A new book by Buddhist practitioner and writer B. Alan Wallace aims to bridge the gap between the worlds of science and of spirituality, but positing an adventurous new “Special Theory of Ontological Relativity.” Reviewer William Harryman expresses ambivalence about Wallace’s bold endeavor.
I like Alan Wallace. He is one of my favorite Buddhist scholars. In fact, I recently reviewed his newest book — Mind in the Balance — very favorably. When he is talking about Buddhism, he is in his element. There are few people writing today with a better understanding of Buddhist history and tradition, especially Tibetan Buddhism, than Wallace. When he gets into the field of science, however, he is less knowledgeable, and it shows.
At the beginning of Hidden Dimensions, his 2007 book attempting to unify physics and consciousness (from a Buddhist perspective, of course), he falls immediately into one of the common errors in trying to make sense of physics, namely the idea that consciousness — human consciousness — is an essential part of the measurement problem. Quoting his “Preface” to the book, “So quantum mechanics implies that consciousness may play a crucial role in the formation and evolution of the universe as we know it” (pg. viii). He goes on to say, in the final chapter of the book:
The notion of an observer necessarily implies the presence of consciousness, without which no observation ever takes place, and … consciousness, far from being an insignificant by-product of brain activity, plays a crucial role in the formation and evolution of the universe. (109)
Aside from the fact that the universe existed quite well without human consciousness, or any consciousness, for about 14.5 billion years, the essential flaw here is that it does not require consciousness, human or otherwise, to impact the outcome of a measurement. It simply requires the act of measurement, which only requires another electron, and contrary to popular understanding, that measurement effect is fully reversible.
Despite this fundamental flaw in his thinking, this is still a useful volume, although many readers may have a hard time staying with the abstract nature of the arguments. One of his central premises is that the mind sciences need to get beyond the notion that all subjective experience is a by-product of neuro-chemical activity in the brain. This is the same argument that people such as Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and others have been making for years. The idea is still foreign to many neuroscientists, or simply rejected.
And this is where Buddhism has something important to contribute as he gets into some of the finer points of neuroscience. For example, the notion that
[E]verything we observe extrospectively and introspectively consists of qualia, or appearances, and they are illusory in the sense that they seem to exist either in the external world or inside our heads, whereas in reality there is no compelling evidence that they are located anywhere in physical space. (pg. 51)
It’s a basic tenet of Buddhism that if we try to take apart our perceptions of self (the five aggregates), looking for the substance behind each aspect, we will eventually discover there is no self there to look at — it’s all illusory. This is what perceptual neuroscience is also coming to terms with in recent years.
Wallace does a good job of dismantling our consensus reality with his Special Theory of Ontological Reality (chapter 5). I’m not sure I buy his conclusions here — that all mental and physical processes arise from “another dimension” that exists prior to the separation of mind and matter. His conclusion seems to rest on the work of Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli and their synchronicity hypothesis. I like the theory, but I also want to see some way to test it and verify it. Wallace then cites Roger Penrose and his archetypal mathematics (“independent of the existence and culture of human beings” [pg. 56]), but George Lakoff would counter that mathematics is metaphoric language and, as such, is grounded in our physical being, not in some abstract archetypal space.
Chapter six offers some intriguing experiments to test the hypothesis of an “archetypal realm of pure ideas,” many or most of which are based on early Buddhist practices that have fallen away over the last 1,500 years. Wallace is honest to admit that without prior training, and I’m guessing he means here monastic training in the Tibetan tradition, it could take 5,000 to 15,000 hours to complete his proposed experiments testing the archetypal qualities of the five basic elements (earth, water, fire, air, space). You might see why the scientific community wouldn’t support such a project. And again, I take issue with the notion of a realm of pure archetypal ideas or forms — it’s too anthropocentric to be valid on a cosmological scale.
