Mind is not what it seems: On the mental foundation of the world
Reading | Philosophy
A. A. Adedire, BSc, BA | 2024-04-14
In this short and direct essay, A. A. Adedire argues a key philosophical point: those who object to idealism based on the assumption that the order and regularity of nature is incompatible with mind are mistaking mind for the personal self. The latter, he points out, is merely a narrative created by mind, which mind then wrongly identifies itself with. What truly defines mind—the only constant behind all experience—is the very awareness of experience. The constancy of this awareness, Adedire argues, is entirely consistent with the orderly nature of the world, as well as its continuity, and can therefore constitute the very foundation of the world.
Philosophy over the centuries has grappled with the idea of accurately describing the world. What is the fundamental nature of the world? Why is the world the way it is? And how can we come to understand the foundations of reality? Consciousness itself seems so obvious that it cannot be denied, but how can we then extrapolate this feeling of personal consciousness to the world as it exists outside ourselves?
A common objection to idealism is that it is counter to our intuitions about an external world. The claim is that there is a shared reality that follows natural laws. This shared reality exists and persists uninterrupted. There is a natural order to things, which feels almost as self-evident as our own conscious awareness. Indeed, a physicalist may ask the following question: how can idealism discount the obvious permanence of natural laws and the continuity of reality? Is the world that persists not fundamentally different to my own individual mind, which feels chaotic and unreliable? These questions reflect an appeal to natural law: there is a natural order at the base of reality, which we can perceive. This natural order feels as self-evident as our own conscious awareness. But when we look inwardly, we find that the mind is chaotic, unreliable, and unsteady. So, how can a mental world exist out there that isn’t similarly chaotic, unreliable, and unsteady?
In what follows, I contend that the appeal to natural order can be refuted by the Hindu Vedantic tradition of self-inquiry, which also dismantles the notion of a personal self. The natural order objection posits that the mind is chaotic, unreliable, and unsteady, but I contend that it isn’t the mind that has these characters but the personal self, which is a fantasy of the mind.
Firstly, let’s establish that the personal self is what is meant in the objection. When pressed, those who make the appeal to natural order state that ‘mind’ is thoughts and emotional states, as they interact with the world or the other experiences supposedly produced by the brain, which then are synonymous with the story of the personal self: a tenacious sense of an ‘I’ hiding within the body, at the center of experience. The egoic ‘I’ of the mind is not as orderly as the foundation of reality—or so the objection claims. True enough, the personal self is indeed inherently prone to fragmentation, inconsistency, and illusion. It is subject to the whims of emotions, the flux of thoughts, and the biases of perception, rendering it unreliable and in direct opposition to natural laws, which are doggedly unbroken. But the personal self is not conscious awareness.
The Hindu Vedantic tradition of self-inquiry is a personal project of understanding the illusory nature of the personal self and the primacy of awareness. The process of self-inquiry is commonly associated with the Hindu sage Ramana Maharshi. Born Venkataraman Iyer, he was a revered spiritual teacher of the 20th century, renowned for his teachings on self-inquiry and non-duality. In1896, at the age of 16, Maharshi had a spontaneous and acute awareness of death. He taught his practitioners to pay close attention to the stubborn sense of ‘I’ and instructed them to eliminate it through negation, a process known in Sanskrit as neti neti ( नेति नेति):
The gross body which is composed of the seven humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive sense organs, viz., the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste and smell, which apprehend their respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour, taste and odour, I am not; the five conative sense organs, viz., the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion and procreation, which have as their respective functions, speaking, moving, grasping, excreting and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not; even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects and in which there are no objects and no functionings, I am not. If I am none of these, then who am I? After negating all of the above mentioned as ‘not this’, ‘not this’, that Awareness which alone remains—that I am. (Ramana Maharshi, Who Am I? The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, 12-13, Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu: Sri Ramanasramam, 2010).
Self-inquiry starts with a fundamental question: who am I? Meaning, what is behind my thoughts, actions, and sense perceptions? In a word, what is behind this continuity of self? Deep self-inquiry then strips away thoughts, actions, and sense perceptions one by one, resulting in the realization that these cannot constitute the persistent ‘I’ due to their lack of continuity. The process of self-inquiry ends with the idea that the only continuity across all of experience is the very awareness of experience.
