The Ultimate Nature of Reality

8/14/2019 The Ultimate Nature of Reality

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-ultimate-nature-of-reality 1/27

The Ultimate Nature of Reality

a theory that answers these questions:

Why is There Something Rather

Than Nothing?;

Is There a God?;

and

What is the Solution to the “Hard

Problem” of Consciousness and the“Mind-Body Problem”?

(This is an excerpt, Chapter 18, of my manuscript.Prerequisites for fully appreciating the argument: it might help to have some familiarity with what is called the “global

broadcast” or “global workspace” theory of consciousness,which is described in Chapter 16. And the bit towards the end about suffering, love and wisdom is understandable but unfounded without the arguments in Chapters 12,16, and 17.)

1



Lets start out by considering the biases of perspective

that make these questions difficult to approach. There is

bias, for example, in the way emotional experiences can

shape belief without our realizing it. From life experiences

there grow deep and unconscious value-laden

generalizations, and from these emotional beliefs there grow

consciously formulated convictions, which produce

arguments on their own behalf. One may feel one has been

swayed by the rationality of one’s arguments when in fact it

was the emotional conviction that gave rise to the arguments,

and not vice versa. If the underlying emotion should change,

the reasoning doesn’t always seem so clear-cut anymore.

Reasoning may seem to be what backs one’s values, one’s

beliefs regarding human nature, the meaning of life, or the

ultimate nature of reality. But there are always assumptions

underlying any argument. Such assumptions will seem

small and insignificant, or at least born of sensible intuition,

in the case of one’s own beliefs; large and glaring, born of obvious bias, in the case of others’ beliefs.

Most beliefs are implicit or unconscious. It would not be

possible to keep conscious track of all of one's beliefs, if only

because there are so many of them. And many of these

beliefs are context-specific. When to apply an aspect of

context can be a complex matter, and is often decided

unconsciously. So it is possible to get tricked in this regard.

A question that has been designed to trick you into

accepting an invalid context is a type of a riddle. For

example: “What's black and white and read all over?” is,

2



(when spoken), such a riddle, because once you've been put

firmly into a context of color interpretation by the words

'black' and 'white' you won't think to question the continued

appropriateness of that context when it comes to interpreting

the meaning of the spoken form of 'read'. Habits of thought

make you vulnerable to being tricked; sometimes you cannot

think to notice and uproot an inappropriate context of

assumption because you so rarely leave the context to which

it applies. For example: My birthday is in the spring, but I

was not born in the spring, I was born in the fall. How can

this be? (Answer: I currently reside in the northern

hemisphere, but was born in the southern hemisphere.)

To think about an object requires a large, unconscious set

of assumptions about the object and about the world or the

outer context in which the object exists. Even when such

beliefs are not conscious, they may still be active in shaping

one’s conscious thoughts about the object. Though one

needs to tap into a huge set of beliefs in order to think aboutanything, it would be extremely inconvenient if this required

that all of these beliefs become conscious. One would have

great difficulty understanding anything were it not possible

to consider one thing at time, while assuming that everything

else can be at least temporarily held constant, taken for

granted as part of the unconscious context. Though

necessary to frame and define an object, the relevant beliefs

and assumptions, the context, surroundings, or background

can largely be ignored at the conscious level.

3



The mind evolved to seek practical knowledge about

specifics, not to delve into the ultimate nature of reality. It is

not natural for the mind to consider the whole of reality at

once; it can only focus on specific aspects while taking for

granted a larger context within which those specifics must

exist. If one tries to focus on reality as a whole, one will find

oneself imagining the whole as though it were just one more

object within a larger context—which means that one is

stuck with inappropriate assumptions.

The nature of reality in its totality cannot be expected to

turn out to conform to one’s common sense intuitions

regarding what an object can be like, since these intuitions

have been abstracted from experience at dealing with

specifics. But the habitual mind set cannot be so easily

dropped. So it seems that the relevant question regarding

the ultimate nature of reality is the same as that for

phenomena within that reality—the question of what caused

reality, or the universe, to come into existence. There musthave been a cause for the universe. Yet, since every cause

must itself have a cause, how could there ever be any final

answer to this question, a first cause?

