>WHAT IS IN THE WORLD? WHAT KIND OF THINGS COMPOSE EXISTENCE? ALL REALITY? I WONDER ALL THE TIME. HERE IS THE CRUX OF THE QUESTION - IS THE NATURAL, PHYSICAL WORLD ALL THERE IS? OR IS THERE SOMETHING MORE? ANYTHING MORE? LIKE A SUPERNATURAL, NON-PHYSICAL EXISTENCE OF SOME KIND? NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT FOR ULTIMATE MEANING OR PURPOSE. MOST SCIENTISTS ARE NATURALISTS, MOST PEOPLE ARE SUPER NATURALISTS. I WAS TRAINED IN SCIENCE, SO I SHOULD BE A NATURALIST. I SHOULD REJECT ANYTHING NON-PHYSICAL. I HAVE A SECRET - I'M NOT SO SURE. ARE THERE THINGS NOT PHYSICAL? I'M ROBERT LAURENCE KUHN AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. I'M AFTER NON-PHYSICAL STUFF, TO SEE IF ANYTHING NOT MATERIAL EXISTS. OTHERS START WITH RELIGION, MYSTICISM, ESP. NOT ME. I START BY CATEGORIZING EXISTENCE. ARE THERE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES? HOW MANY CATEGORIES? COULD ONE CATEGORY BE NON-PHYSICAL? I ASK A TOUGH-MINDED PHILOSOPHER KNOWN FOR HIS UNCONVENTIONAL IDEAS - PARTICULARLY ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS, COLIN MCGINN. COLIN, HOW DO WE EXHAUST, I MEAN, TOTALLY EXHAUST UNDER ALL POSSIBLE CONDITIONS ALL OF REALITY NO MATTER WHAT IT WOULD BE? HOW MANY CATEGORIES OF THINGS DO WE NEED? >>WELL TRADITIONALLY YOU NEED THREE VERY BIG CATEGORIES: THE PHYSICAL, THE MENTAL AND THE ABSTRACT. SOME PEOPLE THINK YOU NEED AN EXTRA CATEGORY FOR THE DIVINE, BUT THEN AGAIN, OTHERS THINK THAT THAT CAN BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF THE MENTAL OR THE MENTAL CAN BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF THE DIVINE. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU THINK THAT THE SOUL PARTICIPATES IN THE DIVINE SO YOU DON'T REALLY NEED AN EXTRA LEVEL, YOU CAN MAKE DUE WITH THREE CATEGORIES. >AND THE MENTAL WOULD BE A BROAD MENTAL TO THE CONSCIOUSNESS AND THAT IS A GOD CONSCIOUSNESS. >>RIGHT, EXACTLY, SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE SPIRITUAL IN THE BROAD SENSE. >RIGHT, SO IF THERE IS A SPIRITUAL, YOU WOULD HAVE IT IN MENTAL OR NO SPIRITUAL, MENTAL STILL WOULD BE A CATEGORY. >>RIGHT. BUT I'M A LITTLE BIT SUSPICIOUS OF THE THREE CATEGORIES MYSELF BECAUSE I'M NOT CLEAR THAT THE TERMS THAT THEY USE TO DEFINE THE CATEGORIES THEMSELVES ARE WELL DEFINED. SO LET'S SAY THE CATEGORY OF THE MATERIAL - IS THERE A SINGLE UNITARY DEFINITION OF THE MATERIAL? WELL, IT'S NOT SO CLEAR THAT EVERYTHING THAT PHYSICS TALKS ABOUT IS OF THE SAME ONTOLOGICAL TYPE, SO FOR EXAMPLE IN PHYSICS WE HAVE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PARTICLES AND FIELDS AND FIELDS ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM PARTICLES. SO IT LOOKS LIKE IN PHYSICS WE'VE GOT TWO ONTOLOGICAL TYPES, NOT JUST ONE. AND THEY ARE BOTH CALLED "MATERIAL" BUT NOW IT BECOMES A BIT DOUBTFUL WHY THEY ARE BOTH CALLED MATERIAL SINCE THEY ARE SO DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER. >SO MAYBE IT'S EVEN A MISTAKE OF HAVING BOTH OF THOSE WITHIN IN THE SAME CATEGORY. >>EXACTLY. THE SAME POINT CAN BE MADE ABOUT THE MENTAL. WITHIN THE MENTAL REALM - AGAIN, CONTROVERSY ABOUT WHAT BELONGS THERE. THERE IS A GREAT CONTRAST BETWEEN THE PHENOMENAL EXPERIENCE LIKE HAVING A SENSATION OR AN EMOTION. ON THE ONE HAND. AND ON THE OTHER HAND, COGNITIVE PHENOMENA AND ON THE THIRD HAND, YOU'VE GOT VOLITIONAL PHENOMENA LIKE ACTS OF WILL, DECISIONS AND SO ON. IT'S NOT SO CLEAR. MUCH OF THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT THE SO-CALLED REALM OF THE ABSTRACT, WE'VE GOT NUMBERS THERE, WE'VE ALSO GOT PROPOSITIONS AND WE'VE GOT POINTS IN SPACE - INFINITESIMAL POINTS IN SPACE. MAYBE THEY BELONG THERE, MAYBE THEY DON'T. SO IF YOU START PURSUING THAT LINE OF THOUGHT, YOU START TO THINK WE NEED MORE CATEGORIES