As such, the supposed appearance of the mind as chaotic, unreliable, and disorderly is an appearance of the personal self as chaotic, unreliable, and disorderly. Once the personal self is stripped away from the mind, the foundation of the mind reveals itself to be simply the awareness of our experiences, such as our thoughts, feelings, and sense perceptions. Thus, there is a continuous, unchanging, and reliable foundation to the mind, and that continuous foundation of core awareness is of the same kind as the continuous foundation of natural order or natural law. Therefore, the natural order objection against idealism reflects, in this sense, merely confusion about what the fundamental nature of mind is. If we define mind as the egoic self, then we see the mind as chaotic and disorderly; it is constantly being pulled by ever-changing emotions and the incessant flow of thoughts, clouding awareness. But if we define mind as core awareness, it follows that there is a reliable, steady, and continuous ‘no-thing’ that acts as the ‘container’ of thoughts, emotional states, and sense perceptions.
The Hindu Vedantic tradition of self-inquiry not only eliminates the illusion of the personal self, but also reveals the true nature of mind. The claim that mind is fundamental links the core awareness found through self-inquiry to the very foundation of reality itself; it extrapolates this core awareness beyond the container of ‘my thoughts,’ ‘my actions,’ or ‘my feelings.’
The appeal to natural order against idealism is a confusion of terms that is commonly seen in objections to idealism. Such objections reflect the misapplication of physicalist assumptions to idealistic concepts, as well as a need to anthropomorphize the central claims of idealism, which are then taken at face value to be absurd. Similarly, many physicalist objections have baked within them the conception that consciousness is an emergent epiphenomenon of matter. Physicalists often cannot conceive of any worldview where this conception of consciousness is not a first principle. Yet, to fairly engage with any philosophical position, one must do so on this position’s own terms. Understanding must precede refutation.
Essentia Foundation communicates, in an accessible but rigorous manner, the latest results in science and philosophy that point to the mental nature of reality. We are committed to strict, academic-level curation of the material we publish.
Recently published
|
Prof. Moreira argues that reason cannot generate intrinsic value; it merely operates on existing human needs and emotional commitments. While reason can expose contradictions, refine desires, and structure society, it cannot logically compel anyone to care about existence, honesty, or reciprocity. True human value begins with felt needs—most fundamentally, the recognition of the “Other” and their inner life. Ultimately, reason and need must work together to build a pluralistic society where individuals can coexist without needing universal agreement on what makes life meaningful.
|
Dr. Goodwin argues that, under Idealism, all illnesses, not only mental health conditions, are a result of abnormal dynamics in the medium of mind. This includes infections, cancers, and even broken bones. The implications, he argues, open up new horizons for the expansion of effective treatment strategies, provided that we find ways to keep the nonsense—such as considering all illnesses merely psychosomatic—away.
From the archives
|
David Lloyd returns with another captivating analysis of the isomorphisms—the correspondences of form—between the patterns and regularities of inner experience and those of the physical world. His writing is informed by both deep introspection and hardcore physical science. In this essay, he discusses isomorphisms that allow teleology—a certain sense of purpose and direction—to exist in nature in a spontaneous, science-treatable manner, without need for deliberation from an anthropomorphic divinity.
|
Brian Stafford, MD, is a psychiatrist, board member and training director at the Animas Valley Institute, the organization founded by depth psychologist Bill Plotkin PhD and known for its work on nature-based human development. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Stafford reflects on his remarkable transition from a successful academic career in psychiatry to guiding wilderness-based practices aimed at what he calls an “eco-awakening”: a shift from an ego-centric to an eco-centric mode of consciousness.
Drawing on the work of Plotkin, Carl Jung, and his own clinical and personal experience as a wilderness guide, Stafford argues that many forms of psychological suffering are rooted in a deeper ecological disconnection. Rather than viewing the psyche primarily through the lens of pathology and symptom reduction, he proposes that psychiatry should recover a richer understanding of the psyche as a living reality embedded within both nature and the symbolic life of dreams, imagination, and meaning.
|
Through a simple, direct, and very effective thought experiment, Nilsson helps us develop a very concrete and explicit understanding of where events take place: the realm of mind. He further demonstrates the fundamental independence between this realm and spatial location.