Wallace’s next theory, A General Theory of Ontological Relativity, borrows from Einstein both in name and in spirit. He is proposing that
[T]here is no theory or mode of observation — no infallible method of inquiry, scientific or otherwise — that provides an absolute frame of reference within which to test all other perceptions or ideas. (70)
This is useful in that what he is really referring to here is the ability to take multiple perspectives (one person’s background theory may be someone else’s foreground theory”). His conclusion, in part, is that there is no way to “separate the universe we know from the information we have about it” (72). From here he brings up the idea of seeing the universe as a giant computer (a favorite — and flawed — metaphor for some physicists). He relies on information theory — all things are information — to support this metaphor. But Wallace rejects this idea and then proposes something even more anthropocentric, that the universe is a giant brain. And here he brings back my initial complaint about his book:
But whether that information exists in a computer, a brain, or a cosmos, we inevitably come back to the same point: meaningful information exists only relative to the act of informing and a conscious being that is informed. (74)
There is no convincing evidence that the universe is information, first of all, and secondly, if this is untrue then there is no need for a conscious being to be informed by it. The universe existed pretty well for 14.5 billion years without any conscious beings that we know about (unless you accept the idea of a “God” of some sort). It’s in this objectivity that theories such as these collapse.
Wallace then proposes another option to the measurement problem with the many worlds theory of physics. Beginning with the notion that when a measurement or an observation causes the collapse of the quantum wave function — one possible reality is split off from all the possible realities (this is known as the Copenhagen interpretation) — the many worlds hypothesis claims that the wave function collapse is a subjective experience, and that objectively, all the possible worlds continue to exist. According to Wallace, “This hypothesis raises the possibility that individuals may alter the course of events by their choices, aspirations, faith, and prayers” (83). This line of thought is very close to magical thinking. It might be more realistic to say that individuals may alter their perception of events, but not the events themselves.
The remainder of the book is equally challenging, including a chapter on the semi-annual meeting of the Dalai Lama with distinguished scientists, especially physicists, and a final chapter on the concept of symmetry in physics (the idea that there is a perfect or absolute reality — the “Great Perfection” — that exists independently of the material universe).
While Wallace is arguing for a first-person science throughout the book, he never offers the studies supporting such an approach (for example, Tibetan monks changing their brain patterns depending on the form of meditation they use) — granted, he has made those arguments in other books. But if you want to convince scientists to take up that approach, more detailed arguments in support of it might be useful. In the end, this is a short but challenging book. It requires an ability to think in abstractions, mostly because that is where Wallace is working with this book. If you can suspend your disbelief about some of these anthropocentric ideas — which I could not — then you might enjoy the ride he takes us on as readers. Or, on the other hand, you might just enjoy watching a great mind tackle some of the toughest questions about life, the mind, consciousness, and the universe.
9 Comments. Leave new
William, I was interested to read your blog, as a practising Buddhist of not many years, I am still trying to get my head around many aspects of science and spirituality. It is interesting to see that there are many questions to be answered, about life, the mind, consciousness, and the universe. I am still an avid reader of Teilhard de Chardin and having now following the Buddhist path, it is challenging. On one level it is certainly challenging to try and understand consciousness and where it fits into he great map, I think I will buy the bok and hopefully pick up some point.
Many Thanks for the Blog
Hi Bill,
I still think of myself as a young Buddhist (in terms of practice years) and as such, I can honestly say that while books like this one are fun to read, they really add nothing to my practice as a Buddhist. For me, it comes down to mediation and, even more, using my daily life as my practice. I have a lot to learn.
If you, too, are still a new Buddhist, you can make great progress just sticking with the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path – everything else is mostly unnecessary. Just my opinion, though.
Peace to you,
Bill
Aside from the fact that the universe existed quite well without human consciousness, or any consciousness, for about 14.5 billion years,
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? No-thing exists without consciousness.
Gotta say, I echo Elizabeth’s question.
The idea that the existence of the universe preceded the existence of consciousness requires a materialistic understanding of the origins of consciousness: that consciousness is in some way secreted by matter, i.e. the brain secretes mental states in the same way that the gall bladder secretes bile. Thus, consciousness arose only after the organisms necessary to cause it arose (and organisms arose only after the earth, etc.) This is an unproven point of currently popular dogma.