THAN THAT AND IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT TO HAVE JUST THE MENTAL, PHYSICAL AND THE ABSTRACT. >SCIENTISTS TODAY WOULD SAY ITS ALL ANCIENT METAPHYSICS AND THERE IS ONLY A PHYSICAL WORLD, IT HAS DIFFERENT PARTS OF IT, THEY MAY BE FIELDS AND FORCES AND DIFFERENT THINGS WITHIN THE PHYSICAL WORLD, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST ACCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTS OF THE HUMAN MIND WHICH ITSELF IS JUST A - AN ACCIDENTAL RESULT OF THE RANDOM FLUCTUATIONS OF EVOLUTION AND THAT IS IT. AND ALL OF THIS CONVERSATION IS REALLY, REALLY NOT WORTH VERY MUCH. >>ITS INTERESTING IN THE HISTORY OF PHYSICS THERE WAS THAT CONTROVERSY ABOUT FIELDS THEMSELVES BECAUSE WHEN PARTICLES WERE THE ORDER OF THE DAY AND THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE AND THERE WAS JUST MECHANICS AND PARTICLES AND CONTACT CAUSATION. FIELDS WERE MYSTERIOUS AND PEOPLE SAID, WE DON'T NEED FIELDS. THEY SAID WHEN THE FIELDS BECAME INESCAPABLE, THERE WAS THE CONVERSE MOVE, AND LETS DO AWAY WITH THE PARTICLES. THEY ARE JUST FIELDS OF FORCE AND THEY WERE GRADIENTS OF ENERGY AND THAT IS REALLY ALL THERE IS. BUT ALL OF THIS IS METAPHYSICS. SO THE PHYSICISTS WERE DOING METAPHYSICS WHETHER THEY LIKED IT OR NOT. THERE WASN'T MUCH OF AN ALTERNATIVE. AND WHEN THEY MADE CLAIMS SUCH AS EVERYTHING ELSE IS A MENTAL CONCEPT THAT IS METAPHYSICS, IS WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING IS. THE MENTAL AND THE ABSTRACT WORLD ARE JUST FICTIONS. SO THEY ARE FICTIONALISTS. >BUT THAT ITSELF IS A METAPHYSICAL - >>IS A PIECE OF METAPHYSICS. AND THE MATHEMATICIANS TODAY, THERE ARE THOSE THAT ARE FICTIONALISTS ABOUT THE ABSTRACT WORLD. THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO THE WORLD THAN THE PHYSICAL WORLD IS ALREADY A METAPHYSICAL CLAIM. SCIENCE DOESN'T ESTABLISH THAT. NO EXPERIMENT HAS EVER SHOWN THAT TO BE THE CASE. ALL OF THAT IS METAPHYSICS. AND IF IT'S METAPHYSICS, IT SHOULD BE DEBATED AS METAPHYSICS. AND THAT IS WHAT THEY DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE, THAT THEY HAVE ENGAGED IN THE VERY THING THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DISMISS. >BUT YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF ALL REALITY, YOU NEED TO MULTIPLY CATEGORIES. >>YES, I'M A PLURALIST. >YOU ARE A PLURALIST. >>AN ONTOLOGICAL PLURALIST. THERE ARE MANY CATEGORIES. AND NOT JUST THE ONES WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SO FAR. WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT VALUE YET. MORAL VALUE AND AESTHETIC VALUE. I THINK WE NEED ANOTHER CATEGORY FOR VALUE. >DOESN'T THIS MAKE YOUR "ALL THERE IS" REALLY CONFUSED? >>WELL, THERE IS A TASK LEFT FOR METAPHYSICS IN ALL OF THIS, WHICH IS ALRIGHT, YOU'VE GOT ALL THESE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, HOW ARE THEY RELATED TO EACH OTHER? IF THEY WERE RELATED IN A CONFUSED WAY TO EACH OTHER, THEN THE UNIVERSE WOULD BE CONFUSING. MAYBE THE UNIVERSE IS CONFUSING BUT WE HAVEN'T SETTLED THAT BY SAYING THERE ARE MANY CATEGORIES. SO THERE COULD BE RELATIONSHIP DEPENDENCE FROM ONE CATEGORY TO ANOTHER. SO TO ME, TRADITIONAL METAPHYSICS IN THE THREE PARTS IS QUITE QUESTIONABLE. >SO MANY CATEGORIES OF EXISTENCE? WHY DOESN'T THAT FEEL RIGHT? IF CATEGORIES ARE CONSTRUCTS OF THE HUMAN MIND, NOT OUT THERE IN REALITY, FINE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MULTIPLE CATEGORIES. BUT IF CATEGORIES REFLECT THE DEEP STRUCTURE OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD, EXISTING IN REALITY INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN INVENTION, THEN I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MULTIPLE CATEGORIES. IF I WERE THE BIG GUY IN CHARGE, I WOULD CREATE ALL REALITIES SIMPLE AND OUT OF SIMPLICITY