Reality as mental modification: No objective reality

[Surya Deva]

In the Indian philosophical and religious tradition reality is considered to be a mental modification, chitt-vritti, and as such Indian philosophies ontologically are idealist for they posit that reality is a mind-stuff, not a physical stuff. This informs the religious practices of the Indian religion Yoga, where through meditation one attempts to silence, still of cease the mental modifications in order to reveal reality without the occlusion of mental modifications:

Yoga Sutras 1.2-4. Yoga is the method of cessation of the mental modifications of the field of mind, then the witnessing consciousness is revealed in its essential form(without the occlusion of the mental modifications) at other times the witnessing consciousness is misidentified with the mental modifications​

Indian philosophy and religious tradition is almost unanimous that there exists an essential or absolute reality underlying our mental modifications and hence the practice of Yoga/meditation and the deep mysticism that is characteristic of Indic thought. This also explains why we accept siddhis or psychic powers.

Yet, interestingly idealistic ontologies have not really flourished in the Western philosophical and Abrahamic religious thought. The prevailing thought has been that reality is objective, real(independent of the mind) and physical/material stuff. Such that now with the rise of quantum mysticism and new scientific fields like transpersonal psychology/parapsychology which present constant challenges to objective reality which many would even consider settled now given the preponderance of the empirical evidence, there is fierce and violent resistance to it. I honestly think this attitude is irrational and reminds me of similar attitudes in the Western world to Heliocentricism in the past. (It is hardly surprising quantum physics has found more affinity with the Eastern philosophical and religious tradition than the Western one)

In this thread I think I can debate a strong case for why there is no objective reality and why reality is indeed just mental modifications and I would like others who also subscribe to idealist ontologies to participate.

 

[Koldo]

Must not the mind exist objectively to give rise to the mental modifications?

 

[Surya Deva]

The mind-field indeed exists and within the mind-field all of our reality takes place. The subjective and objective split takes place within the mind field In a dream for instance there is also a subjective and objective split. However in deep sleep the subjective and objective split disappears altogether. Similarly, we argue that the waking reality is within the mind-field much like the dream reality is.

Everything which you know, perceive and experience takes place within your consciousness not outside of it. You are the awareness and they are are the content of your awareness.

 

[al-amiyr]

In the Indian philosophical and religious tradition reality is considered to be a mental modification, chitt-vritti, and as such Indian philosophies ontologically are idealist for they posit that reality is a mind-stuff, not a physical stuff. This informs the religious practices of the Indian religion Yoga, where through meditation one attempts to silence, still of cease the mental modifications in order to reveal reality without the occlusion of mental modifications:

Yoga Sutras 1.2-4. Yoga is the method of cessation of the mental modifications of the field of mind, then the witnessing consciousness is revealed in its essential form(without the occlusion of the mental modifications) at other times the witnessing consciousness is misidentified with the mental modifications​

Indian philosophy and religious tradition is almost unanimous that there exists an essential or absolute reality underlying our mental modifications and hence the practice of Yoga/meditation and the deep mysticism that is characteristic of Indic thought. This also explains why we accept siddhis or psychic powers.

Yet, interestingly idealistic ontologies have not really flourished in the Western philosophical and Abrahamic religious thought. The prevailing thought has been that reality is objective, real(independent of the mind) and physical/material stuff. Such that now with the rise of quantum mysticism and new scientific fields like transpersonal psychology/parapsychology which present constant challenges to objective reality which many would even consider settled now given the preponderance of the empirical evidence, there is fierce and violent resistance to it. I honestly think this attitude is irrational and reminds me of similar attitudes in the Western world to Heliocentricism in the past. (It is hardly surprising quantum physics has found more affinity with the Eastern philosophical and religious tradition than the Western one)

In this thread I think I can debate a strong case for why there is no objective reality and why reality is indeed just mental modifications and I would like others who also subscribe to idealist ontologies to participate.

I like your thread. Very important for all the world to discuss. I would like to ask one question just for now,"Whose mental modification?"

 

[idav]

In Buddhism, Maya the material world is an illusion, which science confirms, but that is not to say there is no objective reality.

edit: a better term would be illusory

 

[Surya Deva]

I like your thread. Very important for all the world to discuss. I would like to ask one question just for now,"Whose mental modification?"

Thanks.

The question of 'Who' which presupposes personality and is yet another mental modification superimposed of the field of mind. Hence, why Indic traditions in general say the field is impersonal. There are some later religious interpretations which attempt to model the source of this field as a conscious supreme being, but these are generally not representative of all of Indian philosophical and religious thought. The Buddhists generally consider this field the fundamental existence empty of all conceptualizations(including personhood) of the mind yet verily the source of our entire empirical existence; the Jains consider this field an absolute reality or pure substratum of knowledge; Advaitins consider it pure consciousness. However, the general attitude of Indic religions is that it is intrinsically ineffable and infinite bliss.