If you set aside the assumption that matter is primary and consciousness secondary at best, the possibility remains that both ‘matter’ and ‘mind’ (as Madhyamaka tells us, with which you are doubtless familiar) are conceptual constructs, neither of which can possibly be fundamental. Nevertheless, in a nonduality, these two dependent arisings must both issue from a single source in which they are unified. That’s not ‘mind’ nor ‘matter’ as we understand them, but Buddhism calls it the ‘form realm’ or the ‘substrate consciousness’, or the alaya-vijnana. This is, of course, not self-existent either, but it does serve as a counterpoint to metaphysically untenable alternatives, such as the materialism that’s required for your argument. Crucially, it offers the possibility that your statement:
“the universe existed quite well without human consciousness, or any consciousness, for about 14.5 billion years”
is not true — or at least is only true from the point of view of a flawed metaphysic.
Patrick & Elizabeth,
I understand your objections to my position in relation to the idea that the universe pre-exists consciousness – but I think it’s both/and, not either/or.
To me, consciousness is both an emergent property in the subjective material realm where we all live and breathe, and an eternal property in the absolute realm.
I do not experience this perspective as an irreconcilable duality or paradox.
Peace,
Bill
Bill,
Which theory–scientific or Buddhist–supports your idea that “consciousness is both an emergent property in the subjective material realm…and an eternal property in the absolute realm”? What exactly are you referring to when you say “subjective material realm” and “absolute realm”?
I don’t understand why you dismiss Wallace’s conclusions regarding his Special Theory of Ontological Relativity based on Lakoff’s arguments and simply combine aspects of Buddhist thought with materialism–a strategy which you conveniently “do not experience…as irreconcilable.”
If you have read Wallace’s “Choosing Reality,” you know that he is very aware of the dangers of reifying conceptual, metaphoric constructs. I interpreted his discussion of Jung, Pauli, and Penrose to be metaphoric itself; he was simply providing comparisons to the ideas found in the Dzogchen tradition. Wallace would certainly agree that these assertions should be submitted to the most sophisticated scientific inquiry available.
Hi Nick,
I was referring, clumsily, to the distinction between absolute reality – the nondual – and the subjective world as we experience it with our senses (the “two truths” doctrine: https://tinyurl.com/2fmzslm). Nonduality seems to maintain that these are one and the same.
Since writing that comment, less than 5 months ago it seems, I have changed my stance – I no longer hold to the consciousness as “eternal property of the absolute realm” position. That stance was based on a position I have since come to see as dualistic (didn’t get it then).
I am pretty much an “embodied realist” now, a la Lakoff. I think there is a “reality” independent of human beings, but that we can never really know that “reality” directly because our senses and brains limit and distort “the world” we perceive – we only experience part of it, and some of that is altered by our brains. I don’t think there can be a single correct description of the world – only our subjective perception.
But I reject the idea that there can be no reality/universe without consciousness – it strikes me more and more as a form of panpsychism (https://xrl.in/56w).
I actually have not read “Choosing Reality,” so I will add that to my reading list.
Peace,
Bill
Bill,
since it’s been several years since this conversation, i wonder if you’ve thought through your materialist (sorry, I know there’s “naturalism”, “realism” and “Physicalism” but I think “materialism” still encompasses the most preconceptions of any term) views.
You’re almost there. Yes, regarding our present experience, what we “know” (or experience) directly is a world in which perceiving and percepts are inseparably interwoven (I’m avoiding the word “consciousness” and using “perceiving’ instead for what I hope are obvious reasons).
You seem to believe that independent of perceiving (I’m not speaking necessarily of human or animal perceiving or the perceiving of any organism of which we are aware) is something – something utterly indescribable but only described by our current natural/physical sciences in terms of pure quantities – which essentially means we know absolutely nothing but that “something is doing something to something” – which i think is how Bertrand Russel, or some contemporary of his, put it.
Since by what you yourself say, it is virtually impossible EVER to provide evidence of the existence of anything (much less “something”) outside the web of perceiving, it seems to me reasonable to say the burden of proof is on you to provide some logical way of understanding why we should believe in something for which there could never be any evidence (we can’t even apply the old maxim here – not originated by Carl Sagan, by the way – that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” – because without evidence there can be no proof at all).
