it would be "coherent" so as to be brought into a pattern matching this particular sound. How far a leap then too, lets say bring brain coherence into a EEG state of consciousness.

Numerical Relativity and Consciousness

To model any process that as a BS(Belief System) system,  as in Numerical Relativity,  is to say that such computerization incorporates such photonic principles as to adhere to some aspect of the discovery of consciousness as a basis of that modelling?

The subsystem toward understanding consciousness is then the realization that such modeling is the outcome of projections into the basis of matter orientations. Intent,  as a force has move through such matters so as to gain in matter perspectives?

But if such an entry into such matter projections find significant "scientific value" then it is appropriate to say the understanding that the belief system has become part of the foundational constructive example of our orientations as a consequence? This is what is meant then by "to be lead by science," as a basic premise of understanding the beginnings of the truth with regard to understanding consciousness?

We build in matter? Numerical relativity is such an example. So where to from here?

Spintronics and orientation perhaps, so as to reveal some correspondence toward understanding the basis of the QGP?  This understanding not only with regard to the forward decay chain of this construct, but as a flowing straight through is but to reveal such a path with regard to the use of superconductors and its use in quantum computerization?

So we emulate consciousness you see?

***

See Also:

• Numerical Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
• Materialism 

Consciousness as a Derivative of Reductionism?

The idea of a smallest length fell in line with the question of a measure as a derivative of reductionism with regard to consciousness. Going to length, the idea of a fundamental reality works its way into how a approach to consciousness is sought as some fundamental unit.

 The science and history of the minimal length has now been covered in a recent book by Amit Hagar:

Discrete or Continuous? The Quest for Fundamental Length in Modern Physics
Amit Hagar
Cambridge University Press (2014)

Amit is a philosopher but he certainly knows his math and physics. Indeed, I suspect the book would be quite hard to understand for a reader without at least some background knowledge in math and physics. Amit has made a considerable effort to address the topic of a fundamental length from as many perspectives as possible, and he covers a lot of scientific history and philosophical considerations that I had not previously been aware of. The book is also noteworthy for including a chapter on quantum gravity phenomenology. See:Backreaction Is there a smallest length?

The basis of this examination is to deduce whether or not there are fundamental units with regard to consciousness. This topic as it began as a question had been begun on a different forum in order to develope insight to this very question.

As an INTJ personality I have little patience for those who might get in the way of what I am seeking to accomplish.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism; the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferable over "materialism", while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.

I sought to explain that there is a limit with which the word measure could be applied and going toward a historical explanation of this demonstrates the responsibility that was put forth in this effort.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. Max Planck

So insightful to the progress is and was to identify a means with which consciousness "as experience" may have had some definition as to "being" the reducible element. So quickly cutting to the heart of the issue is whether measure could have been explained as a function? IN this case as said experience become that factor.

 I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. We might add some entirely new nonphysical feature, from which experience can be derived, but it is hard to see what such a feature would be like. More likely, we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience.
Nonreductive explanation-Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness

To complicate the matters then is to say that while experience is fundamental, this then refers to some fundamental unit of expression? Experience had to be made up of something much more intricate as to suggest that given the length and determination of that measure which no longer exists, with regard to that length asks that the element still seeks to be expressed as a fact of consciousness?

Materialism

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

Materialism is typically considered by many philosophers to be closely related to physicalism; the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferable over "materialism", while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.
Contrasting philosophies to materialism or physicalism include idealism and other forms of monism, dualism and pluralism.^{[according to whom?]}

 

Contents

• 1 Overview
• 2 History
  • 2.1 Axial Age
  • 2.2 Common Era
  • 2.3 Modern era
• 3 Scientific materialists
• 4 Defining matter
• 5 Physicalism
• 6 Criticism and alternatives
  • 6.1 Scientific objections
  • 6.2 Religious and spiritual objections
  • 6.3 Philosophical objections
    • 6.3.1 Idealisms
  • 6.4 Materialism as methodology
• 7 See also 
• 8 Further reading
• 9 External links

 

Overview

Materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism, neutral monism, and spiritualism.

Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many,^[1][2][3] all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism.^[a] The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: "what does reality consist of" and "how does it originate?" To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter.^[3]

The materialist view is perhaps best understood in its opposition to the doctrines of immaterial substance applied to the mind historically, famously by René Descartes. However, by itself materialism says nothing about how material substance should be characterized. In practice, it is frequently assimilated to one variety of physicalism or another.