WOULD COME COMPLEXITY. I THINK. HOW TO DISCERN SIMPLE CATEGORIES OF EXISTENCE - HUMANITIES TRADITIONAL WAYS THROUGH RELIGION - TWO SIMPLE CATEGORIES. RELIGION PROVIDES GOD, A NON-PHYSICAL TRANSCENDENT BEING IN A RADICALLY DIFFERENT CATEGORY. AND GOD PROVIDES EVERYTHING ELSE. I VISIT CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER J.P. MORELAND. J.P. I AM GOING TO ASK YOU A VERY STRANGE QUESTION. WHAT THINGS REALLY EXIST? NOW, TO MANY PEOPLE, THAT SOUNDS RIDICULOUS. BUT WHY IS THIS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION? >>OH, OH ROBERT, IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION. AND IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY COMMONSENSICAL WHY IT'S IMPORTANT. HERE IT IS: PEOPLE SHOULD LIVE THEIR LIVES ACCORDING TO REALITY AND NOT FANTASY. I MEAN, WE ALL WANT TO TRY TO LIVE OUR LIVES ACCORDING TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY REAL. NOW REALITY IS WHAT YOU BUMP UP AGAINST WHEN YOUR BELIEFS ARE FALSE AND I THINK THAT ONE'S ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS GOING TO SHAPE AN AWFUL LOT OF HOW THEY APPROACH LIFE. >OKAY, SO THE PHYSICAL WORLD, WE GOT. WHAT ELSE DO WE GOT? >>WELL WE HAVE TO STOP FOR A MINUTE AND ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT IS IT FOR SOMETHING TO EXIST? I THINK SOMETHING EXISTS IF IT ACTUALLY HAS ATTRIBUTES OR PROPERTIES. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE REALLY IS SUCH A THING AS A NUMBER TWO, THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST ONE ATTRIBUTE. IT REALLY HAS. SAY THE PROPERTY OF BEING EVEN. IF THERE WERE SUCH THINGS AS UNICORNS, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE CREATURES THAT HAD THE ATTRIBUTE OF BEING A ONE HORNED HORSE. >NOT THE CONCEPT OF IT, BUT THE ACTUAL. >>YEAH. BECAUSE THE CONCEPT OF THE UNICORN IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN RIDE, IT'S IN MY MIND. YOU CAN RIDE A UNICORN IF IT EXISTED. SO THE CONCEPT OF THE UNICORN DOESN'T HAVE THE PROPERTY OF A HORNED HORSE. IT IS ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAS THE PROPERTY OF BEING A HORNED HORSE IF IT EXISTS. SO WHEN WE ASK, DOES SOMETHING EXIST OR NOT, WE ARE ASKING, IS THERE A RANGE OF OBJECTS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES? NOW YOU ASKED ME, WHAT DO I THINK EXISTS? I THINK THAT THERE IS A PHYSICAL COSMOS THAT EXISTS IN SPACE AND TIME. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FUTURE EXISTS, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE PAST EXISTS. I THINK ONLY THE PRESENT EXISTS. THE FUTURE WILL EXIST AND THE PAST DID EXIST. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN ABSTRACT REALM OUTSIDE OF SPACE AND TIME WHERE THINGS CALLED ABSTRACT OBJECTS ARE UNIVERSALS, EXIST. THINGS LIKE NUMBERS. THE LAWS OF LOGIC. THE LAWS OF MATHEMATICS ARE REAL. THEY WOULD BE MORAL VALUES, THEY WOULD BE NUMBERS, LAWS OF LOGIC, PROPOSITIONS WHICH ARE THE CONTENTS OF THOUGHTS LIKE THE PROPOSITION "SNOW IS WHITE" CAN BE COMMUNICATED IN "SCHNEEWEIS" OR "SNOW IS WHITE". THOSE ARE TWO SENTENCES THAT EXPRESS THE SAME PROPOSITION. PROPOSITIONS CAN'T BE SEEN, TOUCHED, TASTED, SMELLED OR HEARD, THEY CAN BE IN MINDS BUT THEY ARE ABSTRACT OBJECTS. