The New Mythos

Historically, mythology served as our medium for sharing uplifting visions for humanity. In contrast, contemporary narratives stand apart by embracing the scientific method.

The prevailing modern narrative suggests that humanity has moved past myths, relying instead on empirical facts. This perspective is so dominant that mythology is often equated with fiction and fairy tales today.

Such a naturalist viewpoint has relegated spiritual interpretations of existence to rudimentary theories, treating the mythologies of ancient cultures as primitive attempts to comprehend nature's workings. It overlooks the fact that our ancestors did not necessarily view nature as merely mechanical.

Enthralled by our own mythos, individuals began to believe that science was not just a tool for uncovering truths about the universe, but that reality itself was confined to the scientific framework—excluding concepts such as souls, deities, or any dimensions of existence that lie beyond objective scientific analysis.

Consequently, many came to regard the scientific representation of the world as an exhaustive account of reality.

The Challenge to Naturalism

This excessive faith in science has now led naturalism to face its own contradictions. Many have come to expect that science could elucidate every aspect of existence, including consciousness. However, this inquiry has revealed the perplexing "hard problem" of consciousness.

The term "hard problem" aptly reflects modern sensibilities but essentially denotes an insurmountable challenge. It highlights the constraints of the scientific method rather than a hurdle that advancements in neuroscience could clear.

While some continue to dismiss the hard problem's significance, a growing awareness of its implications for the naturalist perspective is emerging, prompting a shift in how we think.

Where once naturalism was taken for granted, even staunch supporters must now defend their stance against the hard problem. It is increasingly evident that science cannot fully account for consciousness, indicating that naturalism requires a significant reevaluation.

Broadening Our Understanding of Nature

If scientific methodologies fall short in explaining consciousness, it becomes apparent that our scientific portrayal of the universe is incomplete. The existence of consciousness stands as an undeniable truth.

If we cannot exclude consciousness from our worldview, nor can we elucidate it through scientific means, our only recourse is to expand our conception of nature to include dimensions of consciousness.

The most straightforward solution is to recognize that nature encompasses not only the external, objective facets of reality detailed by science but also intrinsic dimensions.

Within the naturalist framework, space and time are seen as the fundamental properties underpinning all matter. Everything else, including consciousness, is perceived as arising from that foundation—matter is primary, while consciousness is viewed as secondary.

However, by broadening our understanding of nature to incorporate inner conscious dimensions, we can reposition consciousness as the primary foundation of reality, relegating matter to a secondary status.

The Panpsychism Perspective

One theory that acknowledges these inner dimensions is panpsychism, which posits that all matter possesses conscious states. Even atoms are thought to exhibit a basic form of consciousness. As matter organizes into specific configurations, such as a human brain, these simple conscious states merge to create more complex forms of consciousness.

The primary challenge facing panpsychism is known as the combination problem. It must elucidate how the amalgamation of atoms with basic conscious states results in human consciousness, a dilemma as complex as the hard problem itself.

The reductionist scientific mindset continues to influence panpsychism, framing matter as primary while attempting to conceptualize consciousness in relation to it. This perspective mistakenly imposes our understanding of matter onto consciousness.

We recognize that matter consists of micro-level phenomena that combine to create macro-level entities, and panpsychism operates under the assumption that consciousness follows suit.

This line of reasoning mirrors the naturalist viewpoint that consciousness emerges from the brain, suggesting that an accumulation of simple conscious units or sufficiently intricate configurations of matter, like brains, will inevitably yield more sophisticated consciousness.

It incorrectly presumes that an increase in quantity will lead to a qualitative transformation.

Both concepts falter by applying the reductionist lens to consciousness, which poses a conceptual rather than procedural challenge for naturalism.

Consciousness simply does not fit within the scientific paradigm. It necessitates an entirely new framework for understanding.

The Unity of Consciousness

Science adopts a reductionist framework, operating under the assumption that an analysis of the parts will yield insights into the whole. Yet, this approach falters when applied to consciousness.