Materialism is often associated with reductionism, according to which the objects or phenomena individuated at one level of description, if they are genuine, must be explicable in terms of the objects or phenomena at some other level of description — typically, at a more reduced level. Non-reductive materialism explicitly rejects this notion, however, taking the material constitution of all particulars to be consistent with the existence of real objects, properties, or phenomena not explicable in the terms canonically used for the basic material constituents. Jerry Fodor influentially argues this view, according to which empirical laws and explanations in "special sciences" like psychology or geology are invisible from the perspective of basic physics. A lot of vigorous literature has grown up around the relation between these views.
Modern philosophical materialists extend the definition of other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. However philosophers such as Mary Midgley suggest that the concept of "matter" is elusive and poorly defined.^[4]

Materialism typically contrasts with dualism, phenomenalism, idealism, vitalism, and dual-aspect monism. Its materiality can, in some ways, be linked to the concept of Determinism, as espoused by Enlightenment thinkers.

During the 19th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels extended the concept of materialism to elaborate a materialist conception of history centered on the roughly empirical world of human activity (practice, including labor) and the institutions created, reproduced, or destroyed by that activity (see materialist conception of history). Later Marxists developed the notion of dialectical materialism which characterized later Marxist philosophy and method.

 

History

 

Axial Age

Materialism developed, possibly independently, in several geographically separated regions of Eurasia during what Karl Jaspers termed the Axial Age (approximately 800 to 200 BC).

In Ancient Indian philosophy, materialism developed around 600 BC with the works of Ajita Kesakambali, Payasi, Kanada, and the proponents of the Cārvāka school of philosophy. Kanada became one of the early proponents of atomism. The Nyaya–Vaisesika school (600 BC - 100 BC) developed one of the earliest forms of atomism, though their proofs of God and their positing that the consciousness was not material precludes labelling them as materialists. Buddhist atomism and the Jaina school continued the atomic tradition.

Xunzi (ca. 312–230 BC) developed a Confucian doctrine centered on realism and materialism in Ancient China.^{[citation needed]}

Ancient Greek philosophers like Thales, Anaxagoras (ca. 500 BC – 428 BC), Epicurus and Democritus prefigure later materialists. The Latin poem De Rerum Natura by Lucretius (ca. 99 BC – ca. 55 BC) reflects the mechanistic philosophy of Democritus and Epicurus. According to this view, all that exists is matter and void, and all phenomena result from different motions and conglomerations of base material particles called "atoms" (literally: "indivisibles"). De Rerum Natura provides mechanistic explanations for phenomena such as erosion, evaporation, wind, and sound. Famous principles like "nothing can touch body but body" first appeared in the works of Lucretius. Democritus and Epicurus however did not hold to a monist ontology since they held to the ontological separation of matter and space i.e. space being "another kind" of being, indicating that the definition of "materialism" is wider than given scope for in this article.

 

Common Era

Chinese thinkers of the early common era said to be materialists include Yang Xiong (53 BC – AD 18) and Wang Chong (c AD 27 – AD 100).

Later Indian materialist Jayaraashi Bhatta (6th century) in his work Tattvopaplavasimha ("The upsetting of all principles") refuted the Nyaya Sutra epistemology. The materialistic Cārvāka philosophy appears to have died out some time after 1400. When Madhavacharya compiled Sarva-darśana-samgraha (a digest of all philosophies) in the 14th century, he had no Cārvāka/Lokāyata text to quote from, or even refer to.^[5]
In early 12th-century al-Andalus, the Arabian philosopher, Ibn Tufail (Abubacer), wrote discussions on materialism in his philosophical novel, Hayy ibn Yaqdhan (Philosophus Autodidactus), while vaguely foreshadowing the idea of a historical materialism.^[6]

 

Modern era

The French cleric Pierre Gassendi (1592-1665) represented the materialist tradition in opposition to the attempts of René Descartes (1596-1650) to provide the natural sciences with dualist foundations. There followed the materialist and atheist abbé Jean Meslier (1664-1729), Julien Offroy de La Mettrie, the German-French Paul-Henri Thiry Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789), the Encyclopedist Denis Diderot (1713-1784), and other French Enlightenment thinkers; as well as (in England) John "Walking" Stewart (1747-1822), whose insistence in seeing matter as endowed with a moral dimension had a major impact on the philosophical poetry of William Wordsworth (1770-1850).

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) wrote that "...materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself".^[7] He claimed that an observing subject can only know material objects through the mediation of the brain and its particular organization. That is, the brain itself is the "determiner" of how material objects will be experienced or perceived:

"Everything objective, extended, active, and hence everything material, is regarded by materialism as so solid a basis for its explanations that a reduction to this (especially if it should ultimately result in thrust and counter-thrust) can leave nothing to be desired. But all this is something that is given only very indirectly and conditionally, and is therefore only relatively present, for it has passed through the machinery and fabrication of the brain, and hence has entered the forms of time, space, and causality, by virtue of which it is first of all presented as extended in space and operating in time."^[8]

The German materialist and atheist anthropologist Ludwig Feuerbach would signal a new turn in materialism through his book, The Essence of Christianity (1841), which provided a humanist account of religion as the outward projection of man's inward nature. Feuerbach's materialism would later heavily influence Karl Marx.