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOD. I BELIEVE THERE IS CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ANGELS AND DEMONS. I BELIEVE THESE BEINGS ARE REAL. >DO YOU SEE, TAKING YOUR LAST CATEGORY, GOD AND THE ANGELS AND DEMONS AS PART OF THE SAME SORT OF SPIRITUAL AURA REALM OR THE IMMATERIAL REALM - DO THEY INHABIT THAT SEPARATE AURA PLANE? >>YEAH, ABSTRACT OBJECTS LIKE MORAL VALUES DO NOT EXIST IN SPACE AND TIME. ANGELS AND DEMONS EXIST IN TIME AND ARE CAPABLE OF INFLUENCING THINGS AT PLACES AND SPACE. SO THEY ARE PERSONS, THEY ARE PERSONS, BUT THEY ARE NOT HUMANS. THEY ARE PERSONS THAT HAVE CONCIOUSNESS, THEY ARE CAPABLE OF THINKING AND FEELING AND BEING AWARE OF THINGS. THEY ARE CAPABLE OF ACTING. BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE BODIES AND I BELIEVE THEY ARE REAL. I HAVE THE IMMATERIAL WORLD AS A CATEGORY. THERE IS THE ABSTRACT AND MATERIAL WORLD AND THE NON-ABSTRACT. THE ABSTRACT IMMATERIAL WORLD INCLUDES PLATONIC FORMS, MORAL VALUES, THE NON-ABSTRACT MATERIAL WORLD - PERSONS INCLUDING GOD. EVEN IF GOD IS NOT IN SPACE AND TIME, HE IS STILL NOT AN ABSTRACT FORM, HE IS AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON AND ANGELS ARE FINITE PERSONS. HUMAN BEINGS ARE FINITE PERSONS WITH BODIES. >AS A CHRISTIAN AND A PHILOSOPHER, J.P. HAS TWO BIG CATEGORIES - MATERIAL AND IMMATERIAL WORLDS. J.P.'S IMMATERIAL WORLD, THE INTERESTING ONE, CONTAINS ABSTRACT OBJECTS LIKE NUMBERS AND MORAL VALUES AND IMMATERIAL NON-ABSTRACT OBJECTS LIKE GOD, ANGELS AND DEMONS AND SOULS. THIS IS RELIGIOUS THINKING, OBVIOUSLY. WHILE MOST PHILOSOPHERS BELIEVE THAT ABSTRACT OBJECTS, NUMBERS, EXIST, ONLY A MINORITY GO FOR IMMATERIAL NON-ABSTRACT OBJECTS - GOD. NO SURPRISE THAT THE LATTER ARE MOSTLY RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS. RELIGION ALONE WITHOUT SOME FAITH BASED CONVICTION FINDS NO EVIDENCE FOR IMMATERIAL NON-ABSTRACT OBJECTS - GOD OR ANGELS OR SOULS. WHAT ABOUT THE VAST EXPANSE OF HUMAN BELIEF IN THINGS NOT MATERIAL? I APOLOGIZE, BUT AS MUCH AS I HOPE THAT NON-MATERIAL THINGS DO EXISTS, I PUT LITTLE STOCK IN HUMAN BELIEF. YET, I SHOULD WRENCH MYSELF OUT OF A WESTERN ANALYTIC ORIENTATION. I MEET THE RENOWNED BUDDHA SCHOLAR, ANANDA GURUGE. ANANDA, FROM A BUDDHIST POINT OF VIEW, WHAT ARE THE THINGS OF REALITY? >>WHEN WE STUDY THE SUBJECT, IS PRESENTED UNDER FOUR HEADINGS AND WE SAY THE FOUR THINGS THAT EXIST. CHITTKA IS CONSCIOUSNESSES. IN THE EMPHASIS THAT BUDDHISTS HAVE USED TO CONSCIOUSNESS, CHITTKA, CONSCIOUSNESS, IS IDENTIFIED AS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT - THE FIRST THING THAT EXISTS. [SPEAKS FOREIGN LANGUAGE] MEANS, THE ABSTRACT MENTAL FACTORS BROUGHT THE GOOD AND THE BAD WE HAVE THE EMOTIONS - KINDNESS AND SYMPATHY AND COMPASSION AND PITY AND SYMPATHETIC JOY AS WELL AS ANGER, MALAISE AND GREED - ALL THESE ARE ABSTRACT MENTAL FACTORS AND THEY ARE AGAIN, STUDIED AS ANOTHER SET OF THINGS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS EXISTING AND STUDIED. THIRD IS CALLED HOOPA, WHICH IS FORM AND FORM GOES IN EVERY ASPECT. THIS LIFE AS WELL AS THE OTHER LIVES. BUDDHA'S CONCEPT OF THE UNIVERSE WAS IN THE PLURAL. IN BUDDHISM WE TALK NOT OF ONE UNIVERSE, WE TALK OF UNIVERSES. AND WITHOUT LIMIT. INDEED THEY ARE ALWAYS RISING, EXISTING, DECAYING AND DISAPPEARING. AND WE TALK IN TERMS OF WORLDS THAT ARE COMING TO EXISTENCE TODAY AND DISAPPEARING TOMORROW. THERE ARE 31 POSSIBLE EXISTENCES THAT WE RECOGNIZE, STARTING WITH THE HELLS TO THE INVISIBLE HUNGRY GHOST AND DEMONS AND THE DEITIES, THE GODS, THE PEOPLE IN THE SIX KINDS OF HEAVENS. THOSE IN THE HIGHER STATES OF MENTAL EXISTENCE, WE SAY THERE ARE FOUR WORLDS IN WHICH THE MIND EXISTS WITHOUT A BODY. THE CONSCIOUS EXISTS WITHOUT A BODY. >THAT IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL. >>THAT IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL. AND THE BOTTOM. OUTSIDE ALL OF THIS IS THAT STATE OF COMPLETE CESSATION OF SUFFERING WITH BUDDHA PRESENTING THE EXPLANATION OF HIS - >THAT'S THE WORD WE KNOW AS "NIRVANA". >>NIRVANA. SO THIS COMPOSES THE WHOLE - THE UNIVERSE AND ALL UNIVERSES AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS EXCLUDED. >I AM SUCH A NOVICE AT BUDDHISM, BUT HOW BUDDHISM STRUCTURES EXISTENCE IS NOT HOW I DO IT. BUT SO WHAT? WHY SHOULD MY WAY BE THE RIGHT WAY? IS THERE A