 

[Koldo]

The mind-field indeed exists and within the mind-field all of our reality takes place. The subjective and objective split takes place within the mind field In a dream for instance there is also a subjective and objective split. However in deep sleep the subjective and objective split disappears altogether. Similarly, we argue that the waking reality is within the mind-field much like the dream reality is.

Everything which you know, perceive and experience takes place within your consciousness not outside of it. You are the awareness and they are are the content of your awareness.

What is this 'mind-field' you speak of?

 

[Surya Deva]

In Buddhism, Maya the material world is an illusion, which science confirms, but that is not to say there is no objective reality.

edit: a better term would be illusory

The reason why there is no objective reality is because there is no objective and subjective split in reality in the first place. This split disappears in deep sleep altogether.

In waking state the objective and subjective split seems to be clearly defined. This gives us our perception of waking reality as being constituted of clearly defined boundaries of time, space and mind. In this clearly defined perception of reality a definite distinction seems to exist between our subjective thought, imagination, feelings, desires and the objective external world.

In the dream state the objective and subjective split seems to be indeterminate and nebulous. This gives us our perception of dream reality as being fuzzy, no clear boundaries of time, space and mind. In this fuzzy perception no clear distinction exists between our subjective thought, imagination, feelings and desires and the objective external world, whatever we think can immediately manifest.

In deep sleep /dreamless sleep state the objective and subjective split disappears altogether and there is no perception of reality. However, our consciousness does not cease in deep sleep, for we know upon waking that we had slept.


Respectively, these are the gross, subtle and causal planes of reality. In meditation we enter all of these states while aware. In dreaming and sleep we are not always consciously aware of dreaming and sleeping. However, when we enter through the method of meditation we do it consciously so we can consciously enter into the subtle and then the causal. When we enter into the causal this is known as samadhi when the subjective-objective split begins to collapse.

 

[Surya Deva]

We can make scientific predictions from this theory:

1) If matter is examined closely it will eventually be found that boundaries of our world time, space and mind will begin to blur and the conclusion will be reached that they are inseparable from one another.
2) If the brain and the mind is examined closely it will be found our entire reality is not made out of any real stuff, but is virtual
3) In dream state it will be found that interaction between two observers can take place and one can become as consciously aware within dream as one can become aware in waking state
4) Evidence will be found that our entire universe(including) body is holographic

 

[PolyHedral]

We can make scientific predictions from this theory:

1) If matter is examined closely it will eventually be found that boundaries of our world time, space and mind will begin to blur and the conclusion will be reached that they are inseparable from one another.
2) If the brain and the mind is examined closely it will be found our entire reality is not made out of any real stuff, but is virtual
3) In dream state it will be found that interaction between two observers can take place and one can become as consciously aware within dream as one can become aware in waking state
4) Evidence will be found that our entire universe(including) body is holographic

What does the holographic principle have to do with your premise that there is no objective reality?

 

[Surya Deva]

What does the holographic principle have to do with your premise that there is no objective reality?

I agree, this is more evidence for reality being illusory than it is direct evidence against objective reality. The evidence of the universe, body etc being holographic will prove that they are emanating from another source and hence our reality as we perceive it is purely virtual. (One of the predictions of the theory of reality as mental modifications of the field of mind, its source being the witnessing consciousness underlying it)

 

[Surya Deva]

There are many proofs one can give for non-existence of objective reality. I will give the proofs given within the Indian philosophical traditions which are commonly held

No individual self

If there is no individual self or observer, there is nothing to observe anything and how can you have objects without an observer? The individual self is a construct. In Advaita philosophy it is called the ahamkara literally meaning I-construction/I-maker, this is defined as as an atomized unit of the mind-field, which creates an artificial split in the field of subjective-objective. In Buddhist philosophy this is called the skanda-self which is an artificial construct made out of incessantly changing natural processes like thoughts, perceptions and material activity.

In Western philosophy the individual self has come under attack. Hume declared that whenever he introspected within himself to find this putative self he found nothing but a mass of fleeting perceptions, ideas, thoughts, sensations and feelings and declared the self to be purely fictitious. Kant also declared that our empirical self was just a useful fiction via which we made our life sensible. Now, modern psychology and neurosciences show unequivocally just how fictitious this self is. One of the leading neurophilosopher Thomas Metzinger demonstrates there is nobody there, there is no individual self. It is shown through biochemical, electromagnetic, optical or even suggestive stimulation one loses their boundaries of selfhood.