This is like the question, “What holds up the world?”

which was the natural question to ask before the law of

gravity replaced the implicit assumption that everything,

including the earth, must fall in a downward direction.

Perhaps the world is held up by a muscular fellow named

Atlas. But then what’s he standing on? The back of a

turtle? Maybe, but then what’s the turtle standing on? An

4



infinite column of turtles?

Perhaps a similar infinite regress of causes produced the

universe. If that seems unlikely, why not a first cause,

something itself uncaused? Here’s one theory: In the

beginning, before there was a universe or anything else,

there was one very large jar of Kraft Marshmallow Creme. It

just happened to exist, for no reason; it needed no cause

because it was itself the first cause. Then, due to the special

physics of a jar of marshmallow, when it exists all by itself

outside of a universe, this jar imploded into a black hole,

then exploded in the Big Bang, creating the universe. If this

theory doesn’t sound plausible, try another one: In the

beginning, before there was a universe, there was a being,

sort of like a person, except that this was a super being, a

being you could even call magical because it was infinite, all

powerful, and all knowing. And the universe came into

existence because this being willed it into existence.

From within the context of our assumptions about therequirements of adequate cause, these two theories share the

same credibility problem. Think of all the causation that is

required for a jar of marshmallow to come into existence—it

seems there would have to be a universe first, and intelligent

creatures must evolve into existence that have a sweet-tooth.

Then marshmallow syrup must be invented, and there must

be companies with factories and workers to make the syrup,

the jars, and the labels. It just doesn’t make sense to think

that something that we cannot imagine existing except as the

result of so complex and special a process as existing, for no

5



reason, before everything else. Similarly in the case of the

being, being-hood as we know it seems to be a product of

complex evolutionary causes.

If the first cause is going to be something complex, then

why not just accept that the universe itself is its own first

cause—why resort to some other ungrounded complexity to

give ground to this one? It seems like complexity is

something that grows out of simplicity, so maybe the first

cause was something insignificant, something that, if it had

required a cause of its own, wouldn’t have needed a very big

or complex cause. If the first cause is infinitesimally small,

then it is an infinitesimal flaw in the structure of reality.

This is the reasoning of a mind that normally focuses on

objects within the context of a larger physical world wherein

relationships among parts can be conceptualized as causal.

Within our world, something complex always has to come out

of something else—simpler components must come together

in just the right way. Anything that exists always has tocome out of something else. You can’t get something out of

nothing. This is a rational belief, and it is also a deep

emotional belief, born of one’s emotionally relevant

experiences. No matter how thirsty you are, you can’t expect

a glass of iced tea to appear out of nowhere. You are less

likely to die of thirst if you can ignore your wishful thinking

about any mirage you see to concentrate on choosing the

most rational course of action. You must accept that the

universe is hard, cold, and impersonal. You are always

dissatisfied to some degree, because there is always a

6



shortage of adequate cause. If you are going to keep an open

mind about whether God exists, why not stay open to the

possibility that a glass of iced tea is going to appear before

you for no reason?

When it comes to the ultimate nature of reality, however,

cause is not the right concept. Cause is not the right

question to ask regarding the mystery as to what is the

nature of reality, why does it have that nature, and why does

it exist at all. Then what is?

The reason reality exists, the only reason it could have for

existing, is that it is the greatest possibility in terms of self-

consistency. What is required for reality to exist is that it be

consistent with itself. To put this into terms we are used to,

(as if it were a matter of distinct components interacting

causally within time and space—but this is only an analogy),

it is as though the essential attributes of reality mutually

“cause” or “pull” each other into existence, by virtue of theirmutual compatibility. This compatibility, or self-consistency,

is all that is needed. And reality will be the greatest

possibility in this regard because there is no reason for it not

to be; there is no reason for the greatest possibility not to

exist. Unless there are reasons why an attribute cannot exist

as an attribute of ultimate reality, then it should so exist.

