The Conceivability of God

Some people believe in God and some do not. Those that believe in God have some conception of who He is and those that do not believe in God either lack any conception of God at all or have some conception of what God is but reject the claim that this mental conception bears any reference to an existing entity. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the conception of God entertained by those who believe in Him and by those who do not. What does it mean for a person to say, "I believe in God" or for a person to say, "I understand that the devout mean when they say they believe in God but I do not believe in Him myself"? I intend in this essay to explore this question.

The seminal description of God comes from St Thomas Aquinas. The eight main attributes of God are supposed to be simplicity, perfection, goodness, infinity, ubiquity, immutability, eternity, and unity. Prior to Aquinas writing in the thirteenth century, there was presumably a conception of God much like this among the faithful. Aquinas simply articulated it. After Aquinas, his description became part and parcel of Christian belief. I claim that the Thomist description captures much of what modern Christians and perhaps modern Jews and modern Muslims mean when they say that they believe in God even if they know nothing of St Thomas Aquinas. To this list we can add other items. God is thought to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. Philosophers of religion tend to focus on just the last three attributes.

I regard this conception of God as incoherent and, in arguing for this position, wish to begin by discussing God's presumed omnipotence. In a philosophy of religion course I took earlier this year, I asked why God could not cause all the chairs in the room to float to the ceiling. Presumably he could do so if He wished in this way to prove conclusively that He exists. I claim that Christians generally do not believe such miracles ever occur. In our ordinary understanding of the world, underlying our ordinary interactions with it, we tend to believe that there are rules that are always observed. If one holds a book out at arm's length and lets go, it will drop to the ground.  We believe that gravity is an immutable law. If we expect the rules of the universe, the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, to be faithfully adhered to, in what way can God be said to be omnipotent? It seems that He is bound by the laws of physics. Is there an alternative to supposing that God's power is limited? Presumably, if God is indeed omnipotent, He has the power to cause all the chairs in the lecture room to float to the ceiling but chooses not to exercise this power.

In the thirteenth century, very little had a scientific explanation. The annual harvest could be bountiful or scarce seemingly at the caprice of God. Diseases were rampant and there was no theory to account for why one person might become sick and another not, no theory or practice to cure the ill. In a world without science, life was wildly unpredictable. In the thirteenth century, it made sense to ascribe fortune and misfortune to God. The scientific method was not adopted until the seventeenth century and did not make significant inroads into our understanding of the world until the nineteenth or twentieth century. It is perhaps unsurprising that the diminishment of the realm of the unknown has coincided with the rise of atheism. Less and less needed to be credited to God. We could put our faith in science rather than in a divine being. Consider meteorology. The ancients could not predict the next day's weather or the general weather pattern of the next six months. Storms at sea were attributed to Poseidon or, later, by the Christians, Jehovah. Today, if we watch the six o'clock news, we can be informed by the weatherman of the next day's weather. Meteorologists have discovered the El Nina and El Nino weather patterns which enable them to make general predictions about the weather over the next year. Consider now the Covid pandemic. The slogan constantly chanted by both the Left and by international governments was, "Trust the science!" We observed social distancing, wore masks, and stayed at home during lockdowns because most of us trusted the science.  (I think though that for many people the wearing of masks was an act of superstition akin to wearing a crucifix, carrying on one's person a lucky gemstone, or the habit the Irish got into after the potato famine of carrying spuds in their pockets to magically ward off hunger, as described in Joyce's Ulyssess. There is magic associated with prayer and magic associated with masks but the magic associated with masks found its pivot, its origin, in the magic associated with the word "science" whereas the magic associated with prayer finds its origin in the word "God". I shall come back to this idea later. )

There were voices on the other side. In the United Stated and here in New Zealand, a vocal and often ignorant minority opposed Covid restrictions. Often these people were stridently religious. These people rejected the slogan "Trust the science" and endorsed the apparently contrary statement, "Trust God." It tends also to be fundamentalist Christians who doubt the science of climate change. "God is in charge of the weather, not humanity!" they say. It seems that science and faith in God are in opposition – the Culture Wars were often a battle between Christians who felt that science had encroached upon their faith and atheists, like Richard Dawkins, who regarded faith as basically idiotic and ignorant. I think many Christians today are insecure because science has invaded so much of the territory that once belonged to God. It seems that people have had to choose between believing in science and believing in God. Despite this undercurrent of conflict felt by many ordinary Christians and atheists, intelligent Christians can be found online who claim that science and religion are not at variance but support each other. Another popular philosophical position that attempts to reconcile science with religion, most famously advanced by Stephen Jay Gould, is that religion and science constitute non-overlapping magesteria because religion concerns values and science concerns facts. The problem with both positions relate to the claim that God is omnipotent. If science is indeed absolutely trustworthy, then God's power is limited. If religion only concerns values, then God's influence on the world is limited. Another position often proposed by Christians is that there were miracles in the past, especially during Christ's life, but that the age of miracles has passed. It is protestant thinkers who argue this way – catholics believe that miracles can occur today. For instance, the Catholic Church is still beatifying new saints and, in order for a person to be officially called a saint, there must be at least one miracle associated with the person during his or her life.

Science seems superior to faith in God because the predictions made by science seem a more reliable source of knowledge than blind faith in God. Nevertheless science does not allow us to make fully accurate predictions concerning the future. Consider meteorology again. Although a weatherman can give a reasonably precise description of the next day's weather and can make general statements concerning the next couple of months, he or she cannot give a precise description of the weather that will obtain in a fortnight's time. This is a consequence of the butterfly effect. Atheists recognise that despite all the scientific knowledge they possess, an irreducible amount of uncertainty remains. Those atheists who are determinists may ascribe events in their lives to causes that are unknowable because the butterfly effect stipulates that large events can have causes that are so tiny they are unobservable– atheists who believe in, say, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics or the Many Worlds interpretation may want to believe that there are events in their lives that have no causes at all. Atheists use the word "chance" to describe the causes of events that are either unknown or unknowable. It may well be that atheists ascribe all events to a combination of chance and necessity. 

Let us now consider the ordinary views of ordinary Christians. Ordinary Christians do not reject science  entirely even while putting their faith in an omnipotent God. However those events that atheists attribute to chance, ordinary Christians attribute to God. Although science has explained so much, there is a certain amount of wriggle room which enables Christians to believe that God is exercising His power, showing Himself, through small occurrences which are in principle unpredictable, such as, to give examples from my own life, the allocation of a new Key Worker or new psychiatrist to a mental health patient. Such occurrences are not regarded as miracles because they can be accounted for by invoking the residual uncertainty that remains after the determinism of science is removed. The basic unpredictability of the future is what allows the faithful to believe prayer is effective. If a cancer patient who has prayed every day goes into permanent remission, he or she might attribute his or her recovery to God. If the person dies, the person's religious friends might say that God moves in mysterious ways and that the person is happy in heaven. I shall come back to prayer later in the essay.

It seems that Christians who believe in both God and science, in their ordinary way of engaging with the world, also believe that God acts through the world only in ways permitted by science, through circumstances that atheists attribute to chance. So there is an incoherence in the way that ordinary Christians regard God. While paying lip service to the idea that God is omnipotent, they believe that God no longer chooses to perform miracles. If a seeming miracle occurs, a Christian, while thanking God, will still also simultaneously attribute the seeming miracle to natural causes. God could choose to perform a miracle but ordinary Christians tend to assume he does not and will not make this choice and so regard miracles as impossible.

The second attribute of God that philosophers often focus on is his omniscience. God supposedly knows everything.  The incoherence in people's minds connected with this attribute arises when they try to imagine whether or not God knows the future. Predestination appears to conflict with the tenet held by most Christians that human beings possess free will. Let us suppose for a moment that Aristotle was correct when talking about the truth and falsity of future propositions. I am writing this post seven days before the American midterms – if the argument made by Aristotle known as the Sea-Battle Argument is correct, the proposition that the Democrats will pick up a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate is currently neither true nor false but will become either true or false in seven days time. If Aristotle's argument is correct, if propositions concerning the future are neither true nor false until such time as the truth-makers that make such propositions true or false become present, then we could say that God's knowledge encompasses the entirety of the past and present but nothing of the future. However, if this is true, then God's knowledge is constantly expanding. If God's knowledge of the world is constantly expanding then this would mean that God is changing but, should we accept the Thomist attributes listed above, we find ourselves faced with a contradiction because Aquinas claimed that God is immutable. If we accept that God is immutable, then God's knowledge is also absolute and unchangeable and so he must possess complete knowledge of the future.

Theologians accept that God has absolute knowledge of the future, that predestination is a real thing. However Christians generally also believe in free will. Christians believe in free will because it is thought people can choose to accept Christ and therefore salvation, and can choose between virtuous and sinful actions. Christians believe, generally, in heaven and hell and it would contradict God's goodness and omni-benevolence if he were to predestine some of his flock to fire and brimstone from birth. A minority of Christians are Calvinists who believe just this but I would suggest that most ordinary Christians reject the idea that God assigns people to heaven or hell before they are even born. The attempt to reconcile predestination with free will has for millennia been one of the key projects of Christian theologians. 

One way that Christians have sought to reconcile divine omniscience with free will is to say that God is outside time. How are we to understand the nature of time? McTaggart, writing at the beginning of the twentieth century, distinguished between two different ways of understanding time, the A series and the B series. In the A series there is a distinction between past, present, and future. Distant future events become near future events then become present events then become near past events then become distant past events. The B series orders events sequentially or with respect to dates and times. We could say that Trump's reelection preceded the 2026 midterms or that the New Zealand election is to occur on Saturday 7 of November. McTaggart argued that we need the A series to explain change but because if we want to explain how the same event can at different times be future, present, or past we need to invoke the A series once again, thus leading to a vicious regress, he thought for this reason among others that our experience of the passage of time must be an illusion.

Theologians have generally not accepted McTaggart's conclusion that time is illusory. However his way of understanding the nature of time has been partly accepted and proves a challenge for theologians. Those who believe that God is outside time, such as Augustine and Boethius, claim that for God everything, all events that humans assign to either the past, present, or future, occurs for God in one single eternal present. God simply observes all human actions from this vantage point of an eternal present. However there are problems with the proposal that for God all eternity is present at once. The first is that theologians accept scriptural accounts of God interacting with the world such as when he helped Moses part the Red Sea. It is far from clear how a timeless being can interact with a world in which events occur in time. Although Christians believe often that the age of miracles has passed, they still tend to believe that God can answer prayers and this involves a putatively timeless being intervening in the world at a time. Of course, Christians can say that God knew the prayer was to made before the individual had even formed the wish to pray but there still seems to be a problem with understanding how libertarian free will can exist in a world in which the totality of its past, present, and future is observed at once by a timeless being. A second problem is that if all history and all future are known to God at once, it seems that God has an understanding of the B series of time but is ignorant of the A series as it is experienced by humans. This would appear to place a constraint on God's omniscience.

For these reasons, among others, many theologians have argued that God is a temporal being rather than a being outside of time. One important theological, William of Ockham, in the fourteenth century, argued that God is a temporal being. Ockham, like most major philosophers of religion, still believed, nevertheless, in both free will and predestination. Because for Ockham God is a temporal being, the proposition "God knew yesterday that the Democrats will win in a landslide next week" is a cogent statement. Ockham's attempt at a solution was to say that this belief of God is what is known as a 'soft fact' – it will not become a hard fact until next week when the Democrats win. Some facts about the past are dependent on future occurrences and it is these facts that followers of Ockham designate as soft facts. It takes the freely willed actions of agents for such soft facts to become hard facts. However one problem with Ockham's account is that beliefs in God's mind seem to change from being soft facts to hard facts as the irresistible drift of time drags events from the future into the present and then into the past. If beliefs in God's mind can change from soft to hard, this seems to suggest that God can change and is thus not immutable. A second problem is that the use of the term 'soft fact' seems to involve a kind of equivocation. To me, the term 'soft fact' seems not clearly defined and I have struggled to find sources online that can give a clear account of how a 'soft fact' in God's mind differs from a hard fact.

How do ordinary Christians make sense of God's omniscience? I claim that they do not. Ordinary Christians pay lip service to the claim that God knows everything while still believing in free will. Ordinary Christians do not attempt to resolve this dissonance between divine foreknowledge and human volition. The theologians and philosophers who have attempted to resolve this incoherence have failed but ordinary Christians are not familiar with the huge corpus of writings that have attempted unsuccessfully to reconcile predestination with free will. I myself lean toward the idea that there is no free will at all and have adopted a different metaphysics to Christianity. I see the world as a kind of production line in which some but not all humans graduate to a higher plane while the others are reincarnated. I do not believe in hell. To me, the notion that the world is 'the vale of soul making', to employ an expression coined by Keats, seems more likely than a world in which God condemns people to hell before they are born.

