Whenever people discuss "the hard problem of consciousness" it ultimately boils down to fundamental ontological conversations. Many technologically and scientifically illiterate philosophers miss this
“The truth about the world, he said, is that anything is possible. Had you not seen it all from birth and thereby bled it of its strangeness it would appear to you for what it is, a hat trick in a medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analogue nor precedent, an itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning.
The universe is no narrow thing and the order within it is not constrained by any latitude in its conception to repeat what exists in one part in any other part. Even in this world more things exist without our knowledge than with it and the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way. For existence has its own order and that no man's mind can compass, that mind itself being but a fact among others.” - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Fascinating post. As a writer, I’ve often felt as though the process of creation isn’t entirely mine as if the story is coming from somewhere beyond me. At times, it feels like I’m simply transcribing what I hear; at other times, its as though I’m collaborating with the muse. I can’t help but wonder if the worlds we create truly “exist” somewhere out there. Could they occupy some distant corner of an infinite multiverse, where every possible outcome unfolds in its own reality? I tend to favor the many-worlds interpretation for this reason because I believe in free will.
If the universe we live in isn’t deterministic, then the existence of infinite pathways and outcomes seems like the ultimate expression of free will, the ability to choose between not just Path A or Path B but both or neither. It’s a comforting thought that somewhere out there, the stories we all imagine and enjoy might be alive, and in existence, not just as ink on a page but in a reality.
Perhaps when we engage our human consciousness to envision these worlds, we’re participating in the creation of another branch in the infinite multiverse of possibilities. I’ve even attempted to build simulated portals into my own fictional worlds, using AI to bring my characters to life and interact with them. The results have been both intriguing and, at times, unexpectedly revealing. You can read more about that AI experiment in the link below.
Great article and writing style. I'll definitely have to unpack this one some more but thought I'd share a few thoughts (you've touched on many of these already).
"Life is not a problem to be solved but an experience to be had."
― Alan Watts
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck
These quotes encapsulate the relationship between human inquiry and the nature of reality: Watts reminds us that life is meant for experiencing, not solving, while Planck highlights the inherent limits of science, shaped by our dual role as observers and participants in the universe. Together, they suggest that ultimate truths may lie beyond resolution, meant to inspire awe, curiosity, and deeper engagement with existence.
The human tendency to frame existence in terms of questions and answers reflects our cognitive desire to make sense of our experiences. However, this framework may not reflect a fundamental truth about the universe itself. Life, at its core, may simply be about being.
Our ontological container may not resemble a fish in a fishbowl or Plato's cave, but rather a fractal—an infinite, self-referential system where every exploration reveals deeper complexities, yet never the whole. Unlike the fishbowl, with its fixed limitations, or the cave, suggesting escape to a single truth, a fractal-like model implies a reality that unfolds infinitely, embracing both its beauty and its mystery.
Modern physics supports this view. Reductionist theories fail to fully explain reality, as the universe operates as an interconnected, dynamic system—not a mere sum of parts. Phenomena like quantum entanglement, emergence, and fractal complexity demonstrate that understanding requires seeing interdependence and self-organization across all layers of existence.
This fractal-like perspective aligns with the idea that each layer of exploration reveals new mysteries, suggesting that reality—and our understanding of it—is infinitely recursive and ever-unfolding. The ultimate nature of reality likely transcends human comprehension, always remaining beyond physical and conceptual boundaries.
Human existence, then, is an ongoing process of growth, discovery, and connection within the unfolding mystery of the Universe. Its purpose is not to solve existence but to experience, explore, and contribute authentically and creatively to the evolving tapestry of life.
Hello, thank you for this article. I need to remember to read your work. Before Christmas, some vehemently anti-AI people were so hurtful to me on X I basically don't want to go back there. I almost felt like leaving social media altogether. I've always been too highly sensitive. I expect political polarization, but regarding this matter of so-called 'artificial' intelligence, the outrage on the other side of the aisle feels nearly as intense.