Therefore, as the evidence clearly shows us that there is no individual self/observer how can there be any objective reality? Then the only conclusion we can draw reality is a single continuum or flux. There is no distinction between the physical or the mental. It is just a single seamless undifferentiated field.

 

[PolyHedral]

I agree, this is more evidence for reality being illusory than it is direct evidence against objective reality. The evidence of the universe, body etc being holographic will prove that they are emanating from another source and hence our reality as we perceive it is purely virtual. (One of the predictions of the theory of reality as mental modifications of the field of mind, its source being the witnessing consciousness underlying it)

Showing the universe to be holographic would show that reality as we perceive it is emergent, but we already knew that.

 

[George-ananda]

My friend Surya Deva,

Thank you for this discussion. In my opinion you are the best poster we have on RF.
　
Here's a simple question about objective reality with probably a not so simple answer.
　
There is a stuffed 500 pound gorilla in the middle of my bedroom. How come every sane person who walks into my bedroom will see the gorilla even though they had no reason to expect it?

 

[Surya Deva]

Thank you very much George Ananda, means a lot to me

Here is how we separate naive idealism from critical idealism: Naive idealism says that or individual mind creates the stuffed 500 pound gorilla. This is not true, obviously our individual minds did not create the sun, the Earth, and galaxies. Prior to my birth as a human there was indeed a history of this planet which obviously I did not create.

Critical idealism, such as the theories of Kant show us that apperception of the human mind organizes and arranges the boundaries of our reality. Reality appears to us as it does because it is organized by the human mind in a certain way. This is why humans who may never have seen a stuffed 500 pound gorilla before, will still see it(though it may take some time adjusting to get use to the form of it) However, even if we slightly alter the perceptual capability of a single human mind, the boundaries they perceive of the form of the stuffed 500 pound gorilla will alter, because the mental modifications have been modified. While all other humans will see the 500 pound gorilla in more or lesss the same way and thus share a consensual human reality, that single one person will see it differently.

We can alter the perception of that one single human through various means: biochemical, electromagentic, optical, hyponotically and through meditation. It is experimentally confirmed in the neuroscieces how we can drastically alter the boundaries of a person through this kind of stimulation, even trick them into thinking a false rubber arm belongs to them and makes them feel pain when the rubber arm is affected; or tricking a person into believing a virtual body belongs to them. Common neurological phenomena like phantom limbs, or when certain parts of ones body appear to develop a mind of their own mind and attack the rest of the body, or split personality, or expanded sense of self all indicate that the boundaries of all our forms alter with mental modification.

Now we share this planet with animals and creatures of all kinds. The apperception in these animals and creatures maybe similar enough because the computational processes of apperception being based on mathematics(again Kant) would be similar for most minds, but the mental modifications are going to be different. So others animals are not likely to perceive the boundaries of objects human perceive in the same way(cf Thomas Nagel, "What is it like to be a bat?") and humans would have no way of perceiving the consensual reality of bats, ants or birds. This is why reality always depends on who or what is perceiving. So the notion of one single objective reality independent of the mind is purely erroneous. It is impossible to separate the observer from the observed(indeed what quantum physics is showing us now too)

The conclusion? No objective reality. The observer can never be factored out of from the object. If there is no observer there cannot be an object.

 

[Surya Deva]

What is this 'mind-field' you speak of?

Look within, those constantly changing thoughts, perceptions, sensations, desires you perceive to take place are the mind-field. This is the quantum reality that underlies yourself, myself and every other being in reality. You don't really need to wait for the scientists to tell you about quantum reality, you experience it every time you look within with your own mind. While your five senses show you the gross physical world, your sixth sense the mind shows you the subtle quantum world.

Here the boundaries are not clearly defined, they are fuzzy(much strongly experienced in the dream state) much like in the quantum time and space are fuzzy and there are no clearly defined boundaries in this state. In the quantum you and a rock in another galaxy are interconnected.

So it is idealism because we are saying the fundamental nature of reality begins at thought. Hence reality is mental modification.

But even more fundamental than mind is the ground of being from which this entire reality is being projected from: consciousness. Consciousness is what allows you to see, but you cannot see consciousness itself.

 

[Surya Deva]

The way the quantum behaves does indeed mimic our mind:

THE quantum world defies the rules of ordinary logic. Particles routinely occupy two or more places at the same time and don't even have well-defined properties until they are measured. It's all strange, yet true - quantum theory is the most accurate scientific theory ever tested and its mathematics is perfectly suited to the weirdness of the atomic world.

Yet that mathematics actually stands on its own, quite independent of the theory. Indeed, much of it was invented well before quantum theory even existed, notably by German mathematician David Hilbert. Now, it's beginning to look as if it might apply to a lot more than just quantum physics, and quite possibly even to the way people think.

