“How do our perceptions correspond with base level reality?” PART 1

Part One: 

Throughout the history of science and philosophy, there have been significant shifts in perspective as to the fundamental substrate of reality. One such shift occurred in the 19th century with James Maxwell, who proposed that electromagnetism could be better understood through the concept of fields rather than particles. This perspective opened up new possibilities in science. Later, in the 20th century, Richard Feynman further expanded on this idea by considering particles as ripples in a quantum field. According to this view, nature is field-like rather than composed of particles. Quantum field theory, which supports this perspective, has become a widely accepted and successful theory in physics.

The next revolution is to recognize that physics does not likely describe a non-mental, material world external to our own minds.  This idea is now getting more support, giving rise to a new revolution surrounding how we think of base reality and our experience of reality.  

In point of fact, physics is limited to the study of what we perceive, which, in the past was inferred to correspond to a representation of the world AS IT ACTUALLY IS, albeit beyond our limited perception. However, as we know, our perception is limited to our own minds, and therefore the world as we perceive it, even as measured by our most advanced instrumentation is restricted to our minds as well. Base reality is likley a purely mental representation made up of consciousness, only a small part of which is witnessed in our individual consciousness. Just as the thoughts of other people are mental but exist independently of our own minds, the world outside may be wholly made of conciousness with the totality of base reality not being confined to our limited personal consciousness. 

Reread the last two sentences again…. If you are like me, this confounds intuition. However, that is where the last 60 years of physics and 5000 years of Eastern philosophy point us towards as regards to the fundamental base reality of our world.

The logic proceeds as follows. We must first begin by acknowledging that physics does not necessarily deal with a non-mental, material world, external to our minds. Rather, all of physics focuses simply on what we will perceive next, even if that perception comes from instruments like cameras or photo-detectors, in other words, we perceive only what happens next.

Physicists aim to convey the understanding that our perceptions and the physical world are closely intertwined. However, while our perceptions serve as an encoded representation of the world, providing mostly accurate information, our perceptions are not to be confused as a direct reflection of the entirety of reality. In other words, the physicality we experience refers only to the contents of perception, such as shapes, forms, and dynamics, rather than an external, independent reality. While there is indeed a world beyond our minds, it may still be mental, similar to the thoughts of another person that exist independently of our own minds.

In fact, Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022 for providing proof that base reality is not acually made of matter with properties such as mass, charge, momentum, and spin.  Their experiments with entangled photons indicate that the behavior of entangled particles cannot be explained by classical theories, and support some of the least intuitive predictions of quantum mechanics.

Their work demonstrates that certain correlations between distant particles are stronger than what can be explained by local hidden variables, as predicted by classical physics.  Their work has led to debates and different philosophical interpretations related to the nature of consciousness and the underlying fabric of reality.  One popular interpretation of their work by some scientists and philosophers is that the universe is not “real” in the classical sense but purely made of consciousness (i.e. analytical idealism). You have probably seen some news headlines saying that this Nobel prize line of research demonstrates that the “Universe Is Not real.” Well, it isn’t “real” in the way that 19th and early 20th-century physics believed it to be real. This is a big deal and runs counter to most people’s intuition about base reality.

Considering our own, personal, perception, it becomes evident that we do not perceive the world as it truly is. Any experience you have had with any optical illusion demonstrates that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between base reality and our limited experience of that reality.  In fact, the wide variety of states the base reality can take has no upper bound. If we were to perceive the world as it is, our cognitive state would need to mirror the state of base reality, leading to an infinite diversity of internal cognitive states. Crazy, right?

If we could perceive the base-level reality, we would completely dissolve into a state of overwhelming consciousness flow, simply from observing the world.  If you have ever had a total ego death experience, you will have gotten a taste of what that might feel like.  Therefore, our perception of the world is limited and provides merely an encoded representation of the world around us that, while conveying accurate information about the world around us, is distinct from the totality of base reality.

Our understanding of evolutionary theory further supports the notion that our perception does not directly reflect the world as it is. In his book, “The Case Against Realty,” Donald Hoffman uses the modern computer user interface as an analogy to illustrate how our mind is essentially a user interface for moving through the base reality. 

Similar to how computer operating systems present simplified icons on the desktop as a representation of the inner workings of the computer, our perception presents representations of the world that aid in our interaction with the world, rather than overwhelming us with the true complexity of the base reality.  In other words, if we were to perceive the true nature of objects in the base reality in their totality, it would be the same as viewing the millions of microscopic switches which make up any computer file, as opposed to simply seeing folders and icons that represent the multitude of switches that make up the file and file directory.  Were we to see the “file” as it actually is, without the operating system’s user interface, we would be overwhelmed by excessive information, rendering it impractical for us to interact with or use computers.  Base reality and our perception of it follows this analogy closely.

Let's now use another, similar, analogy.  The world we perceive is akin to a dashboard, conveying important and mostly accurate information about the external world. However, as I have said before, what we perceive is not the base reality itself.

Think of our perception acting as a dashboard of dials, indicating the states and qualities of the physical world that are of value to us as we move and interact with the world. The physical world we experience, which we call “physical reality", corresponds to the dials on the dashboard but is not the base reality itself. The measurements of the dials (i.e., our perceptions) are an outcome of our observations and measurements; however, all the while, the real base reality lies beyond this dashboard. The real world, distinct from our physical reality, nevertheless is experienced as a physical reality to us- that is how we can interact with the world in a meaningful way. Yet, the existing world continues to flow independently of our observations and measurements.

Some may argue that this contradicts neuroscience, which seeks to explain how these mental states arise from physical brain activity. However, no scientific explanation has successfully connected physical quantities with subjective qualities (subjective qualities are known as “qualia,” for those of you with a background in philosophy of mind). 

The relationship between physical brain processes and subjective experiences remains unexplained. Even with psychedelic substances, recent laboratory studies have challenged the assumption that increased brain activity corresponds to more intense experiences. Instead, it has been found that psychedelics, rather than increase brain activity, actually reduce brain activity all the while inducing experiences that are even more intense than everyday, consensual reality.  This suggests that subjective mental states are not solely dependent on brain activity.

In summary, the physical world we perceive is not the external base reality itself, but rather our personal representation or dashboard of the world. This physical world, as represented in our conscious awareness, is just observation and measurement (i.e. dials on a dashboard), but beyond this lies the base reality, the world as it actually is, independent of our perception. 

While the physical world remains consistent among individuals, representing a shared external physical reality, the real world is not confined to this physical reality. The base reality is mental in nature, and like the thoughts of another person, existing independently of our individual minds. This perspective challenges the traditional understanding of reality and opens up new possibilities for exploring the nature of consciousness and the world we inhabit.

PART 2 COMING SOON!!!

************

The above essay is based on work of Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrupa, and the Essentia Foundation.