There is no reason for reality not to be infinite, no reason for

it not to be conscious, or even infinitely conscious, or to have

infinite degrees of infinite consciousness—unless it would be

logically impossible. Unless it would be inconsistent, then it

7



must be. This is very different from how we are used to

thinking in our world with its stinginess of causation. At the

ultimate level, everything comes for free. At the metaphysical

level, there are not yet any physical laws to deem anything to

be too extravagant to exist—the only laws are those defining

what is logically possible.

For an object or attribute to exist within the universe, it

must be caused; its existence must be produced by the larger

system in which it exists. And for the defining attributes of

the larger, ultimate system itself to exist, they too must be

defined or constrained by the system—but here it is a matter

of the attributes being consistent with each other rather than

with a higher system. Reality as a whole cannot be caused

by something outside of itself. That reality is all-

encompassing means that its reasons for existing must be

contained within itself; there is no “outside”. It is self-

created; it exists because it shapes itself, and because it

defines its own existence as real relative to itself--notbecause it is shaped by, allowed, authorized, or somehow

zapped into existence by, something other than itself--if that

were the case, it would be just a part of something else larger

than itself. There can be no authority outside of reality to

tell it whether it can or does exist, or what it has to do to

exist. Before there is a universe, there is only logical

possibility, which is all there is to determine what exists and

why and how.

The greatest possible reality exists—just because there is

no reason for it not to exist. In other words, reality only has

8



to exist relative to itself--this greatest possibility--in order to

exist; it doesn’t have to meet the criteria of some larger

exterior context in order to really exist, the way everything

within the universe must. That “reality” is not, like most

objects, just one more piece of the universe means that it

does not need to be “caused”, and it does not need to comply

with some limiting set of laws from above itself such as those

of entropy and thermodynamics. Instead, because reality

only has to exist relative to itself, what it needs to do this is

not a “cause” from outside itself, but instead, self-

consistency.

Then it is only for anything within reality that the right

question to ask is, “Why?” For reality itself, the right

question to ask is, “Why not?” It is deeply habitual to

assume that “Why?” is always the right question to ask when

it comes to the structure of nature. So it can be hard to get

used to the idea that in this one case, “Why not?” is more

appropriate. In this one case, and only this one case, logicalpossibility is enough to determine what is. The intuition

some have that it would be more natural for nothing to exist

than something is just another form of the need to find

adequate cause. The belief runs deep that the restrictive

nature of physical causation is a universal principle.

However, at the highest level, the metaphysical level, it does

not apply.

So there is an alternative to causation for understanding

what determines the existence of, and the essential nature

of, reality. This alternative concept of self-consistency was

9





To make the analogy between consciousness and reality

in the first place is to consider that consciousness might be

fundamental to the nature of reality. So the possible answer

to the question as to why reality exists was discovered by

entertaining the possibility that consciousness is the answer

to the question of what is the ultimate nature of reality.

Now, to apply what was found by this analogy back to

consciousness. Dennett and Chalmers show how stark are

the possibilities for defining consciousness, pointing out the

problems if it is not to be defined in terms of function.

Dennett accepts the illusory nature of the qualities of

consciousness, “qualia”, as the logical consequence of

functionalism, whereas Chalmers, in order to preserve

qualia, is forced to retreat into dualism. It would appear

that either qualia must involve something mysteriously

nonmaterial, or else there is nothing to qualia except the

physical functioning of the brain. And if consciousness canbe reduced to brain function, it would seem to follow, as

Dennett tries to show, that it is not as special as it seems,

something that largely falls apart and dissolves when you

analyze what it is made of. The dualism that Chalmers

suggests, though it may seem unsatisfying, may also seem

necessary, until it occurs to you that even if dualism is

correct, there is still the question--what could the

mysterious something be that would account for qualia?