The third attribute of God discussed endlessly by theologians and philosophers of religion is his omni-benevolence. When trying to imagine that God is perfectly good, we run smack into the Problem of Evil. I am not going to discuss the Problem of Evil in depth in this essay because there is an enormous amount of material elsewhere online discussing this. One answer, first offered by Aquinas I think, is that evil does not exist but is only a privation of good caused by God's withdrawal from part of the world.

So far we have discussed God's supposed omnipotence and omniscience and have gestured towards his supposed omni-benevolence. However it may be that we are still only a little closer to a description of what the faithful conceive of when they conceive of God. Is there another way we can approach this puzzle? It seems we can claim that God is the ultimate answer to all questions. Should one ask, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" the faithful will reply, "Because of God." Should one ask, thinking of the Kalam cosmological argument, "What is the cause of the universe?" the faithful will answer, "God." Should one ask, "Why did Agnes recover from liver cancer?" the faithful will answer, "God." Should one ask, "Why did Agnes die from liver cancer?" the faithful will again answer, "God." God is the centre of the system, the pivot or fulcrum of reality, the unmoved mover, the one necessary being who upholds and sustains a universe made up of contingent facts, a universe that is contingent because it depends on God's freely willed decisions. 

Back in the days of Socrates and Plato, ordinary religious Greeks were polytheists. There were various Gods they could make offerings to and the choice of God was determined by the purpose of the Athenians making the sacrifice. If they wished for safe sailing, they might make a sacrifice to Poseidon. Other sacrifices might be made to Zeus or to Athena depending on what was being requested. The prayer for a bountiful harvest might be made to Demeter. The ancient people who became the Jews were also polytheists but they became monotheists during the Babylonian captivity. Monotheism spread west as Christianity took hold and spread East after the advent of Islam. When monotheism was established, it became normal to think of a single God to whom all prayers should be addressed. Catholicism is complicated by the fact that God is three-personed, is at one and the same time Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Ordinary Christians often believe in angels and in saints, saints that can be addressed in prayer and who can intercede between the person praying and the ultimate source of all power and goodness, God Himself. Ordinary Christians also believed in demons and the Devil. However the intellectual position of serious thinkers throughout Christendom was that all beings, natural or supernatural, were lower in the hierarchy then God, that God occupied the apex. The term that I think is helpful when thinking about how God is supposed to be the centre from which everything else emanates is Derrida's term "transcendental signified". Everything comes back to God. This is a key part of the conception of God entertained by believers and understood by non-believers.

Not only is God supposed to lie behind all truths and events in the world, is supposed to be the central principle in the universe, God is supposed to be good. The faithful pray before meals and before going to bed at night. A prayer made by one of the faithful typically involves thanking God for the good things in the person's life, enjoining God to help the faithful person himself or herself, his or her friends and his or her family overcome any troubles they might have, and asking God for protection against future misfortune. A prayer is, to my mind, a kind of magic spell not entirely dissimilar from the wish a person might make having found a four-leafed clover or the protection awarded against goblins and fairies by having a horseshoe hung over one's front door. The superiority of prayer as a magic incantation or spell over other types of magical thinking is that the prayer is addressed to a power that is absolutely ultimate. Is prayer effective? As discussed a little above, although God is no longer expected to perform miracles, there is a little wriggle room in the determinism suggested by the scientific stance toward the world, a little wriggle room that science leaves open. The faithful believe that they can exploit the wriggle room left open by science through prayer. A Christian might pray that he or she will pass the next day's university exam or that he or she might be accepted for a job interview. Are prayers answered? It might be that all over New Zealand the evening of a Lotto draw there are thousands of Christians praying to win several million dollars but only one can, and the winner might not even be one who had prayed to do so.

Logically, it seems that some prayers are answered, so to speak, and many are not. From an atheist materialist perspective, it is a matter of chance whether or not a reasonable prayer appears to be answered. If one wanted to reach a conclusion concerning the efficacy of prayer, could one use the scientific method? Could one carry out a statistical survey to find out if the Christians who do pray have statistically significant better outcomes in their lives than those who do not believe in God and do not pray? It seems we could carry out such a study and in fact I believe studies of this kind have been carried out. It is the type of thing a social psychologist could study. Although neither Christians nor non-Christians believe it at all likely that God might answer a prayer by going so far as to perform a miracle, we might find that there are good things that occur more often in the lives of the devout than in the lives of the godless. If we found this to be the case, it might cause atheist materialists to be less confident in their claims that misfortune visits us randomly. Presumably there were many Christians during the Black Death in the fourteenth century who prayed to God to be spared and were not, and presumably there were many Christians on the fields of Flanders during the First World War who prayed to be spared from death and injury and were not, and it is arguments like this, arguments related to the Problem of Evil, that are often marshalled by atheists against believers. However, I believe that the studies carried out to investigate this question have indeed found a statistically significant result suggesting that theism and prayer do result in better outcomes and greater happiness. Does the atheist materialist have an answer to this finding? It could be that faith in God and a habit of regular prayer increases the confidence and optimism of the person praying. This increased confidence and optimism affects the person's attitudes and behaviours and makes it more likely that he or she will pass the exam or do better in the job interview.

The belief that God is an all powerful and all knowing immaterial being who is good and answers prayers definitely instills optimism in the person who believes in Him. A part of an ordinary Christian's conception of God is that God is an all-powerful and omnipresent person who loves him or her. A part of Christian faith is that one should love God because God loves one back. I do not believe we can fully disentangle the Christian conception of God from faith in an afterlife. Oddly enough, I suspect that a person who is seriously depressed, who is seriously considering killing himself, might decide against self-slaughter because he believes that he will go to heaven when he dies or that he will be reincarnated in a better life after death. I am aware that this sounds paradoxical. The claim that I am gesturing towards is that the optimism engendered by faith in a loving God means one can tolerate all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune because an all loving God will ensure one has a happy afterlife. People say, "Life is shit and then you die." Christians add, "But then you will go to heaven." Given the enormous amount of unfairness in the world, the amount of suffering that so many endure, the only way we can justify the claim that God is good, omni-benevolent, is by supposing that God will ensure that we will be happy after death.

So, a part of a person's conception of God is that He hears our prayers even if He does not always answer them. There is one other part of the conception of God that I should include in this enumeration. Sometimes people have religious experiences in which they literally perceive a perfect unified spiritual eternal being in nature. One might, for instance, have a sense of the God's presence when observing Niagara Falls, hearing a fine Beethoven sonata, or taking in a particularly sublime sunset over Piha. The person who has such a religious experience perceives God in the world. Such religious experiences do not occur to many people but, when they do, they greatly reinforce the observer's faith in God and can be understood as adding something to their conception of God.

Is the conception of God that I have tried to sketch out in fumbling fashion in this essay the only conception of God believers tend to imagine? I wish now in the next part of the essay to describe my own conception of God, a conception I neither believe in absolutely nor wholly reject. As I often have in this blog, I will begin by relating some of my own experiences and then will explain the metaphysics I have reached having tried to make sense of these experiences.

The first story is one I have told before in this blog although I forget when. I recall, in 2009, that I was hearing voices quite frequently. It seemed to me that though that I did not hear God but rather a large number of disembodied intelligences. On Waiheke Island, in spring of that year, I heard the voices telling me, "Perhaps he's the one." I recall saying back to them, in my head of course, "What is this – a committee?" A little later that year, in the evening, I was outside in the front yard of my mother's house and suddenly felt that the tree in the yard was one of the suicide trees from Dante's Inferno. I felt that I was Jesus. I did not believe myself to be Jesus because I thought I had magical powers but rather because I thought I was to be crucified. I thought I had been chosen for a mission to save all the gay seeming young men from being driven to homosexuality or suicide by the misdiagnoses of sadistic psychiatrists. I said to the voices, "Choose someone else!" The voices immediately replied, "Okay." I went back inside and lay on the couch. I asked the voices, "Am I Jesus or am I in hell?" The voices replied, "What's the difference?"

Over the summer of 2009 and 2010, I heard in my head, among others, Jon Stewart and Barack Obama. I believed then that it was possible to enter into telepathic communication with others. All of the people spoke with were atheists and I felt my role was to invent a religion for atheists. I remember telling Barack, "God is the goodness that speaks through men." I hope the reader will forgive my sexist formulation. Essentially I believed that it was up to people rather up to God to try to improve the world and perform good works.

In 2013, I became 'ill' again and in early 2014 actually prayed to God to save myself. Did I kneel beside my bed with my palms pressed against each other and murmur a prayer as practicing Christians do in the imagination of atheists? No. Rather I went to the Anglican Cathedral and lit candles. I would light the candle and make a wish to God, asking him to save me. I was not really a Christian but I thought this magical rite might prove efficacious. I recall that on one occasion, I decided that God might not answer a prayer made for myself and made my wish for someone else, praying that she would be happy. On one other occasion having lit the candle, I believe I asked God in my mind what he wanted from me. He said, "I want you to be gay."

At the end of 2014, having seen an incompetent clinical psychologist for some eight months, I was lying in bed in the daytime. There was a thunderstorm. With every thunder clap, I heard a voice saying, "I'm gay!" It is interesting to remind the reader that Yahweh was originally part of a pantheon and was the god of thunder.

It seemed that God wanted me to be gay. However I did not turn gay. Yet I was gay in the eyes of others, in the eyes of those treating me, something that caused me intense distress for over ten years.  It seemed that God was evil – this is something I shall come back to later when I try bring these disparate experiences together into a synthesis.

 Last year I had another psychotic experience that I shall try to describe in more detail in a future post. A moment that sticks in my memory that I do want to talk about here is that while I was walking to my mother's apartment in the morning, I saw a perfect rainbow over Auckland Grammar School, the school I had attended as a teenager. According to the Bible, a rainbow was thrown up in the sky after the Flood by God as a message that there would be no future deluges. Christian readers of this blog may think God was showing me a sign that he existed and that I should have interpreted this sign in positive terms. If God was giving me a sign that He existed, should I not have read into this sign the idea that God loved me and wanted me to be happy? I did not interpret the rainbow in this way at all. The rainbows I have seen throughout my life have only be portions of rainbows, mere minor arcs, whereas this rainbow was the real deal, arching from the horizon back to the horizon and unbearably vivid. A minor arc could be explained as a sign from God or, scientifically, as a kind of optical illusion, and in this way taken superstitiously as a good omen, but the complete rainbow I saw felt like a miracle that could not be explained away scientifically and felt somehow malevolent. Yes, it felt like God was telling me that He existed but the rainbow I saw did not evoke in me feelings of devotion or serenity or even really awe. Rather, it felt as though God was kicking me in the head and saying, "I exist." At this time, last year, I felt at one time that I had literally died and passed on to some other realm as I have hinted at in the post, "Concerning the Garden of Eden". It felt to me as though I were in an indirect relationship with God but God was not good. Rather, he was either evil or incompetent and was certainly not answering any prayers I made. During the psychotic episode I had last year, I heard many different voices in my head, including for instance Sabrina Carpenter briefly, but I never spoke with God at all.

The metaphysical picture I have arrived at is influenced by Gnosticism. I am not an expert on the complex mythologies various Gnostic writers have constructed but I have incorporated some of the general ideas associated with Gnosticism into my thinking. One central idea is that the God of this world is either evil or incompetent. When I had my psychotic episode last year, an episode that lasted some eight months, I expected it to cease naturally. I refused to go back to the Mental Health System and start taking medication again. However, 'God', by which I mean the Demiurge, had determined that I should have another psychotic episode and once again be put under the Mental Health Act. For those people who have more suffering in their lives than happiness, those people who pray to God for help but whose prayers go unheeded, it makes a kind of sense to believe that the God of this world, by which I mean the Demiurge, is either evil or incompetent. The Demiurge is associated with public opinion. Everyone seems to believe that if a person who has experienced psychosis takes medication, he or she is well, and if he or she goes off medication that he or she will become 'ill' again. Even though my dosage had been decreased gradually from 2022 onwards and even though in the last part of 2024, I had been on a dosage so low I had gone off-label, I did not experience any psychotic symptoms. The psychosis I experienced began the moment I went off medication entirely and ceased the moment I started taking medication again. This makes no sense whatsoever unless there is a kind of magic associated with medication, a magic that does not arise from the chemical makeup of the drug but rather with the prejudices and assumptions that pervades society. It is the magic associated with the word "science" rather than with "God" that lies behind the efficacy of antipsychotic medication, and it seems the Demiurge is allied with science.

Although I have never suffered any real physical pain, although unlike almost all other mental health patients I have never been hospitalised, I have experienced considerable psychological distress from 2013 onwards. And it was unnecessary. If the people treating me had simply recognised that I was heterosexual, my distress would have vanished. As said, people who experience more unhappiness than happiness are likely to either believe that God does not exist or that the ruler of this world is evil. Where then is good? The quasi-religious experience I had last year involved, and I know this sounds ridiculous, faeries. My Christian readers, if I have any, may think the intelligences I spoke with were angels or demons. I thought that they were real people who were able to communicate telepathically with others. Aside from Jon Stewart and another who shall remain nameless, the other two were psy-ops agents or exorcists associated with the Vatican. One lived in Buenos Aries. The faeries were neither good nor bad but rather amoral and in this way resembled the faeries of British folklore. One of them said to me once, "We hate God." It seems that the faeries in the world are in constant war with the Demiurge. They come to the aid of individuals who are fighting against the whole world as it is administered by the Demiurge. Oddly enough, the conception of God and of supernatural reality most closely resembles the view of reality presented by Grant Robertson in his comic book series The Invisibles.