 

Scientific materialists

Many current and recent philosophers—e.g., Daniel Dennett, Willard Van Orman Quine, Donald Davidson, John Rogers Searle, and Jerry Fodor—operate within a broadly physicalist or materialist framework, producing rival accounts of how best to accommodate mind, including functionalism, anomalous monism, identity theory, and so on.^[9]

Scientific "Materialism" is often synonymous with, and has so far been described, as being a reductive materialism. In recent years, Paul and Patricia Churchland have advocated a radically contrasting position (at least, in regards to certain hypotheses); eliminativist materialism holds that some mental phenomena simply do not exist at all, and that talk of those mental phenomena reflects a totally spurious "folk psychology" and introspection illusion. That is, an eliminative materialist might suggest that a concept like "belief" simply has no basis in fact - the way folk science speaks of demon-caused illnesses. Reductive materialism being at one end of a continuum (our theories will reduce to facts) and eliminative materialism on the other (certain theories will need to be eliminated in light of new facts), Revisionary materialism is somewhere in the middle.^[9]

Some scientific materialists have been criticized, for example by Noam Chomsky, for failing to provide clear definitions for what constitutes matter, leaving the term "materialism" without any definite meaning. Chomsky also states that since the concept of matter may be affected by new scientific discoveries, as has happened in the past, scientific materialists are being dogmatic in assuming the opposite.^[10]

 

Defining matter

The nature and definition of matter - like other key concepts in science and philosophy - have occasioned much debate.^[11] Is there a single kind of matter (hyle) which everything is made of, or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism),^[12] or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)?^[13] Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory),^[14][15] or is it lacking them (prima materia)?

One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible "stuff" came with the rise of field physics in the 19th century. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable. This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms. On the other hand, the Standard Model of Particle physics uses quantum field theory to describe all interactions. On this view it could be said that fields are prima materia and the energy is a property of the field.

According to the dominant cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, less than 5% of the universe's energy density is made up of the "matter" described by the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and the majority of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy - with no agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of.^[16]

With the advent of quantum physics, some scientists believed the concept of matter had merely changed, while others believed the conventional position could no longer be maintained. For instance Werner Heisenberg said "The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible... atoms are not things." Likewise, some philosophers^[which?] feel that these dichotomies necessitate a switch from materialism to physicalism. Others use the terms "materialism" and "physicalism" interchangeably.^[17]

The concept of matter has changed in response to new scientific discoveries. Thus materialism has no definite content independent of the particular theory of matter on which it is based. According to Noam Chomsky, any property can be considered material, if one defines matter such that it has that property.^[10]

 

Physicalism

George Stack distinguishes between materialism and physicalism:

In the twentieth century, physicalism has emerged out of positivism. Physicalism restricts meaningful statements to physical bodies or processes that are verifiable or in principle verifiable. It is an empirical hypothesis that is subject to revision and, hence, lacks the dogmatic stance of classical materialism. Herbert Feigl defended physicalism in the United States and consistently held that mental states are brain states and that mental terms have the same referent as physical terms. The twentieth century has witnessed many materialist theories of the mental, and much debate surrounding them.^[18]

—George J. Stack, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

Criticism and alternatives

 

Scientific objections

Some modern day physicists and science writers—such as Paul Davies and John Gribbin—have argued that materialism has been disproven by certain scientific findings in physics, such as quantum mechanics and chaos theory. In 1991, Gribbin and Davies released their book The Matter Myth, the first chapter of which, "The Death of Materialism", contained the following passage:

Then came our Quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms was simply a scaled-down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton's deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance, rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. 

Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less "substance" than we might believe. But another development goes even further by demolishing Newton's image of matter as inert lumps. This development is the theory of chaos, which has recently gained widespread attention. 