Since we know – as you pretty much say – that it’s virtually impossible to know whether anything exists NOW, outside the realm of perceiving, there’s no basis to appeal to the idea that 14 billion years ago something existed outside the realm of perceiving. Scientists only apply their quantitative methods to the percepts which form the inseparable accompaniment to perceiving, thus, perceiving (or awareness or knowing, or consciousness or whatever you want to call it) would of course not show up in their final calculations.
Now, since there could never be any evidence for your assertion of a “something” existing outside the web of perceiving, let’s see what you’re asking us to believe:
1. “Something” just appeared out of absolute nothingness (Sorry, I don’t think Krause made any case at all for a dead, mysterious “something’ before the Big Bang).
2. Somehow, after this appearance, there began to be orderly patterns. All of science depends on the fact of this order but there is absolutely nothing in 3 centuries of science that can account for this order. It is just taken for granted.
3. Not only did orderly patterns appear, but it continued, moment after moment, year after year, billions of years after billions o fears. The idea that a dead, unconscious, unintelligent collection of “somethings” (remember, we have absolutely no idea what the quantities of our physicists and cosmologists and chemists and other scientists actually refer to) remained in these orderly patterns for billions of years, is certainly more astonishing than any absurdity ever conjured up by the most extreme fundamentalist.
4. Somehow, out of this dead, unconscious, purposeless, something which somehow mysteriously began to orm orderly patterns and somehow miraculously continued to form patterns – and patterns of increasing complexity – something that most biologists agree is different from what came before – that they call “life” though almost none can agree on how to define life (there was a conference of several hundred biologists in new York recently and nobody could agree what “life” meant) – this something we call “life” somehow mysteriously, miraculously emerged.
5. On top of all these extraordinary claims, that out of nothing came this dead unconscious unintelligent something which magically began to form patterns and continued doing so in increasingly complex ways for billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of years, something we refer to as “mind” (though Dan Siegel has gone around the world and talked to 100s of people who have spent their lives investigating mind and brain and have had no idea how to define “mind”) also somehow, magically, miraculously emerged.
And we have indisputable evidence (at least, according to 2 o the most intransigent psychologists who have been disputing psi research for decades) that there is good scientific support for telepathy, precognition, remote viewing and psychokinesis, yet no materialist has ever found a way to make sense of this in what they believe is an essentially dead, purposeless, meaningless, unconscious and unintelligent “universe”.
Given all this, you are asking a tremendous amount to ask us to believe in such a wild proposition, absent the possibility of even a scintilla of evidence, unless you can provide some remote logical justification for believing in such a miraculous thing.
Any ideas?
here is a helpful meditation experiment to get a grip on a different view.
1. Imagine we are together in a shared lucid dream. Only the readers of this blog are aware they are in the dream together. Keep in mind that it CAN BE virtually impossible to tell the difference between a lucid dream and the waking state (for more on this, google “Shaving science with ockham’s razor” and look at the section on false awakenings. Nobody I’ve ever asked or read has been able to tell me how you would know if you’re awake or dreaming after the 4th or 5th false awakening).
2. Accept for the sake of this meditation experiment that psi is a reality. If you know Jim Carpenter’s First Sight theory of psi, it will help you understand how psi can be a reality (a constant and pervasive one) and yet appear to be so rare.
Now, think through – this may take some weeks, months or even years – all that you know of physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience.
keep in mind that for this experiment, you’re in a collective or “shared” lucid dream and psi is a constant, pervasive fact.
1. What would you change – if anything – in the findings of the various branches of science?
2. If (as it is likely to turn out) the scientific findings – of scientists within this lucid dream world, who conduct their experiments and calculations EXACTLY as they do in the so called “waking” world”) would still yield the belief in there being no consciousness prior to the emergence of life of earth, what does that tell you about the influence of materialistic thinking on science?
continue reflecting on this and you may find that at the very least, 50% of what we consider “science” is not actually science at all but actually a rather bizarre belief system which became, like a parasite, encrusted within the scientific world about 150 years ago and from which science has not yet recovered.