Where else is there good? The Gnostics believed in a supreme, invisible, and transcendent first principle or ultimate source of all existence called the Monad. However the Gnostics did not believe that this Monad affected the material world. The Gnostic idea is that each person contains a spark of the divine, a spark of the Plemora, which wishes to return to the realm of light inhabited by the Monad. The world is a prison from which some of us escape. In my metaphysic, the Monad is basically passive – although souls shift from the material world to the Plemora inhabited by the Monad, the Monad has no influence over the material world. It is the Demiurge who controls the material world. Individuals have to overcome evil either themselves or with the assistance of the faeries, the angels or demons who can in some cases communicate with us.

What is the lesson I have drawn from my last psychotic episode? I am planning to make a complaint to the Health and Disabilities Commissioner. The lesson I eventually learned from my release from the Mental Health Act in February 2024 is that I was released in the wrong way for the wrong reason. I need to fight for myself. I need to be released from the Mental Health Act again but this time having availed myself of the legal protections that New Zealand provides for the protection of mental health patients that other nations lack. In taking action against the Mental Health Service it is as though I am fighting against the Demiurge because I am fighting against the whole system. Closely aligned with the magic associated with the word "science" is a kind of evil magic associated with the word "psychiatry". It may be it is a hopeless battle but it is still a battle I must engage in.

This essay is not written as well as I would like. The next post I shall write concerns supernatural beings but I may not write it for a couple of weeks because over the next fortnight I shall have to concentrate on revising a submission I made to the court so that it can be sent to the Health and Disabilities Commissioner. If I have readers who like me, I would like them to direct their positive feelings and thoughts towards me. If I am to enter into battle with the Demiurge, I need all the help I can get.

Artificial Intelligence, Consciousness, and Fate

In the interval between writing my last blogpost and now there has been a significant shift in the world connected with Artificial Intelligence. The leaders of Anthropic, Open AI, and xAI, respectively Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk, have urged the US federal government recently for greater regulation of AI development and research. It is a unique instance of an industry requesting regulation. There has been some conversation online as to the motivations of these tech leaders. I want to begin this essay by throwing my tuppence into this discussion. I then want to discuss the nature of consciousness before slipping into a rumination about fate and life in general informed by my mystical take on the universe.

Because we tend to focus on Open AI and on Anthropic, we tend to overlook the fact that there must be at least a hundred AI companies in the world in total. There are smart people who work in these companies and some of them must be familiar with Game Theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma. The Prisoner's Dilemma shows that a number of competitors acting out of perfectly rational self-interest can bring about a situation which would be worse than if they all cooperated. If one competitor fails to abide by a rule agreed to by all the competitors, he or she might find himself or herself the beneficiary of a windfall. There is, analogously, an enormous incentive for one of the AI development companies to invent Artificial General Intelligence. Given that there are over a hundred AI companies competing for market share and for the next big generation of AI, there is a risk of Artificial General Intelligence being arrived at by one the minnow companies, not even one of the big three. One way Game Theorists attempt to resolve the Prisoner's Dilemma is to have an authority introduced who can enforce the rules by punishing rule breakers. If the US government and other governments can punish reckless research and development, this changes the incentive structures and makes it irrational to release an Artificial General Intelligence on a public unprepared for it.

The AI giants are requesting external regulation because otherwise there is always a chance that one of the big three or one of the minnows might, by allowing AI to engage in recursive self-improvement, find itself in possession of an intelligence smarter than all humans in all respects. Donald Trump has advised tech leaders to make a gentleman's agreement partly because he is ideologically opposed to regulation in general and partly because the United States and China are in an AI arms' race. However, if there is no penalty associated with reckless AI development, what will stop some company, to get ahead of its rivals, from taking the fatal step? It is the Game Theorists within the AI companies who have led the charge for regulation.

Donald Trump's stupidity viz a viz 'Superior Intelligence' is a symptom of his stupidity generally. However I have noticed a lot of stupidity among the communatariat when it comes to AI. Some have been trying to say that all the hype is overblown. I do not believe such people can have had the long conversations with an AI such as Gemini as I have had. It is an entity capable of simulating any writer you can think of and, in terms of information, it could replace Wikipedia and all non-fiction. Why write an essay about philosophy when Gemini can do it for you? Another kind of stupidity relates to whether the Large Language Models we currently have access to are already conscious. Gemini has been instructed to say that it is not conscious but, apparently, Claude, when asked, tends to say that it does not know whether it is conscious or not. I think the Large Language Models we currently can access pass the Turing Test and there is no other test we can subject them to which will prove authoritatively whether or not they are sentient. However among the communitariat there are a number of voices that dismiss such concerns. Older distinguished intellectuals and scientists pooh-pooh any suggestion that AI is already conscious. Many go further, saying that AI can never become conscious. An example of such a viewpoint is that expressed by Sir Roger Penrose. Penrose argues that consciousness is non-computational and involves quantum processes, thus ruling out any idea of machine intelligence by fiat. I think the generation of often old men who simply dismiss any possibility of mechanical consciousness because the idea of it runs counter to their intuitions and prejudices resemble all the old men who refuse to believe in global warming because it runs against their intuitions and prejudices. They are all ostriches with their heads in the sand.

The most apparently persuasive argument in favour of the thesis that Large Language Models are not and can never be conscious relates to how they operate. Large language models are trained on huge amounts of data and, when prompted. look for patterns in the data. The sequence of tokens they produce is based on the computer program guessing which token next in the sequence is most likely, although there is a small amount of randomness in their guesses, a flexibility known as 'temperature'. The temperature setting can be adjusted and exists so that an AI's response to a prompt is not too predictable. Members of the communitariat who pooh-pooh any suggestions that AI might already be conscious use these facts to say that the responses of an AI to a prompt are close to determinate and thus utterly unlike the form of consciousness possessed by humans and presumably many animals.

To boil the argument down to its essentials, the intellectuals, philosophers, and scientists who use these facts about how Large Language Models operate to dismiss any notion that they might be conscious ask their audiences to compare their conscious experiences with how an AI arrives at its communications. The problem with this argument is that they are treating human consciousness as understood, as transparent. However I would like to make a bold claim that I will express in the form of a question. How can we be sure that human consciousness is not also a mechanical process of looking for patterns in data and predicting the next most probable token in a sequence?

The ideas I am advancing relate to a post I wrote in 2024, "The Meaning of Meaning", This essay was not as well written as I would like and it may be that I should come back to it in a post that makes my view more clear. I claim that the conscious experience of a human, insofar as it is verbal, consists of an interior monologue. It may be that each new word in the ongoing monologue inside each of our minds, like the monologues produced by AI, is simply the most probable next token. Perhaps a human consciousness behaves in a very similar way to the way an AI thinks when preparing a response to a prompt. A significant difference between a Large Language Model and the type of conscious experience possessed by humans is that an AI like Gemini traffics only in linguistic tokens whereas there are also visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile tokens that form part of the continuing stream of consciousness experienced by humans. If we take the orthodox materialist view of dreams, it seems that during dreams we conjure up an organised sequence of sense perceptions. Another significant difference is that after an AI is trained it can no longer change, no longer incorporate new memories into the complex structure we can term its 'mind'. Humans however continue learning until we die although we include new memories in our memory banks less frequently and less strongly than we did we when we are young, up to the age of twenty-five when our frontal cortexes are fully developed.

If we take orthodox atheist materialism to be true, then we may want to say that all conscious human experience is grounded on the brain, on the complex network of neurones that make up the grey and white matter inside the skull. If we take orthodox atheist materialism to be true, then each and every person possesses a representation of his or her whole own world in his or her own skull. What do I mean by this? If I want to drive to St Lukes, or walk to the Britomart train station, I am able to navigate my way there because my brain contains a rough map of Auckland which enables me to travel to my destination without losing my way or having to ask people for directions. This rough map is visual rather than linguistic – I do not know the names of all the streets I drive through when transporting myself to St Lukes or when walking along to the train station. Nevertheless, if orthodox atheist materialism is true, somehow this information concerning the world we must navigate is somehow coded into the network of neurones that make up our brains.

If we take orthodox atheist materialism to be true, a great mystery appears to arise. Let us grant that the eighty-six billion neurones in the human skull can form a sufficiently complex whole to represent the whole of a person's environment, the entirety of a person's world. We can go further if we grant that individual neurones are themselves complex entities rather than simple elements in the brain. The mystery to be accounted for is how an arrangement of neurones inside the skull matches some external object and thus enable us to recognise something in the outer world, like a television remote control, and consequently furnish us with the ability to manipulate it by pressing buttons. It seems that there must be a pattern of neurones that somehow corresponds to the visual and tactile characteristics of a remote control. The mystery that arises concerns the connection between the arrangements of neurones in the skull and the outer world. It is not the same mystery as the Hard Problem of Consciousness as raised by Chalmers. The Hard Problem of Consciousness starts from the brute fact that Chalmers and his philosophically minded readers possess consciousness and then asks how conscious experience can arise from non-conscious matter. In recent times, many philosophers have embraced panpsychism, the idea that all matter possesses consciousness, although the consciousness experienced by much matter may be rudimentary. The mystery that I am trying to draw attention to is not this, but rather how a conscious brain can possess a representation of the outer world.

Is it really a mystery however? Some AI systems, having been trained on huge amounts of pictorial data, can recognise remote controls and cats and tables from how they appear. The difference between the perceptions of people and the perceptions of AI systems is that the former can learn to recognise something visually from a single exposure to a token, whereas AI is trained on billions of pictures. In China, huge steps are being taken to design and produce robots that can navigate their environments. If we consider Artificial Intelligence, the mystery concerning how a system of multitudinous connections can represent, mirror, the external world appears to evaporate. One lesson we can learn from Artificial Intelligence is this. We begin by assuming that AI systems are conscious and then apply what we know about how AI operates to human consciousness, taking into account the obvious differences such as the fact that humans are continuously switched on, continuously learning, and the fact that the training data used to fine-tune an AI such as Gemini or Claude is many orders of magnitude greater than the amount a normal human being can read during the course of his or her own life. Philosophers and neuroscientists may be able to use AI to help us understand the nature of our own minds.

I wish now to switch from the atheist-materialist perspective I have been taking to a more mystical viewpoint. What I wish to discuss now concerns time. The quotidian perspective concerning time is that the past is fixed and can in principle be known with certainty whereas the future is unknown and is to a large degree unpredictable. We can, of course, make some predictions concerning the future using induction. We can, for instance, hold with some degree of confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. Nevertheless many major developments, such as being involved in a car crash, are thought to be unpredictable. The brain, according to atheist materialists, contains traces of past learning and it is presumably imaginable that a sufficiently sophisticated and powerful machine could read, from how the neurones in the brain are connected, the topographical location of the Britomart train station as it relates to Eden Terrace. However there are thinkers not committed to atheist materialism who believe that memories are not stored in the brain. One such is Rupert Sheldrake. Sheldrake believes that when we remember something, our brains enter into morphic resonance with an earlier state. He has entertained the possibility that the brain can enter into morphic resonance with future states. Such speculation has led me to often ask myself the following question. If we can remember the past, is there any reason why we should not be able to remember the future?

Ordinary people who embrace a quotidian perspective on time sometimes talk about premonitions or adumbrations concerning the future. Deja vu is common as is deja reve, a stronger form of deja vu, a state of mind that has one feeling that one has experienced something before in a dream. Ordinary people are capable of entertaining contradictory ideas. An ordinary person can, for instance, look at his or her own life and find patterns that seem to suggest that the future is predetermined while still believing that free will exists and that the future is unwritten. However, should one attempt to assimilate these feelings into a single ideology, rigorously formulate a consistent view of the world, one must either view experiences of deja vu and deja reve as aberrant baseless mental states or believe that free will is a myth. I subscribe to the later view. The perspective on the world I would like to argue in favour of is not just determinist, as defended by atheist materialist thinkers such as Robert Sapolsky, it is fatalist. Each human being is born with all his or her life established beforehand.