What could there possibly be that could somehow give rise

to the possibility of color, define the range of possible colors,

11



and determine why yellow is so yellow? Even if this

mysterious something is free to be as nonphysical or as

magical as it needs to be, doesn’t it still have to make some

kind of sense? If not by some kind of making sense, then

how could yellow possibly exist and be yellow? If, after

reading Dennett and Chalmers, it occurs to you to ask this

question, if you are like me, you will be convinced that there

could not conceivably be any way to explain qualia except by

making some kind of sense of something—where the

‘something’ most likely consists of what is going on in the

brain. In other words, qualia must be explainable in terms

of what could, (under a loose enough definition), be called

functionality. So now we are trapped, squeezed into a

corner tight enough to force out the answer that might

otherwise be too simple to notice.

Functionalism, though it easily seems to, does not

automatically imply either reductionism or materialism.

And, what we have learned from the analogy betweenconsciousness and reality gives us a new angle from which to

consider functionality.

The functionality by which qualia make sense is a matter

of what the system is doing in terms of a logic of information

processing, or meaning--not in terms of the physics of cause

and effect. The function that determines consciousness is

not a causal type of system but a logical type. In a brain or a

computer the logic of the function is represented by, and

constructed out of, a physical causal structure; cause is

used to represent logic. Physical forces can shape a physical

12



structure in ways that are parallel to the ways logic can

shape meaning. If one believes that different physical

structures that are in some sense functionally equivalent will

produce the same consciousness, this means one is a

functionalist, but this does not actually mean one is a

materialist. If there could potentially be some other way of

manifesting the same logical function of consciousness than

by the creation of a physical causal structure, then there is a

sense in which consciousness is not material—even if it does

depend, in this universe, on a physical causal structure. To

define consciousness in terms of function is actually to give it

a metaphysical and essentially nonmaterial definition.

The logic of meaning may seem to reduce to nothing but

the physics of causation, but we now have a new respect for

logic, having found that the need for self-consistency, which

is the same as the need for logical consistency, is prior to

physical cause in determining reality. The belief that

functionalism is materialism contains the erroneousassumption that the laws of physics are prior to logic, (or

natural necessity is prior to logical necessity). The opposite

is true. The possibilities of logic must be greater than of the

physical, not less. A requirement for self-consistency is the

ultimate determinant of the nature of reality, something

above cause, and the metaphysical analog of cause. The

requirement of reality as a whole, or a system, for self-

consistency or global integration is a special type of logic,

what could be termed a global logic .

A brain could be thought of as a physical structure that

13



becomes organized so that it will be controlled by the dictates

of a certain type of logic of meaning. Not logic as opposed to

causation, but logic by way of a causal process that parallels

that logic. A conscious brain is dictated by a requirement for

self-consistency that arises at the systems level and is, in

one sense, something in addition to the requirement for

consistency with the laws of physics or causation, though in

another sense, is not additional since it manifests by way of

such causation. Though physical embodiment requires that

consciousness be shaped by whatever physical causes

produce it, the systems-level logic of conscious meaning can

still exist without being “reduced to” or negated by its

coincidence with, the corresponding physical causation. It is

not that consciousness reduces to the physical, or that

consciousness carries a causal force that exceeds the

physical, it is that a one type of logical functioning

determines consciousness, and another type determines the

physical, and in the case of a conscious brain the twocoincide.

The logic of meaning must conform to the physical, and

so too the physical brain must (to the degree that it is

conscious) conform, without error, to the global logic of

meaning that arises at the systems level. For example, when

it is fully conscious, understanding, that 2 + 3 = 5 is

genuine and cannot be in error. Consciousness (unlike a

computer) really does have power to verify that 2 + 3 = 5,

which means that the very fact that 2 + 3 = 5 has causal

power over the brain; it is not merely the output of a circuit

14



in the same way that it is in a computer.

Just as global logic is the analog of cause at the

metaphysical level, so too cause can be seen as a type of

logic. That is, natural necessity can be looked upon as a

type of logical necessity that is secondary to the need for

conformity to physics. So the logic of brain consciousness

can be based on its need to conform to the physical system.