RIGHT WAY? OR ARE CATEGORIES OF EXISTENCE ARBITRARY? AM I TRYING TO STRUCTURE REALITY TO SUPPORT MY OWN HOPES? I HOPE I'M NOT SO FOOLISH. I DO NEED TO INCLUDE ALL POSSIBILITIES. MAYBE OUR UNIVERSE IS A FAKE. MAYBE IT'S ALL A SIMULATION. I GO TO MIT TO VISIT THE LEGENDARY PIONEER OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MARVIN MINSKY. >>IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE WORD "EXIST" BECAUSE AFTER A CAREER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE, WE KNOW HOW TO MAKE SIMULATED WORLDS AND WE WONDER WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE IN THEM. I THINK EVERYONE BY NOW HAS SEEN COMPUTER GAMES WHERE THESE PEOPLE COME RUNNING OUT AND YOU NEGOTIATE WITH THEM AND THERE ARE SOME SOCIAL GAMES WHERE YOU HAVE SOME GOALS AND SOME OF THE OTHER CREATURES HAVE GOALS AND YOU MAKE DEALS WITH THEM. NOW, YOU COULD ASK, DO THE PEOPLE IN THESE SIMULATED COMPUTER GAMES EXIST? AND IF YOU WERE TO LOOK INSIDE, YOU WOULD FIND THAT USUALLY THEY DON'T HAVE ANY MINDS AT ALL. BUT IN SOME OF THE GAMES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED RECENTLY, EACH OF THE CHARACTERS HAVE SOME FEATURES, SOME CHARACTERISTICS, AND THEY MAY HAVE SOME GOAL. WELL, I THINK IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS THE CHARACTERS IN THE COMPUTER GAMES ARE GOING TO GET MORE AND MORE COMPLICATED AND EVENTUALLY THEY MAY HAVE SEVERAL LEVELS OF COGNITIVE ACTIVITIES. THEY MAY REMEMBER WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND NOT REPEAT IT, AND THEY MAY HAVE A SENSE OF THEIR OWN IDENTITY AND THEY MIGHT THINK ABOUT, SHOULD I DO THIS? NO, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CARRY OUT THAT PLAN. SO NOW YOU CAN ASK, DO THOSE PEOPLE EXIST? AND YOU CAN SAY NO, THEY ARE JUST SIMULATED IN A PROGRAM. BUT EVENTUALLY MAYBE THEY WILL HAVE PROGRAMS AS LARGE AS THOSE IN OUR OWN HUMAN BRAINS AND THOSE PROCESSES DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN DO. SO NOW YOU COULD ASK, FOR ALL WE KNOW, YOU AND I DON'T EXIST IN A PHYSICAL SENSE, WE ARE JUST BEING SIMULATED BY A FAIRLY BIG COMPUTER SOMEWHERE AND ALL THESE LIGHTS AND CAMERAS ARE BEING SIMULATED BY A PROGRAM. SO YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW THAT YOU EXIST. YOU MIGHT BE A SIMULATION. IT'S THE PROCESS ITSELF THAT'S THE REAL THING AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO EXIST IN ANY ORDINARY SENSE. IT'S JUST POSSIBLE. >SO YOU ARE DEFINING "REAL" AS POSSIBLE. ANYTHING POSSIBLE IS REAL. BUT THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT SENSE OF REALITY. >>YEAH, SO I WOULDN'T USE THE WORD "REAL" AT ALL. I THINK IT'S OBSOLETE AND UNNECESSARY. HOWEVER, IT MAKES SENSE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS UNIVERSE, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT WE ARE STUCK IN. >SO TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT STUFF IS REAL - YOU CAN'T EVEN ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE- >>NO, I WOULD SAY - TO SAY THAT THIS BUTTON IS REAL, IS TO SAY IT'S IN THIS UNIVERSE THAT WE ARE IN. TO SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE IS REAL MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL, IT'S JUST POSSIBLE. >OKAY MARVIN, MAYBE WE COULDN'T TELL IF OUR UNIVERSE WERE REAL OR SIMULATED, BUT SOMEWHERE THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A REAL, UNSIMULATED BEDROCK REALITY UNIVERSE. MAYBE THE REAL QUESTION IS SIMPLE, IS EXISTENCE ONLY PHYSICAL? THEN FOR ME, THE AXIAL ISSUE IS CONSCIOUSNESS. ALL ELSE CAN BE EXPLAINED BY THE MATERIAL WORLD, ONLY CONSCIOUSNESS IS UP FOR GRABS. IS CONSCIOUSNESS DERIVED FROM ACCIDENTAL BIOLOGY AS MOST SCIENTISTS BELIEVE? OR IS CONSCIOUSNESS SOMEHOW FUNDAMENTAL IN THE COSMOS? A PHILOSOPHER WHO CHALLENGES CONVENTION WISDOM