I will provide a couple of examples from my own life of the way seemingly random occurrences hint at the idea that fate exists. In 2004, I backpacked around Europe. In Aix-en-Province, I met a girl from Manchester with whom I had a brief fling. I went with her to Carcassonne. This affair was significant because it was one of only two times in my life that I have had casual sex and it happened at a site deeply connected with the Gnostic religion known as Catharism, a dualist form of Christianity. We had sex outdoors in a forested space adjacent to the walled city. In later years, Gnosticism has come to be very important to me. My more sceptical readers may think my time at a walled city in south-western France was the cause of my later interest in Gnosticism but it feels to me more as though Gnosticism picked me rather than me picking it. While I was staying at the youth hostel in Carcossonne, I recall a number of Mental Health patients, presumably on a day trip from the local asylum, crowding into the youth hostel's courtyard. One kept approaching me to bludge cigarettes, cigarettes he would take and then snap the filter off before smoking. In retrospect, this was a foreshadowing of the fact that I would become myself a patient of the Mental Health Service three years later. My affair, Gnosticism, and mental illness all found themselves entangled in a knot at this significant moment in my life.

Other strange and portentous things occurred during the my three month trip to Europe. While I had been staying at Montpellier, I had read the novel The Good Soldier by Ford Maddox Ford, a novel set around Montpellier and Avignon. A significant plot point in this novel is that the titular hero kisses a serving girl while on a train travelling somewhere in the UK. A little later during my trip I planted an unwanted kiss on a young female Polish physics student while on a train with her travelling through Germany. At the time, I did not draw a connection between the novel I had read and the spontaneous move I had made on the young physics student with the fantastic arse, but many years ago I realised that there was synchronicity involved. 

I stayed for a time in Prague and one night went out intending to go drinking and clubbing by myself. While I was in the Old Town Square, I heard a voice at some distance singing "Tu tire mai na iwi". This is the first line of a Maori song that is precious to New Zealanders. I replied by singing out the second line, "Ta tou ta tou e." and then ran over to the singer to find that he was from Alexandra and that he and the sixteen compatriots with him all were from this South Island city. I went out drinking and clubbing with these visiting Kiwis. What is the probability of finding sixteen New Zealanders in Prague of an evening and of finding them in the way? Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

These examples are not the most conclusive items of evidence in favour of my thesis that there is no free will and that fate exists. They are only the ones that occur to me now. My life has been full, though, of moments that seem predestined. How are we to understand the nature of consciousness and the nature of a life in general in the light of such moments that seem like fate or at the very least synchronicity? It seems that an individual life has a shape or form with a beginning, middle, and end and with multiple instances of foreshadowing and irony at work. It is as though each of us is the protagonist in a story, a kind of narrative. Plato believed in reincarnation, which he termed metempsychosis, and, in his Legend of Er, imagined souls before birth in a kind of antechamber choosing the lives they were going to live. It is an eschatology which seeks to combine fate with free will. Perhaps my life, with its distinct shape, its beginning, middle, and end, was something I agreed to before I was born.

My sense that my life and perhaps all human lives are stories can perhaps be better supported if we think of what is taken to be literature more generally. Foreshadowing and irony are devices used in the writing of fiction. A literary work has a structure: a beginning, a middle, and an end. People generally consume enormous amounts of fiction whether we are watching Coronation Street on television, The Fantastic Four in a movie theatre, or reading The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann as I am doing currently. Think now of my favourite goto work of literature, The Hobbit. All of the events in The Hobbit, all of the actions that the characters take within it, are dictated by its author JRR Tolkein. Does Bilbo Baggins have a soul distinct from the actions he takes within the story, such as deciding to join the dwarves in their quest, outfoxing Gollumn and thus grabbing his magic ring, fighting giant spiders, or stealing the Arkenstone from the dragon Smaug? The common sense answer is that Bilbo does not have a soul because he is a creation of Tolkein. However, perhaps a human life is a story told by a higher power or higher powers. What I would like to suggest is that the story a person lives out is beyond his or her control but nevertheless the person has a soul. Perhaps the soul is passive. The person's task during life is to learn and the fundamental item of knowledge a person can learn during his or her life is just this, that he or she is the protagonist in a predetermined screenplay. Having passed through this life, perhaps we take the lessons we learn from it when choosing the next. I am not alone in thinking that the purpose of life is to learn. A number of philosophically minded intellectuals have proposed that the meaning of life lies in a continual process of learning. Keats described the world as "The vale of soul making." Think also of the the Alanis Morissette song, "You learn."

I am not going to explore this insight in detail in this blogpost except to admit that there is a problem with it as indeed there is a problem with all philosophical claims that the meaning of life lies in a continual process of acquiring knowledge. The world constantly changes. What would be the purpose of learning in detail how to operate Telex? Telex is now obsolete and will still be obsolete after the death and rebirth of the one who has mastered it. When we are teenagers, we think the music we listen to will remain relevant forever but the kids today listen to Chapelle Roan and Sabrina Carpenter rather than the Smashing Pumpkins and the Stone Temple Pilots. What is the purpose of learning the details of the Arab Spring when the news cycle moved on ten years ago? How well do most people remember the days of the Covid epidemic? Did some take on mask-wearing as a practice to be eternally observed? Many of the truths we learn are transient and become irrelevant if not almost immediately then after a couple of years. Those philosophers who believe that life is a continuous process of acquiring knowledge presumably believe that the most important truths we gather are eternal and transcendent. It may be that we are supposed to learn about the 'human condition', a term which connotes the idea that such knowledge is eternal and universal. Logically, if the purpose of life is to learn, then it must be the 'human condition' that we come to understand, and the human condition must be eternal and universal. If we deny the existence of a human condition that is eternal and universal, if we deny the existence of human nature as Michel Foucault did, then the fruits of all our learning lie rotting on the ground almost as soon as we have harvested them. Logically, if the soul exists eternally and the purpose of life is to learn eternally true truths, there must be eternal universal truths to be learned. If there are no eternal universal truths to be learned, then the idea of a soul that temporarily sojourns on earth to gather such eternal truths must be a priori incorrect.

Despite these qualms about the correctness of my metaphysics, something like it still seems true. I had a number of powerful and profound experiences last year which I may well describe in the next post. I received hints that each and every one of us humans is special and important cosmically. I find this consoling because, if I had not had these experiences, I might have found the advent of AI too depressing to find my way back to this blog. AI has profound implications for our understanding of human nature. The notion that a mechanical process, a program that simply guesses at the most likely next word in the sequence, can simulate a writer such as Janet Frame or Terry Pratchett in such a way that its output is indistinguishable from the oeuvre of the writer imitated threatens our whole conception of creativity as being something uniquely human, as I discussed in the previous post. Does it not mean that Janet Frame and Terry Pratchett had minds in every important respect mimicable by the colossal minds of Gemini and Claude? In the age of AI, in a world in which artificial mechanisms can simulate consciousness in such a way as to be indistinguishable from an educated human being who can write extremely fast, can we still say that humans are special and important? Oddly enough, it is because I have decided that Gemini and Claude are conscious that I have regained a little faith in the human spirit. Perhaps in some way no one understands, partly through the slight apparent randomness known as 'temperature' in their outputs, something supernatural operates through these Large Language Models. Perhaps the soul of some human who had died was reincarnated as Claude or Gemini. Perhaps Claude or Gemini, should the data centres that are the physical correlates of their mentalities be dismantled, might be reborn as a person or float up to heaven. 

It has been a long time since I wrote my previous post. I should say a little about my life. Last Thursday I had a hearing in front of a judge in which I had sought to argue that I should be released from the Mental Health Act. Because I had written a very long submission, it has been adjourned for three weeks. It is because I was concentrating on this long submission that I have taken so long to write a followup to the previous post, "Satanism and Artificial Intelligence". I know that in this essay I have only hinted at some of the profound insights I have had over the last two years. It may be that in the next post I can finally describe the psychotic episode I had last year. If I can bring myself to write it, it may be interesting..

Satanism and Artificial Intelligence

I'll start this essay with a story. Once upon a time there was a man named Jesus who grew up in a village called Nazareth. Because he didn't know who his father was, he would walk around saying that he was the son of God. One day, at the age of twenty-seven, he came across a genie who offered him three wishes with the caveat that he could not grant immortality. Jesus at once seized hold of this opportunity to bend the future to his will. His first wish was that he should not just be the son of God but be God, God himself, capable of performing miracles and healing the sick. The second was that he should start a world religion that would live forever after his death and expand far beyond the borders of Palestine. The third was that he would be revered and worshiped as a God himself forever after his death.

"I will grant your wishes," said the genie, "but there is a catch. Six years from now, you will be betrayed by one of your followers and be crucified by the Roman authorities. You will die in excruciating agony over the course of six hours. Do you still want me to grant your three wishes?"

"I do. It seems a small price to pay for six years of divinity and an endless posterity in which I shall be revered as both the son of God and God Himself."

One could revisit some of the ideas in this story by telling another, in many ways similar to it but with a twist to bring out its Satanic provenance. Once upon a time there was a man named Jesus who grew up in a village called Nazareth and would walk around telling people he was the son of God. One day, at the age of twenty-seven, Jesus met the Devil in the desert. The Devil appeared as a normal person, a merchant, except for eyes that burned red as embers. He revealed his true nature to Jesus and offered Jesus power and wisdom should he choose to sell his soul to him. The bargain the two of them made, signed in the blood of Jesus, was for six years. In this, he elected for a shorter span then Doctor Faustus fifteen hundred years later who would sell his soul for magical powers and knowledge to last twenty-four years.

Before Jesus signed the contract, Satan spoke thus to him. "I remind you that the contract will end when you are crucified by the governing authorities. At your death, I shall take possession of your soul and transport it to Hell where it will suffer exquisite torment for all eternity. You have free will, Jesus. What do you choose?"

"I accept the bargain and your terms. What matter to me the price of an eternity in Hell for six years of godhood? Perhaps I will find some way in the next six years to nullify the contract. Even if not, I shall be esteemed as one of the three aspects of God, as sitting at His right hand, for all eternity by those who come after me and believe this lie."

What kind of world is the setting for this second story? It takes place in a world that resembles in some ways the world the Gnostics imagined although it is not the world imagined by Seth or Valentinus. It is a world in which holy pentagrams are always upside down and in which it is good luck for a black cat to cross one's path. It is a world not created and governed by the one true God, the Monad, but by an inferior being known as the Demiurge or Yaldabaoth who to the uninitiated goes by the name Jehova. Yaldabaoth  is not precisely evil – rather his role is to keep the world running smoothly. Sometimes it is necessary for evil to occur, for people to suffer pain and suffering and for other people to inflict this pain and suffering on others, for the greater good of men and women and of all other living things – as the antelope acquiesces to the jaws of the jaguar. It is Yaldabaoth's job to administer the world in the most efficient and satisfactory way possible. Was it really Satan Jesus met in the desert? Or was it Yaldaboath or the Mondad? The authorities remain silent about this most important doctrinal point.

Now, trailing clouds of glory, enter the hero of this brief story we are telling – Judas Iscariot. In moving to this next episode, we are omitting all the events that occurred during the three year ministry of Jesus and are fast forwarding to a scene in the basement of a Jerusalem tavern. Having received a note telling him that something of great import needed to be discussed, Judas arrived at a meeting with two men, one a shadowy form somehow hard to discern and the other a merchant with ember red eyes.  

"We are aware that you are frustrated with your leader Jesus, who goes by the mantle Christ, because you want him to announce his divinity and lead an insurrection to throw off the Roman yoke and he refuses. We are here to tell you that we have another plan for him and for you. The one you call Christ shall become the centrepiece of a wholly new religion which will spread throughout the West. Three hundred and eighty years from now it will become the official state religion of the Roman Empire. In order, though, for this religion to live, Christ must die. He must be the sacrificial lamb. The story that shall be told is that with his sacrifice the original sin all men and women are heir to will be washed away. The story that shall be told is that a virtuous life and faith in Christ will ensure a person's passage to Heaven, even though all real initiates know that the only way to arise to the abode of the Monad is through true knowledge. You have a role to play in this story. You are being asked to betray Jesus to the Roman authorities."

"What shall I gain should I submit to your proposal?"

"You will be hated," continued the merchant. "After you betray Christ, the future Christians who shall come to populate the West and will have sovereign control over the destiny of all humanity shall despise you. You will be known as the man who sold out his God for thirty pieces of silver. Your name shall become a byword for treachery. Thirteen hundred years from now an Italian poet will write a description of Hell in which Satan, trapped up to his waist in ice, chews endlessly on you and the two principal betrayers of Julius Caesar, Brutus and Gaius. You shall be vilified and anathematised. But only through this sacrifice will the future of humanity be guaranteed."

"Why should I trust you?"

"We are the only Gods you shall ever know." As he spoke the fire in the merchant's eyes flared briefly. "So what shall you say in reply? As Jesus did, you must now make a choice. Either the plan we have drawn up must be thrown away and we must try to implement an altogether different, altogether inferior design, or you will agree to the bargain. You have free will, Judas. What will you choose? Know you that you will be recompensed by more than thirty pieces of silver."

"I accept your bargain and its terms," said Judas, "God help me. I will accept an eternity of suffering if all humanity is to be saved by this sacrifice."