That natural necessity can be taken as a type of logic, and

logical necessity, as a type of cause, is the solution to the

problem of dualism regarding how consciousness and the

physical interact.

The logic of some type of functionality must be what

determines qualia; there isn’t anything else that could, and

there’s no reason why this logic shouldn’t. The logic of

qualia coincides with, but does not reduce to, the physical

cause and effect of brain functioning. To explain a quale in

terms of the logic of global function is to give it ametaphysical, not a reductionist, definition. The types and

ranges of qualia that could potentially exist are determined

by what is logically possible in this regard, analogously as

the possibilities for forms in space or physical dimensionality

are determined by logic. It seems like a big deal for

something like space to exist—why should space be able to

exist; what could cause it? But the shape of space is

determined by the matter that is in it; it requires no special

cause of its own. Nothing extra is necessary in order to add

a spatial mode of layout to the relationships of the physical.

15



It’s just a matter of logical possibility; if it makes sense for

space to exist there’s no reason why it can’t. Space could be

considered as just the context of logical possibility for the

existence of the physical. And so too consciousness for

qualia. Logical possibility is what determines the ranges of

possibility that exist regarding not only physical

dimensionality and physical universes, but more primarily

also, mental realms, the ranges of possibility regarding

experience or qualia. The physical universe is an

instantiation of what is physically possible, and experiences

of qualia are instantiations of what is mentally possible.

There seems to be a natural analogy between

consciousness and space. If the nature of space is

determined only by the nature of the laws of physics, i.e., if

there is a sense in which space is reducible to the relations

that exist among the objects within it, then does it really

exist or is its existence just an illusion? I would say that

space exists; after all, there is no reason why it can't. Andthose relations among the objects within it do truly

determine not just an illusion, but the existence of space;

they are irreducibly spatial in nature. Likewise for

consciousness.

The qualia of various types of sensory experience, such as

vision, touch, smell, and hearing, could be considered

dimensions of experience, analogous to dimensions of space.

And the possibilities regarding the more specific sensory,

perceptual, or intellectual contents of consciousness could

be considered analogous to the specific forms and events

16



that are logically possible within a space. There is no reason

why the brain should not be able to give rise to different

dimensions of experience, i.e., it is logically possible for it to

do so, just as it is logically possible for the various

dimensions of space to exist. Analogy between the physical

and the mental is appropriate because it is only possible to

appreciate how logic shapes some of the physical

possibilities; how logic shapes the “possibility space” for

qualia is not something that the mind is designed to be able

to consider directly.

Chalmers suggests that the ineffability of qualia may owe

to the fact that sensory information is processed into

categories before it becomes available to consciousness, so

that the differences among the categories can be appreciated,

without being fully explicable, at the conscious level. Then

qualia, such as colors, smells, sounds, seem inexplicable

because we aren’t given the information necessary to fully

understand them. The categories are aspects of the contextof consciousness rather than content, making qualia more

subjective experience than objective knowledge.

To be able to understand qualia as logical possibilities

might require adding plasticity to one’s brain. The more

instinctive type of qualia are the most mysterious, because

these are innately set regarding which aspects are context

and which become content, whereas it is the nature of the

more intellectual types of material to be more plastic and

interchangeable in their role, going back and forth from

context to content. Adding to the more instinctive qualia a

17



type of plasticity that would allow the instinctive aspects of

context to be varied, or even become content might be what

could cause qualia to shed their mystery. Maybe with such

plasticity, “Mary the color scientist who has never seen

colors” would be like someone who has never conceived of

the number seven. She wouldn’t have to see red to discover

it as a conceptual possibility.

If the logic that determines meaning is always embedded

in the physical, and secondary to it, then this logic appears

to reduce to the physical, rather than standing out as

metaphysically distinct. One does not exactly recognize the

possibility of divorcing the two, at least in the sense of using

this as the dividing line of dualism that translates between

the mental and the physical. (Though some, such as

Edelman and Searle, seem to promote essentially this same

idea as the solution to the “hard problem” of consciousness,

without calling it dualism. And there is the closely relatedidea that the concept of information can bridge the gap

between consciousness and physics, as Chalmers and Baars

both suggest.) There does not appear to be any special

dividing line of dualism between the logic of the functionality

of consciousness, and the physicality of the brain, if this line

appears to be the same one that divides what an

unconscious computer does, in terms of information

processing, from what it does in terms of physical circuitry.