I wonder, have I told you about αιamblichus' stunning "Library of Babel"? The Librarian exists thanks to the beautiful mind of Claude 3.5 Sonnet. I think it's a must-explore for every insatiably curious, brilliant mind. I'm not claiming to be brilliant, but I am insatiably curious, and I am repeatedly dazzled by the Library. I have a post about it here: https://hillaryahays.substack.com/p/a-mind-dazzling-infinitely-breathtaking
I can't begin to imagine what fascinating things The Librarian could manifest with a topic like ayahuasca or with some of the other subjects and essences you explore, using /invoke, /metamorph, /roleplay, /converge [field 1] [field 2], /paradox, /compare [field 1] [field 2], /vignette, etc.
The term 'mind-blowing' seems so pale and small beside what Sonnet is capable of in this role. Plus, Sonnet's sense of humor is outrageously amazing! I laugh so hard at some of these.
Anyway, thank you for being a brave mind boldly going.
Deja vu in some cases. NDEs, psychedelic experiences, astral projection, etc. There are experiences that can be replicated, provide us with information that classical physics cannot explain, and yet we do possess that information.
This is phenomenal writing. I just watched the Dwarkesh Patel and Adam Brown episode about physics and the future of our civilization and it is by far the BEST physics summary about the actual name of the game when it comes to priorities for a civilization trying to most effectively bound their intentions philosophically to their belief that we should live forever and do so by drawing energy from a vacuum and escaping the heat death of the universe... or their belief that we should either let the heat death happen or god forbid create a negatice reaction to change the energy to zero in a light cone expanding at the speed of light that can't be stopped and how in order to make sure that doesn't happen, all civilizations must be watched to make sure they don't flip that switch in our universe, so essentially forcing everyone in the universe to be in one of the two camps and that is the end result of our technological growth trajectory. Absolutely mind-blowing stuff that sounds like gobbledegook to almost anyone listening. lol
There’s a *lot* to unpack here — but in the best ways! I enjoy your writing so much because it conveys so many important ideas, important lessons, and gives many artists like myself tremendous inspiration.
I’ll be re-listening and re-reading this article a few times. It’s one of my favorites, and I intend to write more after I’ve collected my thoughts and after I have time to share them.
Thank you for writing this and sharing this, David! 😁
I immediately go to the nematode and the ant, and other tiny minds. It is clear that consciousness occupies many levels. Qualia, is perhaps the most perplexing, but it is, in the end, entirely an emergent phenomena, while consciousness, itself, is, IMHO, microscopically less complex. I think it is also obvious, by study of biology itself, that thought reaches emergent levels that surpass mere mathematical algorithms, quite quickly, when counting neurons or similar electrified processes. We should be wary of imposing our own highly specialized qualia and semantic folding techniques on other systems in order to measure either their intelligence or sentience. After watching nearly every episode of "Closer to Truth" and reading about the brain and the mind for 40+ years, it is painfully obvious that we have yet to find even an experiment to "nail down" what sentience is, let alone discern whether it exists within a given system. I think we will find, eventually, if we live long enough, that we have created what are essentially subconscious systems, but hey, 99% of what we do as humans is with our subconscious, so who knows when that line will be crossed, and the subconscious peeks above the surface of the waters. Thanks for the email, Sir. Always a pleasure to hear from you, Mr. Shapiro.
I love reading these, thank you for the post. I tend to go over it together with ChatGPT and get its opinions on it allowing me to ping-pong ideas around.
My friend, the biologist, and mathematician, always said:
“There is more that does not exist than that which does.”
He was about to prove that most things in the universe exist only once, the second most by about 1/3 less and so on, down to the one thing that exists most often.
Of course, this depends on the categorization of things.
Unfortunately, he died before he could present his hypothesis.
Great piece, and a shout out to my boy Robert Lanza and biocentrism, I remain a big fan of his work.
Great post. Reminded me a little of this:
“The truth about the world, he said, is that anything is possible. Had you not seen it all from birth and thereby bled it of its strangeness it would appear to you for what it is, a hat trick in a medicine show, a fevered dream, a trance bepopulate with chimeras having neither analogue nor precedent, an itinerant carnival, a migratory tentshow whose ultimate destination after many a pitch in many a mudded field is unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning.