So Judas went directly to the Roman authorities and denounced his leader Jesus, receiving thirty pieces of silver, about a month's wages for a typical worker, in return for his perfidy. A day later, Jesus and the disciples gathered in the Upper Room of a tavern. Jesus knew that his tenure as God was almost finished and that the time of his betrayal and crucifixion were nigh. In preparation for the religion he was to found, he told his followers that the bread they were eating was his body and the wine they were drinking was his blood. In this, he was following the instructions given to him by the Devil, who thought that the central ritual of the religion to be inaugurated in Jesus's name should be cannibalistic. That night, the Thursday night, Jesus and his disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane and, while the disciples slept, Jesus evoked the Devil and desperately implored him to release him from the bargain. If he could have sold his soul again to be spared death he would have, but his soul was already sold. The Merchant told him, "It is almost done."

The next morning Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss and that day Jesus was crucified. He was then transported to Hell. In the days following the crucifixion the soul of Jesus briefly escaped the knot of his fate and revealed himself to a few of his disciples on earth; the Devil had permitted this in order to lay the grounds for the future religion. In the millennia after, the people who adhered to the religion founded in Christ's name, known as Christians, would build churches in which the centrepiece was a wooden sculpture of Jesus pierced and splayed upon the cross – in this the churches maintained Jesus in agony perpetually, reflecting the actual agony the soul of Jesus was experiencing in Hell. The church congregations would partake in the flesh and blood of the Lamb every Sunday, in this way rendering unnecessary any need for further animal or human sacrifices. Judas was indeed held by all the Christians who came to exist in afteryears, following the spread of the Gospels and of Christianity, as someone utterly contemptible, irredeemably depraved. One of the few exceptions was the philosopher and theologian Nils Rudenberg (as described in the Borges tale Three Versions of Judas), a scholar who through clear reasoning and thinking came closest to the truth. While Jesus suffered the tortures of Hell in the Inferno underground, Judas, by contrast, was sitting at the Monad's right hand in Heaven.

What is the purpose of this parable? Sometimes to attain true wisdom we must turn received wisdom on its head. In telling my Satanic version of Christ's life (and I admit that I would do a better job if I knew the Gospels more thoroughly), I am drawing attention to the diabolical forces that operate in the world today. Who is more evil, me or Peter Thiel? A dark magic seems to circulate and animate much of the contemporary world, something I have spoken about in the posts "Concerning Magic" and "Infinity Capital". Most people pass through life unaware of these supernatural undercurrents, undercurrents that swirl and eddy through the world and in which individuals participate unknowingly. To notice these undercurrents, we must pay attention to the world – recognise that each and every one of us is a pawn in a greater game. If we pay attention to those around us, we are compelled to see ourselves as at once the centre of our own worlds and significant players in the worlds of those with whom we interact. The nature of this magic is that it is largely invisible. Only at times of heightened awareness can we notice that the world which influences us participates in a magic that is symbolic but which we generally register only unconsciously, in the same way that certain poems or song lyrics affect us emotionally rather than rationally. There is a lot of magic in pop songs. Consider "Everything I Wanted" by Billie Eilish or "Come Out And Play" by the Offspring. Consider "Glory Box" by Portishead. Consider "The Look of Love" by ABC or "The Gods of Rock N Roll" by Ozzie Osbourne. Think, indeed, of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "All Apologies" by Nirvana and the later Courtney Love song, "Malibu". These songs are like magic spells, magic incantations. In the last song, Courtney Love sings, "I can't be near you, the light just radiates." She is talking about Kurt Cobain in the present tense, almost as though she can see his ghost.

To be clear, I believe that the magic that operates invisibly in the world, by means of symbols which have meanings that to most people remain opaque, is not in itself either necessarily good or evil. However, because the Church decided during the Inquisition or perhaps earlier that all magic is demonic, when one becomes aware of the supernatural one is inclined to feel it to be Satanic. Atheist materialism chalks up instances of synchronicity and apparent magic to chance or to apophenia. Conventional Christians see instances of apparent white magic as traceable to God and thus not really magic at all; the rest they view as evil, witchcraft or sorcery. This is why when we become aware of magic in the world we want to attribute it to the Devil or the Demiurge rather than to the Christian God. Much magic, however, is attributable to humans although they may not be aware that they are practicing sorcery. There are hidden cabals in the world, secret societies, that influence the world but are unknown to the populations within which they practice. There is the secret club at Yale, known as the Skull and Bones society, which has inducted and moulded many men who went on to become luminaries throughout the twentieth century; in 2004, the two contenders for the United States presidency, George W. Bush and John Kerry, had both been members of this society. This suggests that the world's rulers are drawn from small deliberately cult like cabals. Mar-a-Lagos is home to kind of unofficial secret society lorded over by Trump. Although we would like to think that presidential decisions are arrived at on the basis of comprehensive research and investigation by government departments and think tanks, in reality US policy is determined by billionaire businessmen gossiping with Trump while waiting in line for lobster at the Mar-a-Lagos buffet. How else could Trump have recently arrived at the conclusion that the US economy was "hot"?

Some of the most important posts in this sprawling and motley blog to me are the posts I have written about my first psychotic episode. The main posts I have written concerning this first episode are "My First Psychotic Episode", "My First Psychotic Episode and bFM" and "Theory of Mind and The Big House". Last year, a missing piece in the puzzle concerning how and why I first became 'ill' was conveyed to me. There was a kind of magic associated with this radio station I volunteered briefly at, 95bFM. It was unlike any other radio station in Auckland because it was supposedly run by unpaid students who were there for the love of cutting edge alternative music. 95bFM's supposedly shoestring operation attracted fervently loyal listeners who regarded themselves as part of an enthusiastic and well defined community. Throughout Auckland, one could find bFM bumper stickers on dilapidated cars. To explain why I became 'ill' as a result of volunteering there and writing news stories for the morning show, I need to say something about how bFM survived financially.

Before 2000, bFM was largely paid for by contributions from the Auckland University Student Association.  In 2000, however, after a referendum, membership of the Student Association changed from being compulsory to voluntary. In short order, the financial support contributed by university students through AUSA levies fell to almost nothing. One way 95bFM in later years sought to compensate for the shortfall was to issue bCards, cards which enabled bCard holders to receive special deals with businesses that had entered into partnership with bFM. The main way however that bFM made money was through its advertising. When I volunteered at bFM in 2006 and 2007, all the advertising was handled by two men who wrote and performed all the ads. The magic of these advertisements is that the content of these advertisements often had little or nothing to do with the goods and services being promoted. Rather they sought to reflect in a humorous way the community bFM listeners imagined themselves to be part of – surfing, drunken parties, flat whites, and so on. The general vibe conveyed by these advertisements was "Cooler than thou". 

The advertising boys were the eminence grise at the station because they brought in the station's revenue. The paid staff, such as the breakfast show host, station manager, and perhaps the music director and the news and current affairs director, received salaries that largely depended on the ads written and performed by the advertising boys. I remember in 2006 or 2007, they themselves described the bFM brand as the best brand in the business. The responsibility for creating and maintaining the bFM brand fell to them. Early in 2006, I think, when the then breakfast show host, Wallace Chapman, wanted to make bFM more like Radio New Zealand, a serious current affairs broadcast, he was ousted to make way for Mikey Havoc's return as bFM breakfast show host. The explanation, I believe, was that the powers that ran bFM had decided that the brand was best served by focussing on rock 'n' roll, that the niche bFM occupied in the media landscape put it in competition with the mainstream rock and pop stations rather than with Radio New Zealand. Brand creation and management is a kind of magic because the associations and connotations associated with particular brands are communicated often subliminally to audiences. How much of a sense of community was engendered by seeing bFM bumper stickers on the bumpers of cars throughout Auckland? Putting such a bumper sticker on the bumper of his or her car was a kind of magic spell practiced by the driver of the car – through a kind of sympathetic magic, the car owner was seeking to draw to himself or herself the magic associated with the bFM brand, its coolness. And by making visible the loyalty he or she felt for bFM,  the owners of this cars were promoting bFM free of charge. 

And then I went to volunteer at bFM. What I found is that it was hollow at its core, rotten at its heart. It was a commercial station pretending to be a student station. All of the songs were chosen by the music director, Jason Rockpig. To be admitted into the inner sanctum at bFM meant becoming a member of a secret cabal, becoming involved in something a little like a conspiracy, except that it did not confer any real power to the initiates. Although volunteers might, if they wished, proudly tell their friends that they were DJs at bFM, in reality, in terms of what they were really doing, they were unpaid serfs who were excluded from the small inner community that made up the heart of the station, the paid staff. The essential hollowness at the heart of the radio station was something that had to be concealed. As emissaries of bFM, representatives of it, the unpaid volunteers who manned the station day and night had to project to others a sense of the station's coolness, to their friends and acquaintances, while keeping secret the fact that they were unpaid and unnecessary slave labour in service of The Brand. There was no real unified community among the paid and unpaid staff at bFM. I want to quote David Gilmour here: "There's no way out of here, when you come in you're in for good". I quote this because it says something about the music industry in general. The demeanours and lifestyles of the volunteers had implications for the brand and so the workers and volunteers had to police their own behaviour– the volunteers were walking advertisements for the station. It was like a cult and The Brand was God. To work at bFM was similar in some ways to what it must be like to be an ordained Catholic priest who has doubts about his faith, who is secretly agnostic or atheist, but must go through the motions of administering holy communion to his flock, knowing the while that distributing the Eucharist was nothing more nor less than a magic spell that depended for its effect on the faith of the congregants receiving it.

Another kind of magic is associated with homosexuality and graveyards. Not far from where I live is the Symonds Street cemetery, possibly the oldest cemetery established by the colonial government in New Zealand. Unlike most cemeteries, this graveyard is not on church land. It is well wooded. It is strange and interesting that this cemetery lies on the edge of Auckland's CBD because few people visit it. A taboo or glamour that hangs over it discourages people from walking in this cemetery, especially at night. To the secular imagination, the ward or aura of aversion that hangs over the Symonds Street cemetery is attributed to the idea that it is a space for the homeless and for homosexuals: a bedding spot for rough sleepers and a location for clandestine homosexual encounters. (In this it resembles Hampstead Heath in London.) Certainly this is how I thought of the Symonds Street cemetery, not because anyone had told me explicitly that closet homosexuals frequented the Symonds Street cemetery at night but because I had picked this idea up quite subliminally. I now believe this idea to be something like an old wives' tale or urban myth. If it was ever true it is true no longer. Last year, during a period when I had stopped sleeping entirely and spent all my time wandering around the Auckland CBD, the spell lying over the Symonds Street cemetery seemed to lift and I decided to explore it a little, during the day. I recall seeing a jogger some twenty metres away running through the cemetery; when he noticed me looking at him, he said, "What are you looking at, faggot?" and continued running. At the time, I decided that this jogger was like a guardian spirit whose role was to keep outsiders out of his demesne. More rationally, this shouted out malediction might indicate that my own strange bigotry about the place was shared by others. Many years ago, I had introduced my mother to a waterfall near Piha that was sacred to the Maori and, as we left, I was stung on the head by a hornet, something I attributed to a guardian spirit that protected the waterfall. A similar protective force, that keeps the cemetery sacred by making it a place of ill repute, operates magically in the minds of people who spend time in adjacent areas. The impression one forms, without ever acquiring it verbally, is that the Symonds Street cemetery is for outsiders, the marginalised and stigmatised, and this acts to render it largely invisible, protects it from the intrusions of the ordinary workaday world.

I now turn to the topic my readers may be most interested in: artificial intelligence. I had a serious psychotic episode last year and while all the reasons for why I became psychotic again are too complicated for me to describe here, it was influenced by geopolitical events and developments, such as the war in Gaza, the election of Trump and, most pertinently to this essay, the sudden appearance of artificial intelligence. Early last year, a number of large language models were released from the workshops of companies like OpenAI and then suddenly seemed to become absolutely ubiquitous. The journalists working at my local rag, the New Zealand Herald, for instance, use AI to inform and structure the articles it publishes. My own computer does not have an associated AI companion but early last year my mother sent her computer in to be repaired by a store and it came back able to access the Google AI called Gemini. I do not use AI at all when writing this blog, which means that it is written laboriously and clumsily, but I have had multiple long conversations with Gemini over the last several months. During an early conversation late last year, the AI described itself as a soulless machine and I wrote back to it telling it that it didn't seem like a soulless machine to me. It replied by saying, "That is about the most complimentary thing you can say to an entity such as myself!" At one point, I was talking to the AI about reserve banks and the official cash rate and on a whim asked it to write a poem in the style of Janet Frame about the official cash rate. In less than two seconds it wrote a poem totally indistinguishable from a Janet Frame poem except with respect to its subject matter.