ON THIS IS DAVID CHALMERS. >>WHAT IS THERE IN THE WORLD? I THINK THIS IS A REALLY INTERESTING QUESTION. THE WORLD DOES CONTAIN SOME STUFF. IT DOES CONTAIN SOME THINGS, BUT IS THERE AN ULTIMATE CATALOGUE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT EXIST? MY HAND, MY SHOE, MY HAIR, THIS ROOM, THE NUMBER TWO, THE PLANET VENUS. COULD WE DRAW UP A LIST, AN INVENTORY OF ALL THE THINGS THAT EXISTS IN THE WORLD? THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE COULD BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT QUESTION. THE WORLD HAS A NATURE. WHAT WE ARE DOING IN SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY IS STUDYING THE NATURE OF THE WORLD. MAYBE IT'S EVEN A FUNDAMENTAL NATURE. THERE IS PHYSICS AND MAYBE THERE IS CONSCIOUSNESS AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THERE IS AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL. AND THEN THERE IS ANY NUMBER OF WAYS OF CARVING THIS WORLD UP INTO ENTITIES. SO MY OWN VIEW IS THERE IS NOT ONE PRIVILEGED WAY OF CARVING THE WORLD UP INTO THINGS. >BUT WHAT ABOUT CATEGORIES OF THINGS? ARE THERE THINGS WE CAN DISTINGUISH FROM OTHER THINGS? >>I THINK YOU COULD INTRODUCE ALL THE CATEGORIES YOU LIKE. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT NUMBERS, YOU CAN. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT PEOPLE, YOU CAN. IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SENTENCES, YOU CAN. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT UNICORNS - WELL, MAYBE YOU CAN'T, SO MAYBE THERE ARE SOME RULES. BUT NOW THE PHILOSOPHERS - LIKE MATHEMATICIANS, SURE THERE WERE NUMBERS. NOW THE PHILOSOPHER STEPS BACK AND SAYS, BUT ARE THERE REALLY NUMBERS? DO THEY REALLY EXIST? SOMEHOW THAT IS THE WRONG QUESTION. YOU CAN DO MATHEMATICS, YOU SAY THERE ARE FOUR PRIME NUMBERS LESS THAN TEN, WELL, NOW THEY NEED TO BRING IN THIS FURTHER REALM OF THE ENTITIES THAT EXIST ABSOLUTELY AND MIND INDEPENDENTLY. >BUT YOU CAN DEFINE THINGS THAT ARE MADE OF PARTICLES, THAT IS A CATEGORY. >>YEAH, THE PLACE I TAKE THESE QUESTIONS MOST SERIOUSLY IS AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL IN SAY, PHYSICS. DEFINE CERTAIN ENTITIES AND PARTICLES THAT YOU NEED FOR PHYSICS, MAYBE THOSE THINGS EXIST FUNDAMENTALLY, ANYTHING ABOVE THAT I THINK IS BOOKKEEPING. >SO, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? ARE YOU SAYING THERE IS ONLY ONE THING AND IT'S THE UNIVERSE AND THAT WE IN OUR MAYBE VERY LIMITED MENTAL CAPACITY ARE SLICING IT IN ODD WAYS WHEN ITS UNSLICEABLE? >>YOU KNOW, THERE IS JUST TOTALLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE WORLD. SO HERE IS ONE PERSPECTIVE. THERE IS ONE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST SLICES OF IT. HERE IS ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE - THERE ARE A ZILLION PARTICLES IN THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS BUILT UP FROM THAT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS BOTH OF THOSE PERSPECTIVES ARE EQUALLY RIGHT AND EQUALLY WRONG. THERE IS NO CHOOSING BETWEEN THEM. THERE IS JUST STUFF, THAT IS WHAT THE WORLD IS. >THE REASON WHY I HAVE SENSED THAT THIS QUESTION IS IMPORTANT, IS THAT IT MAY ENABLE US TO SEE THINGS THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE. TO VISUALIZE THE SENSE OF REALITY IN A DIFFERENT WAY THEN WHAT WE ARE COMMONLY PERCEIVED TO DO. >>SO FOR EXAMPLE - >IF PHYSICAL REALITY IS ONE THING, IF ABSTRACT OBJECTS ARE SOMETHING ELSE, IF CONSCIOUSNESS IS A THIRD THING, MAYBE THERE IS A SPIRITUAL WORLD WHERE GODS LIVE AND ANGELS AND DEMONS - I MEAN, PEOPLE THINK THAT SO AT LEAST I'VE GOT TO ADDRESS IT. SO NOW I CAN CONCEPTUALIZE FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT BIG CATEGORIES. NOW, MAYBE THIS WHOLE THING IS NONSENSE. >>MULTIPLE ASPECTS