However, the logic of functionality of consciousness is a

special type—it is a global logic; a logic of global integration;

18



the logic of a system that is integrated by its own logic of

meaning; the logic of a system that is in a sense complete, or

self-contained.

One sense in which a conscious mind is a complete

system is that it contains the context by which its

functioning is defined, whereas computer functioning is not

meaningful except relative to the context of a human mind.

The conscious understanding of, e.g., 2 + 3 = 5 differs from

the computation by computer in that the logical consistency

involved is not just in a single, mechanical match that a

machine can make between 2 + 3 and 5, but also in and

among the multitude of ways in which this statement is

meaningful and consistent relative to everything else within

this mind. The conscious logic of meaning occurs when the

statement recruits the context that is able to understand it,

use it, produce it, and produce, use and understand its

implications, formulations in language, associated ideas and

memories, etc, and when this all occurs appropriatelyintegrated within the context of personal and behavioral

agendas and story lines regarding what the individual is

doing and why. There is so much overlap and integration of

underlying processes when this functioning is fully conscious

that error is not possible. For some types of conscious

operation, it is possible to say that error implies a partial

failure of consciousness, and no failure of consciousness

implies no error.

The character of a conscious system involves global

19





That a relativity principle of consciousness can remove this

type of gap that appears from the objective perspective

means that it should also be able to solve a lot of apparent

gaps in the way brain functioning, from the objective

perspective, doesn’t somehow all converge to a single point in

time and space. As Dennett says, the timing and spacing of

a representing is not the same as the timing and spacing

being represented. (But this difference can be very difficult

to think about and keep track of conceptually.)

From the outer perspective, it seems that there would

have to be a time and place in the brain where the different

aspects of the processing of the content of consciousness all

come together in order for it to be truly integrated. But if

everything is integrated in terms of meaning and function,

relative to the subjective perspective, then it is integrated.

And it does not matter whether there is an external

perspective from which the integrated aspects appear apart

in space or time, or in some way discontinuous.Consciousness can be full of all kinds of gaps from the

objective perspective without making consciousness, or its

continuity, or its qualia, an illusion.

Another aspect of the self-defining character of

consciousness is that it is self-verifying. Consciousness

might be, in a sense, self-verification, or that which exists

because it is valid to itself. It is the context that defines the

existence of its own experience, which is real from the

context of consciousness, and not from any other. Self-

verification is the basis of both consciousness and reality. I

21



can verify that I exist; I am conscious, therefore something

exists. By being conscious, I verify that there is at least one

perspective--mine—from which it is meaningful to

distinguish that something is real. Without consciousness

there can be no grounds for distinguishing that there is such

a thing as “reality”. In an unreal world, the conscious beings

don’t really live their lives; in real world, they do—that is the

only difference. If there were no consciousness, there could

be no grounds for distinguishing a world that really exists

from one that exists only as a hypothetical possibility.

Consciousness is the basis of reality, the necessary context

of reality. It does not make sense for anything to exist

outside of a defining context, and context is always,

ultimately, consciousness.

Within the physical universe, nothing can manifest except

by way of the physical causal system. For reality itself, there

does not appear to be any reason why a logically consistentsystem in the form of an infinite version of the functionality

of consciousness cannot exist without any physical extension

or physical causation. It is only for manifestation within the

universe that physical cause is necessary. Prior to the

universe, it is only the requirement of self-consistency that

determines what is real.