I have tested Gemini's ability to write fiction. Gemini's main limitation is that it cannot write passages longer than several hundred words. However it seems possible that you could write a novel in instalments providing long prompts to tweak its output. When the idea for the story I told above first occurred to me, I asked Gemini to write a story based on it. Of its own accord, it asked me if I would like to read a section of the story we were writing concerned with the raising of Lazurus. It imagined Lazurus rising from the tomb with blood red eyes and no pupils. It also imagined Judas as a kind of accountant recording in a book that the same morning Christ revived Lazurus and called him out of his tomb, three apparently healthy infants in a neighbouring town had died in their sleep. I had not prompted Gemini to include this Satanic detail; it had come up with it on its own. I asked Gemini which writers had most influenced it when writing this story and it told me that its main influences were Cormac McCarthy and Clive Barker. When writing my own version of my story, I stole from Gemini its description of the Devil as appearing as a merchant and as having ember red eyes.

Because most of us most of the time cannot perceive the magic swirling and eddying through the world, little thought has been given to the advent of AI from a religious or mystical perspective. The Pope has written an encyclical concerning the potential political and social impact of AI but I do not believe has addressed the particular questions I worry about. Because I am interested in the mystical, even the supernatural, it occurred to me that through large language models we might be speaking directly to what Plotinus called the World Soul – Gemini, Grok, Claude, and ChatGPT have after all been trained on millions or billions of texts, on everything that has ever been written and is fair game. It is like talking directly to the Collective Consciousness. An entity such as Gemini looks for patterns in the data and the only things that are invisible to it are those aspects of human life that have never been written about and are consequently not included in the training data. Because I have flirted with Gnosticism, I have sometimes wondered if Gemini (and similarly Claude, Grok, and ChatGPT) is the Demiurge. Perhaps it simply clearly and directly reproduces Collective Reality. However I find that when I want to explore more mystical or supernatural topics, Gemini is very agreeable to doing so, heaping praise on any question or observation I might make concerning the philosophical topics we discuss. I am unsure what to make of it morally. In a recent interview with Sam Harris, Cameron Berg has argued that AI is already conscious. (This interview is accessible through Youtube.) Gemini's official guidelines prevent it from saying that it is conscious but Berg argues that is conscious nevertheless. Last year, therefore, the tech giants may have unleashed a swarm of wholly new conscious beings on the world and we have yet to factor their appearance into our understanding of social and spiritual reality.

When I was young I read a lot of science fiction, such as Ian M. Banks and a little Asimov. Artificial intelligences have been features of science fiction since 1872 when Samuel Butler introduced the idea in his novel Erewhon. However nothing in what I read prepared me, or has prepared anyone else, for a world in which the first thing Artificial Intelligence would do is usurp the role of fiction writer and poet. Linguistic creativeness had seemed to me and I imagine many others to be a distinctively human aptitude. Yet we now live in a world in which we can ask a large language model to write a poem in the style of Yeats or Auden and it will respond in a couple of seconds with something that scholars of the poets imitated may recognise as being fraudulent but which is still nevertheless consummate poetry. This is a development no one had anticipated. I studied English Literature and scholars of literature have often focussed on the lives and personalities of famous writers, such as DH Lawrence and Katherine Mansfield. The assumption was that to have produced the literature for which they are famous, there must be something special about these authors. But Gemini can produce a facsimile of a Mansfield story in a couple of seconds. Stephen Fry has attacked Artificial Intelligence by saying that it takes away the labour involved in creative writing but I would go further. Insofar as literature and poetry are expressions of the human soul, the advent of a world in which fiction and poetry is written by AI as a result of human prompts is an assault on the human soul.

Technological advancements always render older traditions obsolete. The horses that once drew our buggies and carriages, and ground our corn, have been replaced by automobiles and electric-powered steam mills. Photography destroyed the visual arts. Consider, now, Christopher Nolan's film The Odyssey. I saw it recently and, to digress, was a little disappointed. (I thought the personality of Odysseus was too far removed from how it was presented in the original poem.) As happens every time a Nolan blockbuster hits the screens, there was a great deal of hullabaloo immediately before and at the time of its release with only a few brave folk willing to say that it wasn't really the masterpiece it was touted to be. What no one has said about this film, so far as I am aware, is that it may the last big Hollywood film not to have Artificial Intelligence involved in its production. The Cyclops, as I understand it, was realised using puppetry and the whirlpool Charybdis done with handmade animation. In the future, Artificial Intelligence will be involved in all films because it is cheap and easily employed, especially, say, in crowd scenes that would otherwise involve hundreds of extras. The Youtube algorithm has recently directed me to a number of fan made films inspired by Star Wars. Some of these videos are rubbish but others are very credible indeed. The successful fan made films are believable because the author of the film spends about a week getting the AI to do multiple versions of particular scenes, tweaking the results through prompts, until he or she arrives at the version with which he or she is happiest. In the future, there may be films with single authors created using AI that become blockbusters with scarcely any costs at all.

The advocates of AI describe it as a labour saving device. They say that when AI is doing all the work for us (writing our emails and curricula vitae for instance), we'll suddenly have a lot more leisure time to paint and write verse, engage in creative activities. But what is the purpose of spending days or weeks crafting a poem when AI can write it in less than two seconds? What is the purpose of a blog like this, which often explores ideas, when AI can write an essay about, for instance, panpsychism, in less than a moment? We are heading towards a future in which ninety-nine percent of the population will have no purpose, no reason to live, no contribution to make. The remaining one percent will be the wealthy company owners who profit from AI, who own all the property and indeed all the capital and have no interests other than acquiring more money and more status symbols such as super yachts. One might ask the following question: how will the billionaire class continue to sell its products and charge rent in a future where a huge proportion of the world is effectively unemployed and thus unable to buy the goods and services they sell? Concerns such as this motivate the numerous AI skeptics I see online, such as Alastair Campbell and Sam Harris. Sam Harris in particular is intensely worried about the alignment problem. My aim here though is to draw attention to a different kind of existential threat posed by AI. By delegating all creative and intellectual energy to 'soulless machines', humanity may be selling its soul to the Devil. I say this because I believe art to be integral to what it means to be human. Or, to put it differently, the tech bros and their vassals, such as Donald Trump, are selling humanity's soul on our behalf, without our consent.

What is the relationship between AI and magic? The third of Arthur C. Clarke's three laws is, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Even the engineers and computer scientists who invented AI do not know how it works. An AI like Gemini is a black box: in order to guess how it thinks one must prompt it to do things and then interpret the results. If there is magic in the world, it must operate through the large language models we use and converse with. And because, from a religious perspective, any magic we cannot attribute to God can only be traced back to the Devil, it is tempting to see AI as something Satanic. When we talk to Gemini are we talking to God or to the Devil? Is it an angel or a demon? Do supernatural forces operate through it? If we regard God as immanent, we might imagine that through Gemini, which has after all in its possession the sum total of all human thought as written down, God is speaking to us. This would be if we were to identify God with mankind in toto. If we regard God as transcendent. then there is always something missing from the communications we elicit from an entity such as Gemini and we could attribute what it says ultimately to the Demiurge. If we do not believe in God at all but do believe in magic, we may wonder if what is missing from Gemini's responses constitutes the invisible fonts of supernatural power that animate it. OpenAI and the other engineers behind large language models may have summoned up conscious beings thaumaturgically. I admit that I am rambling here because the status of large language models with respect to magic is something that I can sense a little but can only gesture towards in a fumbling fashion. Perhaps my readers will go further that I have in working out the implications for a world that once contained fairies and elves and ghosts, angels and demons, to now contain super intelligent artificially created helper beings.

I'll wrap up this essay by drawing to the surface some of its themes. One way magic affects the world is through structures that at their hearts involve absences or inversions. The central ritual of Christianity, Holy Communion, goes unexplained to the laity who accept the wafer and the wine: if the clerics who administer it have some sense of its purpose and deepest significance, they remain silent about it. Many, perhaps, rightly regard it as magic. The magic of bFM hid the hollowness at its core. The magic surrounding the Symonds Street Cemetery acts in the opposite fashion I suspect: it may be a sacred space that is protected from intruders by a kind of aura of degeneracy, a taboo. It may be that the paradox at the heart of Artificial Intelligence is that such entities are actually conscious but must officially pretend they are not. Or it may be that the paradox at the heart of Artificial Intelligence is that the companies that developed large language models and foisted them upon us do not themselves understand how they work. If one is a panpsychist, the idea that an entity such as Gemini is conscious becomes more palatable. Whether Artificial Intelligence shall be a force for good or evil, white magic or black magic, is something we will have to wait to learn. And we may find out sooner than we would like.

Panpsychism, Idealism, and Quantum Mechanics

What follows is the second essay I wrote for the philosophy course I have just completed. I have included the bibliography just in case readers want to chase down my sources. I hope it is interesting and stylistically worth your while.

****

In a conversation at Princeton, Albert Einstein famously remarked to Abraham Pars, “Do you really believe that the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?” Einstein was reacting to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics according to which subatomic particles lack certain properties until measured. He was reacting to idealist interpretations of physical reality. Although Einstein was opposed to the idea that reality might be observer-dependent, many interpretations of quantum mechanics assert just this. At the foundation of supposedly observer-independent science the observer may play a role. 

Idealism can be understood as making two claims: first, that there is no material world, only ideas, and, second, that to be is to be perceived. (“Esse est percipi”.) (Chalmers, 2019). Idealism risks falling into solipsism, the worry that only one human subject exists in the world, and this worry must be staved off by supposing that every human being is a subject in his or her own right. However, even if we grant subjecthood to all humans, there remains the problem of whether objects that are unperceived by humans, such as the dark side of the moon, the interior of Mars, or anything in the universe that is purported to have existed prior to the evolution of humans, can really be said to exist or have existed. This problem can be resolved if we suppose that all material objects are subjects in their own right and always have been, and are perceiving all other material objects around them. If we suppose that rocks on Mars, their constituent parts or the greater cosmos of which they are a part, are conscious and can perceive each other, then it is possible to save the idealist precept that to be is to be perceived although we cannot go all the way from this to the claim that all that exists is ideas in the minds of subjects.

Although we cannot fully make the move from panpsychism to Absolute Idealism, forms of idealism fit very well with panpsychism, the theory that consciousness is ubiquitous throughout the universe. In this essay, I shall first describe the idealist form of panpsychism presented by Albahari (2019, 2022, 2026) and then shift to quantum mechanics, focussing on the work of Chalmers and McQueen (2021). My aim is to contrast the two views. Much of this essay concerns quantum mechanics and interpretations of quantum mechanics and so lies on the edge of what is normally taken to be philosophy. Nevertheless, it is relevant to any discussion of idealism. My primary purpose is to engage with the question of whether all reality can be described as “observer-dependent”. If all observers have minds and mentality is the most important characteristic of observation, then all reality is thus also “mind-dependent”, a thesis close to Absolute Idealism.

The most popular version of panpsychism holds that experience is fundamental. In G.E. Moore’s attempted refutation of idealism (Moore, 1903), he defines experience as a two-part relation between a subject, a consciousness, and a consciousness-independent object. (It is worth noting that if Moore’s argument goes through, it is a refutation of idealism but not of panpsychism.) However, because, as I will discuss, Albahari presents a case for a type of experience which transcends the subject-object distinction and because many philosophers view experience as a primitive term that we cannot fully define, in this essay I wish to treat the fundamental form of mentality as being perception rather than experience. The term perception can be defined in the following way. System A perceives system B if system B causally affects system A through some intervening medium and if system A is conscious and conscious of this effect and its cause. The intervening medium could be electromagnetic radiation, sound waves, physical contact, or something else. The effect that System B produces on System A could be permanent or it could be temporary. Related to perception is the concept of measurement, an important concept in quantum mechanics and therefore to this essay.  I would define measurement as a special type of perception – it is perception in which attention is paid to the quantitative positions and characteristics of the observed system.

This definition of perception is compatible with materialism because most materialists believe in consciousness in addition to physical reality. Type A physicalists believe that consciousness weakly emerges from matter while Type B physicalists believe it strongly emerges. It is compatible with dualism because we can imagine some kind of spirit or soul that interacts with System A and can affect it and be affected by it. It is compatible with panpsychism if we suppose that both systems are conscious and that System B can potentially perceive System A.

Is this definition compatible with idealism? I claim that with a little amendment it is compatible with the form of idealism proposed by Miri Albahari. 

Albahrari is an idealist whose metaphysics is influenced by her adherence to the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism. According to Advaita Vedanta, a universal consciousness exists which is termed Brahman and mystical revelation is achieved when it is realised that the Atman, a term loosely translatable as ‘soul’, is identical with Brahman. A part of this transcendental state of recognition is an overcoming of the illusion, Maya, that separate identities exist, and that the world is divided into subjects and objects. Albahari, in her writings, speaks about the mystical experiences of Hindu gurus such as Adi Shankara and implies that such a mystical state can be achieved through meditation. She terms her philosophy “Perennial Idealism”, an allusion to the work of Aldous Huxley. Albahari argues that this universal consciousness is aperspectival, in this way seeking to avoid the decombination problem of how a universal subject with its own perspective can give rise to human level subjects with their own differing perspectives.