OF REALITY, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT. YEAH, THERE IS THE PHYSICAL ASPECT AND THE MENTAL ASPECT AND PERHAPS THE ABSTRACT - THE MATHEMATICAL ASPECT. AND THEN WE CAN ASK, HOW DO ALL THESE ASPECTS OF REALTY RELATE TO EACH OTHER? WHICH IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL? THAT IS A REALLY FASCINATING QUESTION TO ASK. WHAT ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF REALITY? I'M NOT JUST - I'M JUST NOT SURE WE NEED TO DIVIDE THE WORLD INTO THINGS TO DO THAT. >WHAT IS ALL REALITY? IT DEPENDS ON ONE'S WORLD VIEW. ALL IS MATERIAL, EVEN IF IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND. SOULS AND SPIRITS ARE THE REAL REALM. GOD EXISTS AND THE BIBLE IS TRUE. OUR UNIVERSE MAY BE A SIMULATION. CONSCIOUSNESS IS KEY. HOW DO I CATEGORIZE ALL REALITY? TWO BIG CATEGORIES. PHYSICAL AND NON-PHYSICAL OR MATERIAL AND IMMATERIAL. BUT DOES THE NON-PHYSICAL OR THE IMMATERIAL ACTUALLY EXIST? THE KEY INDEED IS CONSCIOUSNESS. IS THE MIND JUST THE BRAIN? IF SO, THEN ONLY THE PHYSICAL IS REAL. OR IS THE MENTAL BEYOND THE BRAIN, IF SO, THEN THE NON-PHYSICAL IS ALSO REAL. WESTERN RELIGIONS WOULD HAVE THE MENTAL AS COMING FROM GOD. GOD BEING THE PRIMARY CATEGORY. EASTERN RELIGIONS WOULD HAVE THE MENTAL ITSELF AS THE PRIMARY CATEGORY. WITHOUT ANY NEED FOR GOD. IF I AM FORCED TO CHOOSE, I WOULD GO WITH FREEMAN DYSON. >>I THINK IT'S QUITE LIKELY THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS SOME SORT OF A MENTAL APPARATUS. YOU CAN CALL IT GOD IF YOU LIKE, WHICH HAS A MENTAL ASPECT AS WELL AS A PHYSICAL ASPECT. AND WITHIN IN THE MENTAL APPARATUS OF WHATEVER IT MAY BE, THERE CAN BE A PURPOSE. SO IN SOME SENSE, THE UNIVERSE HAS A MIND OF ITS OWN. >FOR ME, FOR NOW, A MENTAL APPARATUS IS CLOSER TO TRUTH.
Dear Mr. Kuhn. Your background of education and work is money-making, neuroscience which deals with the mental qualities of the brain, and furthermore entertainment through your broadcasting programmes returning you back to money-making, and in your dilemma of the ancient and continued crux question: What is the causal link between objective reality which means matter with its different infinite organising systems, and the consciousness as the main quality of the highest organised matter, which produces the consciousness as its quality? We encounter the consciousness in ourselves as human beings, and in a lower level in other living creatures in our planet, and in the artificial intelligence that our technologies are creating today. So, through the conceptual reality proved finitely by us and proved finitely at another higher level in our planet Earth by the extraterrestrials, as well through the teachings of the ancient philosophers of our humanity, that the consciousness is a production or a quality of a certain sort of matter, at the most organised system of matter in its different formats of existence. This clarifies the question: Which is primary and which is secondary? The objective reality exists despite our consciousness, despite our achieved concepts of the environment around about this objective reality in all its dimensions and levels of existence. Please be more clear in your broadcasting programmes, because it is your moral and scientific duty to establish clear and transparent knowledge, with its different fields of knowledge, being about the matter itself at its different organising systems of infinite level, being arranged by the cosmological laws and the knowledge about the infinite qualities of those different organising systems of matter in all dimensions of existence at different levels. This gives the clear answer to the question: What is God? The most modern knowledge in its combination of philosophical and scientific knowledge, it is clear