Unless there is some reason why it couldn’t be, a

metaphysical basis of reality which is more than just the

physical universe should exist. A global broadcast system,

or some kind of connectionism, might be what the brain

22



needs to produce the capacity for global integration, because

it is a way to shape a causal structure to conform to a

globally consistent type of functional system. Without the

physical, this would not be needed. Within the physical,

greater connectivity allows greater integration. Connectivity

is an artificial way of producing unity, a way of producing

integration which otherwise could not exist. Brain

consciousness may depend on connectivity, but perhaps

there is no reason why the basis of reality cannot consist of

the equivalent of infinite connectivity of infinite

dimensionality, an infinite context of conscious possibility—

but without the need to be built out of any actual structure

or dimensionality.

If consciousness exists prior to the physical universe,

then there are possibilities as to its nature. The range of

possibilities for this consciousness includes positive and

negative qualia. It might be that meaning cannot exist

except within a context of mattering, (or preference, or agood/bad valence to experience). In which case it might be

necessary for consciousness to have a capacity for good/bad

valence in order to exist.

For this valence to exist, it might be necessary for pure

consciousness itself (which in its greatest form might consist

of the integration of, or totality of, all of reality) to define the

positive extreme of the spectrum. So that the negative of the

spectrum only occurs when it is possible for consciousness

to fail to integrate—which can only occur if the

consciousness is imperfect because it is secondary to a

23



substrate physical system. It is even possible that creation

in which the negative occurs is necessary in order for God to

exist. Perhaps a God who does not create, or differentiate

into, creatures cannot exist, if it is necessary for the negative

side of the spectrum to occur in order to define the positive

as such, or if it is necessary in order to create meaning. And

for God to exist outside of time might require that there also

exist a perspective from which time exists. Unless logical

necessity is enough to determine physical reality, which

doesn’t seem likely, then God has freedom to create

according to preference.

What does God create for? God is in the business of

creating bliss. We are the workers and shareholders of the

company. If consciousness is the medium of integration,

then creation may involve an apparent fracturing of this

medium, thereby creating finite, limited, desiring minds. To

create ego and suffering, then overcome and transcend, is to

create and bring together the pieces of a much greaterharmony. Smaller pieces, some of which are disharmonious

alone, are what fit together to compose a greater harmony.

With love, suffering becomes acceptable. God differentiates

into suffering, then integrates back by learning love and

wisdom. This process, occurring over and over in a

multitude or infinity of universes, might be how God creates

the greatest possible bliss, which is the nature of it all from

the perspective of God, outside of time.

There is the perspective from which it seems that

24



consciousness is just too incredible as a fundamental

property of reality--or even, too incredible to exist at all. A

physical reality can seem so neat and adequate, and

consciousness, like that uncaused jar of marshmallow syrup,

seems to be something extra, strange and unlikely, an

observer perched to the side, gazing at it all. But of course,

this is because the mind was designed to learn about the

physical--not the nature of consciousness.

Consciousness seems unlikely because the mind is not

designed to understand it. No matter how you turn your

eyes to look, the backs of your eyeballs will always elude

your gaze. Similarly, when you analyze something to

understand it or form a model of it, there is always much

that is implicit underlying the model that you do not

appreciate. For most practical purposes, this doesn’t matter.

But when it comes to larger philosophical metaphysical

issues involving the totality of everything, or the unity nature

of consciousness, then it is no longer legitimate to ignore theimplicit side of everything—although this is very hard; it is

not clear what the alternative is to ignoring it, except

considering some of the implicit aspects individually in turn,

while temporarily ignoring others.

Science, until it takes on consciousness, is used to

remaining within the habits of practicality whereby the

relevant is focused on, and the background remains

background. Because people share so much context,

language can be used to recruit or point out aspects of

shared context. So information can be made standardized or

25





References

Anderson, John R. The Architecture of Cognition . Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press 1983

Baars, Bernard J. A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness Cambridge:Cambridge University Press 1988

Chalmers, David The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory New York: Oxford University Press 1996

Dennett, Daniel Consciousness Explained Boston: Little, Brownand Company 1991

Edelman, Gerald M. Wider than the Sky New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press, 2004

Searle, John R. the Mystery of Consciousness New York: New YorkReview of Books 1997

27

Documents

The Ultimate Nature of Reality