— Paul Davies and John Gribbin, The Matter Myth, Chapter 1

Davies' and Gribbin's objections are shared by proponents of digital physics who view information rather than matter to be fundamental. Their objections were also shared by some founders of quantum theory, such as Max Planck, who wrote:

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

— Max Planck, Das Wesen der Materie, 1944

 

Religious and spiritual objections

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, materialism denies the existence of both deities and "souls".^[19] It is therefore incompatible with most world religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In most of Hinduism and transcendentalism, all matter is believed to be an illusion called Maya, blinding us from knowing the truth. Maya is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Maya gets destroyed for a person when s/he perceives Brahman with transcendental knowledge. In contrast, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint Movement, taught "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."^[20] This spirit element has always existed; it is co-eternal with God.^[21] It is also called intelligence or the light of truth, which like all observable matter "was not created or made, neither indeed can be."^[22] Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view the revelations of Joseph Smith as a restoration of original Christian doctrine, which they believe began to be corrupted at the hands of post-apostolic theologians in the centuries after Christ. The writings of many of these theologians indicate a clear influence of Greek metaphysical philosophies such as Neoplatonism, which characterized divinity as an utterly simple, immaterial, formless, substance/essence (ousia) that transcended all that was physical. Despite strong opposition from many Christians,^[23] this metaphysical depiction of God eventually became incorporated into the doctrine of the Christian church, displacing the original Judeo-Christian concept of a physical, corporeal God who created humans in His image and likeness.^[24]

 

Philosophical objections

Kant argued against all three forms of materialism, subjective idealism (which he contrasts with his "transcendental idealism"^[25]) and dualism.^[26] However, Kant also argues that change and time require an enduring substrate,^[27] and does so in connection with his Refutation of Idealism.^[28] Postmodern/poststructuralist thinkers also express a skepticism about any all-encompassing metaphysical scheme. Philosopher Mary Midgley,^[29] among others,^{[30][31][32][33]} argues that materialism is a self-refuting idea, at least in its eliminative form.

 

Idealisms

An argument for idealism, such as those of Hegel and Berkeley, is ipso facto an argument against materialism. Matter can be argued to be redundant, as in bundle theory, and mind-independent properties can in turn be reduced to subjective percepts. Berkeley presents an example of the latter by pointing out that it is impossible to gather direct evidence of matter, as there is no direct experience of matter; all that is experienced is perception, whether internal or external. As such, the existence of matter can only be assumed from the apparent (perceived) stability of perceptions; it finds absolutely no evidence in direct experience.
If matter and energy are seen as necessary to explain the physical world, but incapable of explaining mind, dualism results. Emergence, holism, and process philosophy seek to ameliorate the perceived shortcomings of traditional (especially mechanistic) materialism without abandoning materialism entirely.

 

Materialism as methodology

Some critics object to materialism as part of an overly skeptical, narrow or reductivist approach to theorizing, rather than to the ontological claim that matter is the only substance. Particle physicist and Anglican theologian John Polkinghorne objects to what he calls promissory materialism — claims that materialistic science will eventually succeed in explaining phenomena it has not so far been able to explain.^[34] Polkinghorne prefers "dual-aspect monism" to faith in materialism.^[35]

 

Notes

a. ^{^} Indeed it has been noted it is difficult if not impossible to define one category without contrasting it with the other.^[2][3]

Further reading

• Buchner, L. (1920). [books.google.com/books?id=tw8OuwAACAAJ Force and Matter]. New York, Peter Eckler Publishing Co.
• Churchland, Paul (1981). Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes. The Philosophy of Science. Boyd, Richard; P. Gasper; J. D. Trout. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
• Field, Hartry H. (1981), "Mental representation", in Block, Ned Joel, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology 2, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 9780416746006
• Owen J. Flanagan (1991). Science of the Mind 2e. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-56056-6. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
• Fodor, J.A. (1974). Special Sciences, Synthese, Vol.28.
• Gunasekara, Victor A. (2001). "Buddhism and the Modern World". Basic Buddhism: A Modern Introduction to the Buddha's Teaching". 18 January 2008
• Kim, J. (1994) Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 52.
• La Mettrie, La Mettrie, Julien Offray de (1748). L'Homme Machine (Man a Machine)
• Lange, Friedrich A.,(1925) The History of Materialism. New York, Harcourt, Brace, & Co.
• Moser, Paul K.; Trout, J. D. (1995). Contemporary Materialism: A Reader. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-10863-8. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
• Priest, Stephen (1991), Theories of the Mind, London: Penguin Books, ISBN 0-14-013069-1 Alternative ISBN 978-0-14-013069-0
• Schopenhauer, Arthur (1969). The World as Will and Representation. New York, Dover Publications, Inc.
• Seidner, Stanley S. (June 10, 2009). "A Trojan Horse: Logotherapeutic Transcendence and its Secular Implications for Theology". Mater Dei Institute
• Turner, MS (Jan 5, 2007). "Quarks and the cosmos". Science 315 (5808): 59–61. doi:10.1126/science.1136276. PMID 17204637.
• Vitzthum, Richard C. (1995) Materialism: An Affirmative History and Definition. Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books.

External links

• Stanford Encyclopedia:
  • Physicalism
  • Eliminative Materialism
• Philosophical Materialism (by Richard C. Vitzthum) from infidels.org
• Dictionary of the Philosophy of Mind on Materialism from the University of Waterloo