that God or Gods, as it was before the stupid, violent, and enforced idea of a unified God, are our brothers and sisters visiting our little planet called Earth, which is a little rock as described with fine art as a "quarantined dome of Homer and Marge", which tries to express with humor a simple truth in our planet. Our Earth is becoming, through expansion of philosophical and scientific knowledge, a "little village" in our solar system, our galaxy, our universe and other universes, which consist of existence of infinite space-time of Cosmos. But, if the concept of Cosmos was invented by Eastern scientists and philosophers, can it be expected to be accepted in the Western drived philosophical and scientific knowledge? If we accept that we are a unified Humanity, comprising of different societies at different levels of our bumping development through natural catastrophes, human stupidity, loss of knowledge of our past history, and repeating mistakes and errors of our human race, then now it is the time to know better and to understand better: Who we are, Where we come from, Where we are going, and What is our destiny as a unified Humanity of our "little rock" called Earth? So, it should not be mixed up to create confusion in the concept of existence, for the matter, which means the objective reality around us which does not depend on us, and our consciousness as a quality of our brain, that it is a sort of matter, that in your broadcasting programme, you call it an "accidental biology". Excuse me for the intervention that I am daring to clarify that creation of consciousness as a quality given to us through our brain, arranged as one of the highest forms of matter in the set of circumstances of our planet Earth, it is not an "accidental biology", but it is utilization of the cosmological laws/principles that when matter reaches a certain highest level of its one systems of organisation, it is associated in this format of any of these systems of organisation with the quality of "Consciousness". So, please ask better scientists not only in the western hemisphere but also in other parts of our Earth, and do not create confusion through mismatching religious beliefs or knowledge within a restricted philosophy together with restricted scientific knowledge, which in this cocktail of your programme creates confusion. But, you have a doctorate in neuroscience, and in that regard you know better how to ask the right questions to the right people. Our bumping road of development of knowledge and technology, it has affected with its backsteps stopping temporary our development, and it has damaged the life of every human being of our humanity at different stages of our development. So, please do not let certain restricted knowledge to invent false concepts of "simulated reality", because the reality is the only and only existence, despite our knowledge, wishes, desires, preferences, and in that regard we are at the stage of awakening if we do not do a grievous error of destroying ourselves through nuclear war. The simulation of every event, process, environment, system, it remains only a simulation and does not consist of reality, but only a simulation. The only reproduction of reality at a different level is the "Artificial Intelligence", which is a not a simulation, but it is a different format or system of organisation of the cosmological as existence in artifical way through our human activity, knowledge and technology.
The format of this essay is in its arrangement with a personal profile, but it is the synthesis of all the philosophical and scientific knowledge of our humanity, helped by our brothers and sisters up in the sky. If we want to be helped by others, we should help ourselves, otherwise we are doomed.