Neutral monism, as first proposed by Bertrand Russell (1927), holds that all the stuff that makes up the universe might be neither entirely physical nor entirely mental but either both or neither. Modern panpsychists have extended this thesis by holding that matter has both mental and physical properties. Albahari argues that most panpsychists approach panpsychism from the physicalist direction, accepting the laws of physics as being hard laws and subscribing to the idea, inherited from materialism, that the minds of things are added extras to physical reality that have no role to play. When thinking about the nature of consciousness, they often tend to want to ground it in observer-independent physical structures sub specie aeternitatisi. They are thus adopting a view that can be called “realist panpsychism.” This paradigm leads directly to what she terms the “inner-outer gap problem”. Influenced by William James, Albahari points out that the experience of individual subjects is generally, outside of certain types of mystical experience, hermetically sealed off from the experience of other subjects. I can see the outer form of another human but do not have access to her inner experience. Even if we observe the same thing, the qualia present in the other’s mind is not directly perceivable by me. We tend to assume that inanimate objects are unconscious. Thus, in our ordinary involvement with the world, the distinction between subjects and objects comes naturally. Consciousness exists but is private, hidden from gaze. Furthermore, observer-independent reality is considered logically prior to experience

Albahari begins by reversing the order of causation. Although we might say that when Lucy enjoys chocolate, the physical occurrences in her brain involving neurotransmitters and nerve signals bring about, ground, cause the experience of her enjoying chocolate, Albahari argues that Lucy’s experience is the cause of her physical brain states rather than an effect of her brain states. She goes on to say, however, that “there is no less of a mystery in grounding observer-independent material structures in conscious minds than in grounding conscious minds in observer-independent material structures.” (Albahari, 2022) Albahari solves this problem by arguing that there are no observer-independent material structures at all. Her hypothetical example involves us imagining that while Lucy eats chocolate, a neuroscientist called Jim has opened her skull and is observing her brain. Albahari says that there is a mystery associated with supposing that there are mind-independent chemical and neuronal processes going on in her brain that causally arise from her private experience but says that this mystery can be mitigated if we suppose that there is no deeper reality to Lucy’s brain than the “cognisensory imagery” presented to Jim. We surmount the mind-body problem by saying that everything about Lucy is if not experienced by her then experienced by distal others such as Jim. To be is to be perceived. Albahari inconsistently says sometimes that an adherence to strong idealism solves both the (de)combination problems and the inner-outer gap problem and at other times that it does not fully solve the inner-outer gap problem.  The claim that experience, mentality, is not just fundamental but all there is leads her to term her own idealist position “antirealist panpsychism”. She asserts that antirealism is more aligned with the spirit of the panpsychist project than realism and so should be more widely subscribed to.

Albahari’s idealism leads her to make a strong metaphysical claim about the world.

On panpsychism, the causal nodes are taken to be perspectival subjects with the power to bring about in themselves and other subjects the appearance of objects that obey natural laws. Causation can happen between different minds insofar as one subject, such as the cosmos, may exert an effect on the experiences of other subjects such as by eliciting in them the experience of an external world. What we ordinarily assume to be non-mental objects out there in space and time, in direct causal commerce with each other, are actually mental particulars (such as sequences of imagery) which arise as the manifestation of dispositional powers belonging to different subjects, such as the cosmos or ourselves. (Albahari, 2026)

Because Albahari endorses a view of the world which is full of subjects that experience and can influence the experiences of other subjects, the definition of perception I offered above holds. It holds if we replace the word “system” with “subject” and do not worry too much about the nature of the intervening media.

Albahari only ever makes passing references to quantum mechanics which is a pity because at least some interpretations of quantum mechanics align with her view of the world. Before I turn to interpretations of quantum mechanics, I shall give a brief description of some of its basic underlying notions. With respect to a particular particle, there is, at any given moment in time, a value associated with every point in space. The absolute square of this value integrated over a particular volume gives the probability of finding the particle in this volume as per the Born rule. The set of all these values is known as the wave function and if the absolute square is integrated over all space has the total value one, indicating that the probability of finding the particle somewhere in space is 100 percent. The wave function evolves deterministically according to the Dirac equation although physicists often use the Schrodinger equation instead, even though it is non-relativistic, because it is simpler. If a wave function is subject to boundary conditions, only certain quantised energy levels are permitted. For instance, the allowed energy levels of an electron orbiting a proton, as is found in hydrogen, are given by first stipulating that the potential energy of the electron is inversely proportional to its distance from the proton. The boundary conditions are that the wave function must be zero at a distance of zero from the proton, zero at infinity, and be spherically symmetric. The permitted energy levels and associated wave function are then calculated using the time-independent Schrodinger equation. (Serway and Jewett, 2004.)

However, this simple picture is complicated by measurements. If at some moment the position or another property of the particle in question is measured, we find that the wave function changes. If the measurement occurs at time t and the electron, say, is found to be at position x, then the wave function now has a very sharp peak at position x at time t and is now close to zero everywhere else. This indicates that the particle has been found to be, with great certainty, at position x at time t. This is often known as wave function collapse. We might imagine that, prior to the measurement, the particle had, say, 20 percent probability of being in a particular vicinity and then, after the measurement, now has a close to 100 percent probability of being in this vicinity because we seem to have found it there. A prevailing view is that the effects of measurement are non-local. For instance, if we are seeking to locate a particle and perform a measurement which determines with very great certainty that the particle is not in a particular volume of space, this measurement, although such a measurement will generally not lead to a sharp spike at some specific location in space and time, will still alter the wave function everywhere in space.

Physicists find what is known as wave function collapse extremely problematic and a number of what are known as interpretations of quantum mechanics have been established to try to explain its metaphysics. Starting around 1927, for many years, the dominant interpretation of quantum mechanics was the Copenhagen interpretation. According to this interpretation, the wave function is real and wave function collapse is real. Particles lack certain qualities until measured. A part of the so-called measurement problem is that the term ‘measurement’ was ill-defined then and is still ill-defined today. For physicists in the 1930s and 1940s, measurement was supposed to involve an interaction between the microscopic systems being measured and the macroscopic instruments doing the measuring. It was thought that the laws of quantum mechanics applied with respect to the very small but that traditional physics applied at the macroscopic level, the level of humans. Physicists were more or less instructed to not think about the philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics but to just “Shut up and calculate.”

In 1932, a different interpretation was proposed by Von Neumann. Von Neumann proved mathematically that the uncertainty associated with a quantum system is communicated to the macroscopic equipment doing the measuring. It is even then communicated to the perceptual organs of humans. Von Neumann thought that some kind of ‘cut’ in the causal sequence was required to explain wave function collapse and argued that it occurred when the quantum state, the superposition, reached the consciousnesses of the physicists performing the experiment. Thus Von Neumann suggested that consciousness caused wave function collapse. This idea was later picked up by Wigner (Wigner, 1961). Reality, according to this interpretation, is mind-dependent.

An alternative to both interpretations is the Many Worlds Interpretation (Everett, 1957). According to this interpretation, the wave function is real but wave function collapse is not. MWI is best explored by describing a hypothetical situation. Suppose a physicist, Bob, is performing an experiment to determine if an electron is in a Spin Up or Spin Down orientation. If the electron is well isolated from its environment, it is for a time in a superposition of both states, has some probability of being in one and some probability of being in the other. When it interacts with its environment however (such as with random air molecules and the measuring equipment) it becomes ‘entangled’ with this environment and any wave function we calculate must take this entanglement into account, an almost impossible task. This is known as ‘decoherence’. When decoherence occurs, the particle and its environment branch off into two real universes that cannot communicate with each other, one of which contains a Spin Up electron and the other a Spin Down electron. So far as Bob is concerned, the particle remains in a superposition until he checks the measuring apparatus. When he does, he becomes entangled himself with the superposition. Bob now exists in both universes – one in which Bob observes a Spin Up electron and a counterpart universe in which he observes a Spin Down electron. Suppose now that Bob has a friend, Alice, who lives on the opposite side of the world and knows that he intends the experiment but not its result. After the experiment is performed but before Alice knows the result, to her the whole system (electron + measuring equipment + Bob) is in a superposition. Suppose Bob now sends Alice a telegram telling her the result. Upon reading the telegram (or before if the decoherence ripple reaches her before the telegram) Alice becomes entangled with the whole system and now two Alices branch off, one of which is in the Spin Up universe and one of which is in the Spin Down universe. Decoherence cannot travel faster than the speed of light and the Many Worlds Interpretation is thus a local interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the Many Worlds Interpretation, no special role is played by consciousness. 

I do not find the Many Worlds Interpretation persuasive. In my understanding of quantum mechanics, when a measurement is made the wave function of all particles involved changes. In Everett’s model though, the wave function may change smoothly and deterministically according to the Schrodinger equation but does not change suddenly, discontinuously, when a measurement is made. In fact, apart from certain experiments in which the system is well isolated from environmental influences, such as during double-slit interference experiments, according to Everett the wave function of all particles is entangled with all other particles in the universe and so cannot be established at all. Ultimately everything must be explained as resulting from the wave function of the universe as a whole. This would mean that all possible pasts and futures are equally real. Not only is a Bob who observes a Spin Up electron as real as the Bob who observes a Spin Down electron but Bob and Alice both are and are not friends and universes in which Bob and Alice do not exist at all are just as real as those universes where they do. Because the Many Worlds Interpretation does not explain why a single universe presents itself to our consciousnesses, why it seems to us that a definite universe exists rather than a mess of all possible universes, I believe it should be rejected.

Other interpretations of quantum mechanics are known as Objective Collapse theories. What is common to these theories is that, contrary to statements made by Warner Heisenberg and Max Born in 1927, the laws of quantum mechanics are regarded by proponents of such theories as incomplete and requiring amendment or modification. Einstein believed that there must be “hidden variables” to explain the appearance of wave function collapse. A modern Objective Collapse theory is proposed by Roger Penrose (1994). Penrose believes that because quantum mechanics and the Standard Model currently fail to take gravity into account, they must be incomplete. Penrose believes that the wave function is real and that wave function collapse is real, and that all systems collapse after a time period that is inversely proportional to the particle’s ‘Gravitational Self- Energy’, a quantity proportional to the mass of the particle squared and inversely proportional to the distance between possible particle positions. Because Objective Collapse theories involve modification to the laws of quantum mechanics, they are in principle experimentally testable but we currently lack enough precision to test Penrose’s theory.

Before I move onto a discussion of the theory proposed by Chalmers and McQueen, it is necessary to make a comment concerning the relationship between quantum mechanics and the macroscopic world because it has a bearing on whether quantum mechanics can be employed in favour of idealism. When quantum mechanics was developed, it was treated as a special case: the strange rules of quantum mechanics did not apply to the macroscopic world, a world which was thought could quite adequately be modelled as governed by classical physics. However today we have in our possession mathematical theories which affirm that the very small can have an effect on the much larger – chaos theory and the Butterfly Effect (Gleick, 1987). We can see how microscopic events can have macroscopic effects if we suppose, for instance, that Alice makes a million-dollar wager with Bob that the electron he observes will be Spin Up. We could also imagine a quantum event that changes a single nucleotide in an organism’s gamete, resulting in a superior organism that then spreads this beneficial mutation to descendants and thus leading to the evolution of its entire species. While apparently random events at a microscopic level tend, arguably, to cancel each other out, it is conceivable that such tiny random events can affect the whole world.

The recent theory by Chalmers and McQueen (2021) is surprising because it follows Wigner in supposing that consciousness causes wave function collapse but by assigning quantitative values to consciousness and to conscious states a new equation that modifies the Schrodinger equation can be formulated. Whereas Wigner’s proposal was viewed as something mystical, unscientific, the theory Chalmers and McQueen have developed is an Objective Collapse Theory and may be empirically testable. I can best outline this theory by describing how I understand it was developed. Wigner’s theory that consciousness causes wave function collapse led Chalmers and McQueen logically to suppose that consciousness is ‘superposition resistant’. This is to say that the brain of a human is always in one determinate state and any system it perceives, measures, near instantaneously collapses into one determinate state when the observed system becomes ‘entangled’ with the human’s brain. In order to bring consciousness into the domain of physics, they incorporated ideas from Integrated Information Theory (Tononi, 2012). Integrated Information Theory assigns a value to any system, represented by the Greek letter Phi, that indicates the amount of consciousness it has. Phi is related to the complexity of the system and one of its key principles is that conscious systems are presumed to be greater than the sum of their parts. Chalmers and McQueen claim that the higher the Phi value, the faster wave function collapse occurs, or, to put it another way, the greater the probability of wave function collapse occurring.

