Science Fiction & Philosophy discussion

"Do we each create our own reality or does it all come out of one unified consciousness? Is enlightenment real or is it real only if we believe it is?" My new philosophical novel (NOT self-published) was #1 on Amazon.ca's new releases in several categories for weeks. It explores these questions among others, in an entertaining novel form (in India, with a nondualist guru and a metaphysical solipsist) and if it's possible for nondualism and metaphysical thought to meet. What do you think?

Janis wrote: "What do you think?"

Firstly, let me congrat you with #1 on Amazon.ca's new releases, that's quite a feat!

As to the question, one should first define reality. I think reality exists when I sleep/unconscious, it existed before my birth and hopefully will remain after my demise.

Thank you for your congrats--and your comment! Yes, my questions presuppose the non-existence of an objective reality. Thank you for that reminder. I guess such questions would be more appropriate in an eastern/spiritual philosophy discussion group! But I really appreciate you bringing me back down to the basics here. I'm about to embark on interviews for my book, and my publisher's talking points for me are like the above, since the premise of there being no reality outside of the perceiver is established early on for my protagonist. But that premise indeed is examined closely and attempted to be proven over and over throughout the novel. In fact, it's one of its themes: the exploration into the nature of reality. Anyhow. I guess we don't have much to discuss however, since the premises we are starting from are very different! But I welcome any further input from you, of course.

Janis wrote: "Thank you for your congrats--and your comment! Yes, my questions presuppose the non-existence of an objective reality. Thank you for that reminder. I guess such questions would be more appropriate ..."

I'm interested to find out the basis for the premise in the book. A commonly accepted epistemological position is that while an objective reality exists, it is not entirely knowable, for people live with their own constructs of reality defined by their biology and knowledge frameworks. Some aspects of human existence don't have objective existence: culture, morality, ethics. This is consistent with Habermas's three-worlds theory (covering material, social and personal worlds) and with Kelly's work on reality constructs.

What is the ontological basis for proposing that there is no objective reality at all?

Good question, Khira!

Well, I’m sure you already know all of the arguments in the field of Philosophy, and can shoot each one down! Tho now that neuroscience and quantum physics are joining in the conversation from scientific perspectives, it gets a whole lot more interesting. However, since this is Goodreads, I’ll address your question in relation to my novel.

The psychic teacher Anamika may be described from a philosophical stance as a metaphysical solipsist, and the guru D comes from an eastern philosophical tradition—specifically Advaita Vedanta non-dualism. In Hinduism the true, indivisible, one reality is veiled by maya, illusion—a dream that one can “wake up” from (and hence become enlightened, live in Reality). Or, as Plato had it, we are merely playing in the shadows; enlightenment is the equivalent to walking out of Plato’s cave into the sunshine.

The external is a reflection of the internal, both the metaphysical solipsist and the non-dualist would agree--tho one would say there is no reality outside of one's perception, oneself, i.e., there's nothing really out there, and the other would say that a "true indivisible Reality" exists yet cannot be perceived by a separate perceiver. Neither, however, would posit the existence of an objective reality, but one dependent on a perceiver (just as wave-particles are waves or particles depending on if they’re being perceived). “Jonas and the Mountain” compares and unpacks these two philosophies through a fictional form, where you can see the ideas come alive in the protagonist’s life. Jonas's mission is to uncover the truth in this.

Thanks for engaging! Again, this group might not be the most appropriate for the topic, but hey, I'll play.

Janis wrote: "Well, I’m sure you already know all of the arguments in the field of Philosophy, and can shoot each one down! Tho now that neuroscience and quantum physics are joining in the conversation from scie..."

In this instance, the Advaita Vedanta non-dualism philosophy is consistent with the epistemological position that I described. But I am not sure what argument can be made to convince one of a solipsist position, particularly given the paradox of the actual act of trying to convince someone else that as far as the speaker is concerned, they don't exist. How does Anamika address this in the book?

Thanks for your interest, Khira! I think the best way for you to see how Anamika addresses this is to read "Jonas and the Mountain"! But here's a taste, by way of an excerpt, to respond to your question:

“Each of us can only see through our own perceptions, yes? I am a different person to you, Priya, than I am to anyone else. You see me through whatever else you have with you in this moment, and through what you’ve heard about me from your mother, and through the lens of your culture, and through what you keep from other moments you’ve shared with me. All of this and more creates who I am to you.
“Sure, there are some consistencies in how others see me: I am short and slight, have long dark curly hair and olive skin. I think my nose is too big for my face and my eyes are too small and close together. I’m good with language and performing, I’m pretty intelligent and seem to know a bunch of stuff, and I can carry a tune well. I think I’m thoughtful and kind to others.
“But see how I’ve added my own perceptions of myself there? Someone else might not think my nose is big or my eyes are small; someone else might not think I’m thoughtful and kind, but maybe full of myself, a cocky know-it-all. Someone else might not think I know anything at all, certainly nothing of any value or truth. Someone else might think I’m delusional and off my meds! The fact that I’m short and have dark hair might not even be as much of a fact to others, either. It depends on who is doing the perceiving, doesn’t it.
“Each of us looks out of our own eyes at the world and each other. We can’t really see ourselves, even in a mirror. So who are we to others, really? A collection of our characteristics, like the ones I just named for myself? Where is the consistent character that each of us presents to the world—the whole, finally describable, person?
“Here’s the thing. That separate person’s existence is as changeable and slippery as those sub-atomic bits that are supposedly the basis of all ‘solid matter,’ that are really both waves and particles simultaneously, depending on if they are being perceived or not. In other words, just as matter’s independent existence is suspect, so is the independent existence of other people suspect too.
“On a very real level, nobody else exists. It’s just you. There’s nothing out there.
“Think of it this way: there is only relationship, and only relationship to you. Your relationship with your friend is unique; no one else has that same relationship. It is a special dynamic. You perceive your friend a certain way, different from anyone else’s perception of her. Is your perception of your friend really your friend? Of course not. Sure, you can describe her, what she looks like, her behavior, and others will recognize who you are talking about—‘Oh, that’s Sudha, the one who is getting married to Raj.’ And you might have created your own history of who you are together, built on moments that you've shared.
“But even when you’re in that moment together, you’re not really being with her. You might enjoy being with who you think is Sudha, but your enjoyment is because of how you feel when you’re with her. Your friend is a reflection of you, and if you like what is being reflected to you, you enjoy her ‘company,’ what she ‘brings out’ in you. But she doesn't bring out these same qualities in other people. No one can really see her, just as no one can really see you.
“So, Priya, in an important way, you exist to your friend Sudha as a reflection of herself. She is creating you. And right now, Sudha is having fears about her marriage, and she is seeing you as the cause of those fears. In this way, she is forced to deal with them because they are creating difficulty in a relationship that presumably she’s always treasured, the one she has with you. There are only relationships, and those relationships ultimately point you back to yourself, as they reflect your different issues back to you and show you yourself.
“In the same way, Sudha is showing you yourself, Priya, reflecting yourself back to you. You yourself are creating Sudha, ‘your’ Sudha. The difficulties you spoke of having with her are showing you something that you want to know about yourself, and you need to do some exploring to find out what it is. You’ve given yourself this challenge. It’s all about you.”
As Anamika winds up her talk, she can’t read the expression on Priya’s face. “I hope I have provided some kind of answer to your question.”
“Thank you, Guruji,” Priya mutters quietly, with her head down.

Janis wrote: "Thanks for your interest, Khira! I think the best way for you to see how Anamika addresses this is to read "Jonas and the Mountain"! But here's a taste, by way of an excerpt, to respond to your que..."

That's beautiful writing, thank you for sharing. It focuses on one of the aspects that does indeed only have subjective existence - that of our personal and social worlds, which are defined by our perceptions and interactions.

If we had a card-reader-like mind reading tool, I think there would be no purely subjective existence. Everything is physical, IMO, and should in theory be available for physical examination.

For Khira: Thank you for the writing compliment. Actually, Anamika is going further than what you say here, however: she says that no one else really exists. There is some of that discussed in what I excerpted; of course, one would need to read the book for more.

David wrote: "If we had a card-reader-like mind reading tool, I think there would be no purely subjective existence. Everything is physical, IMO, and should in theory be available for physical examination."

This reminds me of the discussion we've a little while ago in the group, about whether it is possible to truly understand someone else's perspective (even for married couples, for example). I still maintain that while we will probably achieve great progress in neural mapping and other types of physical representations of consciousness, it is not the same thing as 'being inside someone else's head,' which means that the answer is a resounding 'No.'

Having said that, the subjectivity of human perceptions of the universe doesn't really provide an argument for lack of existence of the universe in an objective sense. So far as we know, the galaxies and the natural forces around have existed long before humans arrived on the scene and will be here long after we're gone. The fact that we cannot perceive them in an objective way doesn't negate that.

Perhaps the next sentient form will have a different take on things ;)

I think humans have a common physiology, and those with a similar cultural background, similar experiences, etc. can probably know each other's perpectives pretty well. Haven't you met someone who answers questions the same way you would, and while they are talking you'd swear they were saying what you would say. Yet I don't think this is more than similar physiology and environment.

David wrote: "I think humans have a common physiology, and those with a similar cultural background, similar experiences, etc. can probably know each other's perpectives pretty well. Haven't you met someone who ..."

Yes, I agree that people with similar experiences can get to know each other very well. The extreme case of similar physiology and experiences is in twins, who are sometimes very in-tune with each other. And certainly I've had conversations where I could finish the other person's sentences and vice versa. Yet, even in these circumstances, I suspect that there are some differences in perceptions born of slight variations in events, etc.
My basic premise is that I cannot truly glean what another person is experiencing at any given moment in time, or truly comprehend all the nuances of their worldview, although the process of trying to do so is a step towards empathy and building of effective relationships.

This is the old "How well does anyone know anyone?" question that I have often asked my philosophy group. I think the answer is, pretty well, but not perfectly - and sometimes there are surprising gaps.

I have a friend I've know for over 50 years and one time I asked him why he never had a cat (I have one) and he said "They're filthy beasts." I was amazed I'd never had any inkling of his attitude towards cats in all the time I've known him. The irony is his daughter left a cat with him when she went to college and he ended up really being fond of him.