Reading
Essays
|
Renowned physicist and nanoscientist Anirban Bandyopadhyay presents a radically different picture of the human brain: not as a computer processing bits, but as a nested architecture of clocks, resonances and shifting geometric patterns. At Japan’s National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), Bandyopadhyay and his team developed the dodecanogram, or DDG: a high-frequency brain-measurement technique designed to detect electrical and electromagnetic activity far beyond the reach of conventional EEG. Their findings include megahertz signals associated with microtubules, structures inside neurons that may host quantum effects. This research leads Bandyopadhyay to view consciousness quite literally as a universal symphony making music that is both everywhere and nowhere. Yet, while unequivocal in rejecting the computational view of consciousness, he remains cautious about the implications of his own findings: “The time has not yet come for a true theory of consciousness.”
|
In this short and accessible essay, Karina Firme uses an idealist metaphysics to explain why integrating rejected aspects of our own personalities discharges the emotional load we normally associate with other people, thereby quietening the world. Her ideas offer a compelling example of the explanatory power of metaphysics: of how it can both elucidate and ground facts of clinical observation that, although described, couldn’t be quite explained before.
|
David Lloyd returns with another captivating analysis of the isomorphisms—the correspondences of form—between the patterns and regularities of inner experience and those of the physical world. His writing is informed by both deep introspection and hardcore physical science. In this essay, he discusses isomorphisms that allow teleology—a certain sense of purpose and direction—to exist in nature in a spontaneous, science-treatable manner, without need for deliberation from an anthropomorphic divinity.
|
Brian Stafford, MD, is a psychiatrist, board member and training director at the Animas Valley Institute, the organization founded by depth psychologist Bill Plotkin PhD and known for its work on nature-based human development. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Stafford reflects on his remarkable transition from a successful academic career in psychiatry to guiding wilderness-based practices aimed at what he calls an “eco-awakening”: a shift from an ego-centric to an eco-centric mode of consciousness.
Drawing on the work of Plotkin, Carl Jung, and his own clinical and personal experience as a wilderness guide, Stafford argues that many forms of psychological suffering are rooted in a deeper ecological disconnection. Rather than viewing the psyche primarily through the lens of pathology and symptom reduction, he proposes that psychiatry should recover a richer understanding of the psyche as a living reality embedded within both nature and the symbolic life of dreams, imagination, and meaning.
|
Through a simple, direct, and very effective thought experiment, Nilsson helps us develop a very concrete and explicit understanding of where events take place: the realm of mind. He further demonstrates the fundamental independence between this realm and spatial location.
Seeing
Videos
|
Steven Wolfram claims that the “ruliad,” the space of all possible computational states in nature, is reality—a structure so complete it contains every possible way of processing information. Our universe emerges from how observers with particular computational bounds sample this infinite structure. In this profound essay, Proulx argues that the ruliad is best understood under an idealist framework wherein each observer’s perspective isn’t merely a partial representation of underlying states, but a rendering of reality itself; just as a frame in a computer game is a rendering generated on-the-fly, not a partial representation of underlying states.
|
In this conversation, cognitive scientist John Vervaeke joins Hans Busstra to examine the historical roots of the modern meaning crisis through the lens of psychotechnologies: culturally developed mental tools and practices that transform how human beings think, perceive and make sense of reality. Vervaeke describes how psychotechnologies such as shamanism, Socratic dialogue and the Christian notion of agape profoundly shaped Western thought.
|
In less than 2000 words, Brian Fang shows that ‘substance’ does not define existence; structure does. What a thing is cannot be separated from the structure that remains stable as everything else changes, particularly at the quantum level. If we look closely at what things actually are, we cannot help but realize that they are far removed from our classical intuition of mere blocks of “stuff.” Instead, to understand an object is to understand its specific pattern of invariance.
Let us build the future of our culture together
Essentia Foundation is a registered non-profit committed to making its content as accessible as possible. Therefore, we depend on non-financial contributions from people like you to continue to do our work.