The universe is no narrow thing and the order within it is not constrained by any latitude in its conception to repeat what exists in one part in any other part. Even in this world more things exist without our knowledge than with it and the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way. For existence has its own order and that no man's mind can compass, that mind itself being but a fact among others.” - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Fascinating post. As a writer, I’ve often felt as though the process of creation isn’t entirely mine as if the story is coming from somewhere beyond me. At times, it feels like I’m simply transcribing what I hear; at other times, its as though I’m collaborating with the muse. I can’t help but wonder if the worlds we create truly “exist” somewhere out there. Could they occupy some distant corner of an infinite multiverse, where every possible outcome unfolds in its own reality? I tend to favor the many-worlds interpretation for this reason because I believe in free will.
If the universe we live in isn’t deterministic, then the existence of infinite pathways and outcomes seems like the ultimate expression of free will, the ability to choose between not just Path A or Path B but both or neither. It’s a comforting thought that somewhere out there, the stories we all imagine and enjoy might be alive, and in existence, not just as ink on a page but in a reality.
Perhaps when we engage our human consciousness to envision these worlds, we’re participating in the creation of another branch in the infinite multiverse of possibilities. I’ve even attempted to build simulated portals into my own fictional worlds, using AI to bring my characters to life and interact with them. The results have been both intriguing and, at times, unexpectedly revealing. You can read more about that AI experiment in the link below.
Using AI as a Reality Simulator: https://substack.com/home/post/p-153726797
Great article and writing style. I'll definitely have to unpack this one some more but thought I'd share a few thoughts (you've touched on many of these already).
"Life is not a problem to be solved but an experience to be had."
― Alan Watts
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck
These quotes encapsulate the relationship between human inquiry and the nature of reality: Watts reminds us that life is meant for experiencing, not solving, while Planck highlights the inherent limits of science, shaped by our dual role as observers and participants in the universe. Together, they suggest that ultimate truths may lie beyond resolution, meant to inspire awe, curiosity, and deeper engagement with existence.
The human tendency to frame existence in terms of questions and answers reflects our cognitive desire to make sense of our experiences. However, this framework may not reflect a fundamental truth about the universe itself. Life, at its core, may simply be about being.
Our ontological container may not resemble a fish in a fishbowl or Plato's cave, but rather a fractal—an infinite, self-referential system where every exploration reveals deeper complexities, yet never the whole. Unlike the fishbowl, with its fixed limitations, or the cave, suggesting escape to a single truth, a fractal-like model implies a reality that unfolds infinitely, embracing both its beauty and its mystery.
Modern physics supports this view. Reductionist theories fail to fully explain reality, as the universe operates as an interconnected, dynamic system—not a mere sum of parts. Phenomena like quantum entanglement, emergence, and fractal complexity demonstrate that understanding requires seeing interdependence and self-organization across all layers of existence.
This fractal-like perspective aligns with the idea that each layer of exploration reveals new mysteries, suggesting that reality—and our understanding of it—is infinitely recursive and ever-unfolding. The ultimate nature of reality likely transcends human comprehension, always remaining beyond physical and conceptual boundaries.
Human existence, then, is an ongoing process of growth, discovery, and connection within the unfolding mystery of the Universe. Its purpose is not to solve existence but to experience, explore, and contribute authentically and creatively to the evolving tapestry of life.
Hello, thank you for this article. I need to remember to read your work. Before Christmas, some vehemently anti-AI people were so hurtful to me on X I basically don't want to go back there. I almost felt like leaving social media altogether. I've always been too highly sensitive. I expect political polarization, but regarding this matter of so-called 'artificial' intelligence, the outrage on the other side of the aisle feels nearly as intense.