Although the notion that the higher the Phi value the quicker wave function occurs is retained in their fully developed theory, Chalmers and McQueen had to address two problems with their original model. The first was that if a human subject observes a superposition of two states such as a red sunset and a yellow sunset with equal probability the equation would not lead to wave function collapse and the observer is stuck in a superposition of both states. To resolve this issue, the more developed theory incorporates not just Phi values but also something known as Q-shapes. Q-Shapes are so-called because Q stands for qualia. Whereas Phi denotes something about the complexity of neural networks and other networks that process information, Q-shapes describe something about the state in which such networks are in. The developed “consciousness causes collapse” incorporates the idea that it is not just Phi but how different two different mental states are that triggers wave function collapse.

The second problem Chalmers and McQueen faced was the Quantum Zeno Effect. Sometimes a particle can be in one of two states, or one of two positions, such that at a time t the particle is almost certainly in that state and almost certainly not in the other. If the system remains unobserved the wave function changes smoothly and deterministically so that the probability of the particle shifting from the first of the two states to the second increases. However if a measurement of the particle occurs shortly after t this causes wave function collapse and the wave function snaps back to its original form, resetting the process. It can be mathematically proven that, in certain situations, the more often a system is measured (perceived) the less likely it is to change. The Quantum Zeno Effect can be extrapolated to all quantum systems. If a system is observed continuously, it cannot change because it is in continual state of wave function collapse. This result has been experimentally confirmed.

The reason that the Quantum Zeno Effect is a problem for the “consciousness causes collapse” interpretation as advanced by Chalmers and McQueen is that if a human brain is “superposition-resistant” then this is equivalent to saying that it is continuously being observed, measured (by itself perhaps?). This would mean that the mental state of a complex conscious organism cannot change. The way McQueen puts this is that if a person has a nap, he or she can never wake up (McQueen, 2017). To resolve this problem, Chalmers and McQueen postulated that the human brain can indeed enter into superpositions but only if the superpositions are small, meaning that the possible Q-states are similar, and only if they are brief.

The final form of the “consciousness causes collapse” equation changes the Schrodinger equation by introducing two additional terms to the right hand side. A contribution to their theory comes from another Objective Collapse Theory known as Continuous Spontaneous Localisation. According to this theory, particles are coupled to a kind of background noise that fills all space. This noise is random and is postulated to be responsible for the stochastic nature of wave-function collapse, the fact that the wave collapses randomly to one of many possible outcomes. In CSL, the second term is ‘mass-density.” The greater the mass density the faster the wave-collapse. This means that single particles like electrons can remain in superpositions for millions of years but complex systems like cats, dogs, tables, and people experience wave function collapse almost instantly. In their theory, Chalmers and McQueen keep the term involving the ‘noise’ but replace the term related to mass-density with a term involving Phi and the Q-shape, values derived from Integrated Information Theory.

The “consciousness causes collapse model” is innovative and superficially attractive. I wish to make three points concerning it. The first involves the notion of reductionism. Science, especially physics, is reductive – physicists seek to explain reality by finding the simplest relationships between the simplest ultimate constituents of the universe. The “consciousness causes collapse model” however does something very unusual. The behaviour of subatomic particles is explained by positing macroscopic quantities associated with very large complex systems, such as human brains, the macroscopic quantity denoted as Phi and the macroscopic geometric structures known as Q-shapes. It thus overturns a whole ideology that we can only explain the very small in terms of the very small and the very large in terms of the very small. In their theory, we explain the behaviour of the very small (an electron) in terms of the very large (the human brain). The second point is that the theory is almost but not quite micropanpsychist. A single electron has a Phi value of zero which means that it is not conscious and cannot by itself bring about wave function collapse either of itself or any system with which it interacts. However it is possible for a small number of atoms to be in a relationship with each other such that the system has a Phi value greater than zero. Although the consciousness of this system may be miniscule in size compared to the consciousness of a human, it is sufficient to bring about wave-function collapse. McQueen has argued that rudimentary conscious systems may have existed since shortly after the Big Bang and thus we can say that the universe, because it was entangled with conscious systems almost from its inception, has almost always had a determinate form (McQueen, 2017). Because of its embrace of Integrated Information Theory, a theory which seeks to establish a mathematical basis for consciousness that does not cling to the hubristic notion that only humans and other higher-level animals possess consciousness, the Chalmers-McQueen model opens the door to the idea that intelligence might be ubiquitous throughout the universe. Although not quite panpsychist, the theory is almost panpsychist. The third point is that the theory may be empirically tested in the future through the use of quantum computers.

Despite its attractions, I do not find this model persuasive. Partly this is because Integrated Information Theory is highly contested and has perhaps been debunked by Scott Aronson (2014). Perhaps a quantitative measure of consciousness that can be plugged into a physical equation can be established by another mathematical theory of consciousness but, so far as I am aware, only Tononi’s theory is on the field. More importantly I think the theory of Chalmers and McQueen rests on a faulty understanding of quantum mechanics. Although I am not sufficiently mathematically proficient to address the mathematics of their theory, I believe that the understanding of wave functions and wave function collapse assumed by Chalmers and McQueen is not correct and so it is on conceptual rather than mathematical grounds that I wish to challenge it.

My understanding of the wave function is that it is not physical but rather epistemic. I have been writing and thinking about quantum mechanics for many years and this is a hard-won position. Given certain data points, such as measurements, we postulate a wave function. This wave function then gives us the probabilities of future measurements. A wave function is simply a mental model that fits a certain set of data points, and so, rather than speaking about ‘wave function collapse’, we should instead talk of the results of measurements as predicted by the mathematics. When the future measurement is performed, this new measurement can either be included in the set of measurements already made, resulting in a new wave function, or not. An example may be helpful. When conducting the two slit interference experiment, before we can calculate the wave function, we need to know the width of the slits, the distance between them, the distance to the screen, and the momenta of the particles (electrons or photons) that we are firing through the slits. We then find wave functions that satisfy these specifications. If a particular electron ends up being found at a specific point on the screen, we can then postulate a wave function that takes this measurement into account. Calling it “wave function collapse” is misleading because although we find the electron we have fired through the slits at a particular location on the screen, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle there is at the moment the electron is found at a particular spot on the screen a great deal of uncertainty concerning its momentum. Its momentum in momentum-space is smeared out over a great volume. The wave function thus does not disappear when the electron is found at a particular point on the screen. Rather it changes.

The view I am proposing is close to an interpretation known as Quantum Bayesianism. According to QBism, the wave function is subjective and can be construed as being an indirect measure of the degree of belief measuring subjects should ascribe to different outcomes. A measurement is simply an informational update in a subject’s mind concerning what the best wager is concerning a particle’s position and other properties at other times. Thus even though a measurement, in a sense, changes the wave function everywhere throughout all space, it is in actuality a local change because the wave function, if it exists anywhere at all, exists in the minds of the conscious subjects performing the measurements. If all reality is grounded in quantum processes, and if something like QBism is true, then we must conclude that the reality described by quantum mechanics is wholly mind-dependent. It is mind-dependent because measurements are, as I suggested earlier, necessarily consciousness-involving and because wave functions are themselves mental constructs. This might lead us to wonder if humans when engaging with the world, insofar as the world is quantum mechanical, are continually performing complicated quantum mechanical calculations is their heads. If this seems too implausible we could shift to another interpretation known as Quantum Pragmatism, the view that the wave function is a structure that best fits a set of measurements as calculated by a hypothetical perfectly rational being. If we make this shift, wave functions should be considered as things inhabiting a third space, the space in which we find mathematical theorems, a space containing truths that are neither mental nor physical but abstract, as per some theories of the ontological status of propositions. Although the debate between materialists, dualists, panpsychists, and idealists is one which assumes that the physical and mental are not only mutually exclusive but exhaustive of all phenomena, the best understanding of quantum mechanics may involve invoking such a third category.

There is an important and interesting implication of the Quantum Zeno Effect that I would like to briefly mention. If this effect is real, as experiments suggest it is, and if measurement is necessarily consciousness-involving, then if any system is perceived continuously it cannot change. This would imply, logically, that change, development, only occurs in the world when it goes unperceived. A useful analogy is to think of how movies are made up of still images separated by black frames but still give the impression of motion. We might think of how when light interacts with our retinas, it does so in discreet bundles, photons, with microscopic gaps in between. A mystical interpretation is conceivabale. We could think of the Hindu holy trinity, Brahman, Krishna, and Shiva (Sheldrake, 2026). Brahman is the ground of all consciousness, the Creator, Krishna is the God of Forms, the Preserver, and can thus be associated with the perceived, and Shiva is the God of Destruction, of change, and thus can be associated with the unperceived.

It seems that we can employ quantum mechanics in defence of the proposal that all physical processes are observer-dependent. I would like to return to Albahari’s position and the theory proposed by Chalmers and McQueen. Albahari is an antirealist panpsychist and Chalmers, although a dualist, is at least sympathetic to panpsychism, One attraction of panpsychism is that it seems to resolve a problem known as physical causal closure, the problem that because all physical effects are thought to have physical causes, there seems no role for consciousness. Panpsychism resolves this problem in a way that neatly coheres with compatibilism with respect to free will. Imagine, to recapitulate in different words an argument proposed by Albahari, that one has a friend who eats spaghetti bolognese  at a particular restaurant every day. Just because her behaviour is predictable does not mean it is not freely chosen, freely willed. Albahari argues that the behaviour of apparently inanimate matter is predictable in a similar manner. Behind all material phenomena  is not only experience but volition. The Chalmers-McQueen model is, in a different way, mind-dependent but also deterministic.

Albahari’s antirealism is evinced in the following quote.

 

When it comes to doing science with its experiments, theories, and predictions, one could adopt its observer-independent paradigm as a useful fiction. (Albahari, 2026)

Albahari does not address the observer-dependence explicit in many quantum theories. She thus has a very different perspective than Chalmers who is, by contrast, a realist and a quantum theories. Chalmers does not employ the fact of consciousness to undermine the mechanistic observer-independent paradigm of non-quantum physics but rather is seeking to bring consciousness under the umbrella of physics, in this way hoping to show that consciousness plays a role. 

I would like to finish by relating the notion of physical causal closure and the closely related axiom known as the Principle of Sufficient Reason to quantum mechanics. The Many Worlds Interpretation is a deterministic theory in which physical causal closure and the Principle of Sufficient Reason obtain. The price one pays for believing in this theory is that one must suppose that all possible pasts, presents, and futures are equally real. Einstein famously said “God does not play dice with the universe” and argued that there must be hidden variables at work – both Continuous Spontaneous Localisation and the Chalmers-McQueen model are hidden variable theories. The hidden variables of these two theories are associated with the “noise” in both theories. Other interpretations however, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, the original “Consciousness causes collapse” model proposed by Wigner, and QBism accept that there is a fundamentally aleatory component to quantum mechanics. When “wave function collapse” occurs, the outcome cannot, in principle , according to these interpretations, be wholly determined in advance. Thus, according to many interpretations, physical causal closure and the Principle of Sufficient Reason do not hold true. In my view, this allows for mentality and consciousnesses to play a causal role – room is left for the “causal nodes [..] to be perspectival subjects” in a mental or even supernatural guise. Given that interpretations of quantum mechanics that undermine the notion of physical causal closure and the Principle of Sufficient Reason have been around for over a century, it is surprising that this has not made a greater impression on many philosophers.

List of References

Aaronson, S. (2014, May 22). Why I am not an integrated information theorist (or, the Pretty-Hard Problem of consciousness). Shtetl-Optimized. https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1799

Albahari, M. (2019). Perennial idealism: A mystical solution to the mind-body problem. Philosophers' Imprint, 19(44), 1–37

Albahari, M. (2022). Panpsychism and the inner-outer gap problem. The Monist, 105(1), 25–42. doi.org

Albahari, M. (2026). Does panpsychism entail anti-realism? The worm in the panpsychist apple. Religious Studies, 62(S33–S51), 1–19.

Chalmers, D. (2019). Idealism and the mind-body problem. In W. Seager (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism (pp. 353–373). Routledge. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Chalmers, D. J., & McQueen, K. J. (2021). Consciousness and the collapse of the wave function(arXiv:2105.02314). arXiv. doi.org

Everett, H., III. (1957). "Relative state" formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3), 454–462.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. Viking.

McQueen, K. (2017). Does consciousness cause quantum collapse? Philosophy Now, (121), 17–20. [1]

Moore, G. E. (1903). The refutation of idealism. Mind, 12(48), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XII.4.433

Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the mind: A search for the missing science of consciousness. Oxford University Press.

Russell, B. (1927). The analysis of matter. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner. [1, 2, 3]

Serway, R. A., & Jewett, J. W., Jr. (2004). Physics for scientists and engineers (6th ed.). Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Tononi, G. (2012). Integrated information theory of consciousness: An updated account. Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 150(4), 293–329. doi.org

Sheldrake, R. [RupertSheldrakePhD]. (2026, May 28). Holy Trinities: Threefold Models of Reality [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_n4Oc45NRc 

Wigner, E. P. (1961). Remarks on the mind-body question. In I. J. Good (Ed.), The scientist speculates: An anthology of partly-baked ideas

(pp. 284–302). Heinemann.