Human thinking, as many of us know, often fails to respect the principles of classical logic. We make systematic errors when reasoning with probabilities, for example. Physicist Diederik Aerts of the Free University of Brussels, Belgium, has shown that these errors actually make sense within a wider logic based on quantum mathematics. The same logic also seems to fit naturally with how people link concepts together, often on the basis of loose associations and blurred boundaries. That means search algorithms based on quantum logic could uncover meanings in masses of text more efficiently than classical algorithms.

It may sound preposterous to imagine that the mathematics of quantum theory has something to say about the nature of human thinking. This is not to say there is anything quantum going on in the brain, only that "quantum" mathematics really isn't owned by physics at all, and turns out to be better than classical mathematics in capturing the fuzzy and flexible ways that humans use ideas. "People often follow a different way of thinking than the one dictated by classical logic," says Aerts. "The mathematics of quantum theory turns out to describe this quite well."

It's a finding that has kicked off a burgeoning field known as "quantum interaction", which explores how quantum theory can be useful in areas having nothing to do with physics, ranging from human language and cognition to biology and economics. And it's already drawing researchers to major conferences.​

Quantum minds: Why we think like quarks - life - 05 September 2011 - New Scientist

 

[1137]

Must not the mind exist objectively to give rise to the mental modifications?

Yep.

What does the holographic principle have to do with your premise that there is no objective reality?

I think these types of arguments misunderstand the difference between objective reality not existing and what we perceive not being objective reality at its most basic. For example, time may not exist at the fundamental level, but third dimensional beings do indeed experience "time". Atoms may be broken down to vibrating strings, but those strings still create the atoms along with all reality we experience and observe.

 

[Surya Deva]

On levels and dimensions: This is a common answer given by realists attempting to keep hold of objective reality. The attitude has also been institutionalized in the mainstream scientific community as the complimentarity principle: The classical world is objective, physical, clearly defined boundaries of time and space, predicable; the quantum world is non-objective, immaterial, fuzzy no clear boundaries of time and space, unpredictable.

The complimentarity principle ignores the obvious logical problem of having two unified contradictory realities. It is effectively saying A and not A are both true. Furthermore, the fact that the quantum is the foundation of our classical reality makes it impossible that a foundation which is fuzzy, no clearly defined time and space, no materiality would would be the foundation of our classical world. It is erecting a building on the foundation of an ocean, the building cannot stand. Hence we cannot maintain both to be equally true, for it is obvious that the quantum is the actual nature of matter and our classical world is false. Quantum physics has falsified our classical world and we should just accept it and move on.

The reason why we still use classical physics is not because it is right, but because it is practical and convenient for us at the moment. We still don't know how to make sense of quantum physics and apply it to our larger world(though we are getting there and are now starting to apply quantum physics to fields as varied as biology, cognitive sciences and economics) but eventually we will do away with classical physics altogether(because it is wrong)

To say there is a level where classical physics is true is like saying there is a level where the sun sets and rises. The 'level' we speak of here is basically the humans ignorant perception of reality.

 

[PolyHedral]

On levels and dimensions: This is a common answer given by realists attempting to keep hold of objective reality. The attitude has also been institutionalized in the mainstream scientific community as the complimentarity principle: The classical world is objective, physical, clearly defined boundaries of time and space, predicable; the quantum world is non-objective, immaterial, fuzzy no clear boundaries of time and space, unpredictable.

The complimentarity principle ignores the obvious logical problem of having two unified contradictory realities. It is effectively saying A and not A are both true. Furthermore, the fact that the quantum is the foundation of our classical reality makes it impossible that a foundation which fuzzy, no clearly defined time and space, no materiality would would be the foundation of our classical world. It is erecting a building on the foundation of an ocean, the building cannot stand. Hence we cannot maintain both to be equally true, it is obvious that the quantum is the actual nature of matter and our classical world is false. Quantum physics has falsified our classical world and we should just accept it and move on.

The reason why we still use classical physics is not because it is right, but because it is practical and convenient for us at the moment. We still don't know how to make sense of quantum physics and apply it to our larger world(though we are getting there and are now starting to apply quantum physics to fields as varied as biology, cognitive sciences and economics) but eventually we will do away with classical physics altogether(because it is wrong)

To say there is a level where classical physics is true is like saying there is a level where the sun sets and rises. The 'level' we speak of here is basically the humans ignorant perception of reality.

The quantum world is absolutely, unarguably, objective. It is, in fact, more rigidly and clearly defined then classical mechanics ever was.

It is merely very, very strange. Strangeness and subjectivity are not the same thing. Similarly, emergence and subjectivity are not the same thing either.