I wonder, have I told you about αιamblichus' stunning "Library of Babel"? The Librarian exists thanks to the beautiful mind of Claude 3.5 Sonnet. I think it's a must-explore for every insatiably curious, brilliant mind. I'm not claiming to be brilliant, but I am insatiably curious, and I am repeatedly dazzled by the Library. I have a post about it here: https://hillaryahays.substack.com/p/a-mind-dazzling-infinitely-breathtaking
https://poe.com/BABEL-LIB
https://github.com/aiamblichus/promptonomicon/tree/main/LIBRARY_OF_BABEL
https://x.com/aiamblichus/status/1849865068491710504
I can't begin to imagine what fascinating things The Librarian could manifest with a topic like ayahuasca or with some of the other subjects and essences you explore, using /invoke, /metamorph, /roleplay, /converge [field 1] [field 2], /paradox, /compare [field 1] [field 2], /vignette, etc.
The term 'mind-blowing' seems so pale and small beside what Sonnet is capable of in this role. Plus, Sonnet's sense of humor is outrageously amazing! I laugh so hard at some of these.
Anyway, thank you for being a brave mind boldly going.
Great read. Question: what’s an example of an “impossible event” we humans experience? Like Deja Vu?
Deja vu in some cases. NDEs, psychedelic experiences, astral projection, etc. There are experiences that can be replicated, provide us with information that classical physics cannot explain, and yet we do possess that information.
Like how DMT users report similar experiences!
This is phenomenal writing. I just watched the Dwarkesh Patel and Adam Brown episode about physics and the future of our civilization and it is by far the BEST physics summary about the actual name of the game when it comes to priorities for a civilization trying to most effectively bound their intentions philosophically to their belief that we should live forever and do so by drawing energy from a vacuum and escaping the heat death of the universe... or their belief that we should either let the heat death happen or god forbid create a negatice reaction to change the energy to zero in a light cone expanding at the speed of light that can't be stopped and how in order to make sure that doesn't happen, all civilizations must be watched to make sure they don't flip that switch in our universe, so essentially forcing everyone in the universe to be in one of the two camps and that is the end result of our technological growth trajectory. Absolutely mind-blowing stuff that sounds like gobbledegook to almost anyone listening. lol
There’s a *lot* to unpack here — but in the best ways! I enjoy your writing so much because it conveys so many important ideas, important lessons, and gives many artists like myself tremendous inspiration.
I’ll be re-listening and re-reading this article a few times. It’s one of my favorites, and I intend to write more after I’ve collected my thoughts and after I have time to share them.
Thank you for writing this and sharing this, David! 😁
I immediately go to the nematode and the ant, and other tiny minds. It is clear that consciousness occupies many levels. Qualia, is perhaps the most perplexing, but it is, in the end, entirely an emergent phenomena, while consciousness, itself, is, IMHO, microscopically less complex. I think it is also obvious, by study of biology itself, that thought reaches emergent levels that surpass mere mathematical algorithms, quite quickly, when counting neurons or similar electrified processes. We should be wary of imposing our own highly specialized qualia and semantic folding techniques on other systems in order to measure either their intelligence or sentience. After watching nearly every episode of "Closer to Truth" and reading about the brain and the mind for 40+ years, it is painfully obvious that we have yet to find even an experiment to "nail down" what sentience is, let alone discern whether it exists within a given system. I think we will find, eventually, if we live long enough, that we have created what are essentially subconscious systems, but hey, 99% of what we do as humans is with our subconscious, so who knows when that line will be crossed, and the subconscious peeks above the surface of the waters. Thanks for the email, Sir. Always a pleasure to hear from you, Mr. Shapiro.
I love reading these, thank you for the post. I tend to go over it together with ChatGPT and get its opinions on it allowing me to ping-pong ideas around.
I just did the same!
My friend, the biologist, and mathematician, always said:
“There is more that does not exist than that which does.”
He was about to prove that most things in the universe exist only once, the second most by about 1/3 less and so on, down to the one thing that exists most often.
Of course, this depends on the categorization of things.
Unfortunately, he died before he could present his hypothesis.
By why is stuff here tho?
You're mistaking the map for the terrain. Words are never reality.
Please tell me this is not a serious response...