Consciousness is inherently qualitative, characterized by its unified nature. We do not experience visual, auditory, and tactile perceptions as separate entities to be summed together; rather, we perceive reality as an integrated whole.

This unified aspect of consciousness naturally leads us to conceptualize it as a field. The reductionist viewpoint of panpsychism, which posits discrete bits of matter each possessing fragments of consciousness that combine to form a more complex consciousness, is fundamentally flawed.

We must adopt a holistic perspective. Instead of viewing the world as a collection of parts that coalesce into a whole, we should envision the entirety of space-time as a unified conscious field. This idealist perspective asserts that consciousness is the foundational element underlying all existence.

Reversing Naturalism

This idealist perspective effectively inverts naturalism. While our understanding of physics remains intact, it becomes the secondary narrative—an extrinsic interpretation of nature.

Science represents a restricted lens through which we perceive reality, focusing solely on external dimensions while neglecting inner substance.

This distinction is easily understood when applied to our own physical bodies. A complete scientific analysis of bodily structure and function would illuminate external traits but would fail to address the conscious self.

While it accurately describes extrinsic properties, it omits the essence of our inner selves—the core attributes that define our identities.

The idealist perspective sidesteps the hard problem by transcending the constraints imposed by scientific descriptions of nature. In a naturalist framework, the external dimensions of space and time constitute the foundational fabric of reality.

Thus, the only means of accounting for consciousness is to view it as an emergent property arising from this physical foundation. In this view, the brain creates or produces consciousness, akin to how boiling water generates steam.

Conversely, from the idealist standpoint, causation operates in the opposite direction. Instead of interpreting consciousness as something that emerges from the physical realm, we reverse the narrative, positing that physical properties materialize from consciousness.

This worldview is alien to our naturalist inclinations. When we attempt to grasp it, it may seem abstract compared to the tangible solidity of matter. However, modern physics provides some insight into this perspective.

Consider the quantum field—a non-material field comprised solely of probabilities. From this intangible field, potentialities coalesce into the reality of a tangible particle. A particle represents a portion of the field that becomes delineated within the parameters of space and time.

We can analogize individual living beings to particles within this idealist conscious field. The field embodies a unified, boundless consciousness, while the consciousness of each living being represents a segment of that field, confined to a specific physical body.

The physical form constitutes the external dimensions that constrain the conscious field within spatial limits.

Perceiving Through a Filter

In this idealist framework, we can conceptualize the body as a filter for experiencing the world. Imagine gazing through a keyhole into the broader reality beyond; the keyhole restricts your view and awareness of the world. The limitations imposed by the keyhole are akin to the spatial dimensions it represents.

The keyhole serves as a simplified metaphor for a filter that constrains our perception. In the idealist view, the physical body functions similarly to a keyhole. Both body and brain create a filter that imposes boundaries on our sensory perceptions, confining our consciousness within certain physical limits.

Every living organism possesses specific senses that gather information from the environment. This sensory apparatus inherently restricts those inputs, and the cognitive functions of the brain and nervous system further limit our interpretation of sensory data.

For example, bats utilize sonar for navigation, while humans can only perceive a narrow slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, and dogs can hear a much broader range of sounds than what is accessible to human ears.

Through these limitations, our senses and brains act as filters, providing a selective view of reality. Each physical body serves as a unique filter—our keyhole to existence—restricting our perception and awareness of the world. We can only be conscious of those aspects of reality that our senses and minds enable us to access.

This idealist perspective finds a harmonious integration of science and spirituality, respectfully acknowledging both domains within their proper contexts.

Just as Einstein's theory of relativity did not invalidate Newtonian physics but recognized its accuracy within a certain framework, this idealist viewpoint accepts that scientific knowledge represents a legitimate means of understanding the world. The error lies in assuming it constitutes the entirety of reality. It merely captures the external or surface-level aspects of existence, failing to encompass the full spectrum of reality.