Previously, I wrote about how human consciousness itself might be able to be used as the foundation of a modern, universal morality. Most of my theorizing centered around the fact that our reality is determined by the nature of our consciousness. From this notion I deduced that each human consciousness has a kind of ‘world making’ value, thus giving it an inherent quality that deserves respect, dignity, and freedom. Much of my theorizing drew from the work of University of California professor Donald Hoffman. Yet in my previous writing I did not try and probe how Hoffman’s central claim could relate to any modern, universal moral construct. Hoffman’s central claim is that not only does consciousness determine our reality, but that consciousness is the fundamental property that underlies reality itself.
For Hoffman, consciousness isn’t an emergent phenomenon that arises from neurons and brains. Instead it’s reality itself that emerges from the fundamental nature of consciousness. Everything from quantum mechanics, the fabric of space-time, and everything we encounter every day; it’s all just a data structure that only exists when we perceive it. Hoffman sees objects and space-time as simply ‘species-specific, perceptual adaptations’. This basically means that as a species, in order to survive, we evolved not to see true reality, but a ‘reality’ that would enable our evolutionary fitness.
Hoffman likes to use the example of a computer desktop as an analogy for how his theory can be understood. Alluding to the ‘desktop interface’ analogy, Hoffman says, ‘space and time are the desktop of our perceptual interface, and three-dimensional objects are icons on that desktop’. In paraphrasing Hoffman’s analogy, think of it this way. You can take a text file on your desktop and edit it, move it into a folder, or move it to the trash can. All the files and folders on your desktop can be manipulated, and are very useful to complete various tasks in an efficient manner. Yet ask yourself, are they true? The visual properties of the desktop icons (position, shape, color) do not resemble the true properties of the file. The file doesn’t really have a color, nor is it ‘located’ wherever it seems on the desktop. As Hoffman states, the ‘bits of the file could be spread widely’ over the computer’s memory.
Hoffman makes the point that to even ‘ask if the properties of the icons are true is to make a category error, and to completely misunderstand the purpose of the interface’. The correct question is whether the icon is ‘usefully related to the file’, not whether it is a true representation of the file. In Hoffman’s view, the icons, as with the objects in our reality, are intended to ‘hide the truth’ in a way that allows us to interact with the interface in an efficient manner. He makes the point that we would never accomplish anything on a computer if we had to ‘see the complexity of the integrated circuits, voltages, and magnetic fields that are busy behind the scenes’ every time we engage an icon on the desktop.
As Hoffman states, this ‘interface’ view of reality carries along with it the notion that ‘space-time and three-dimensional objects have no causal powers and do not exist unperceived’. This mind bending proposition then means that one would have to find a new foundation for the world that lies beyond the interface. This is where Hoffman turns to consciousness itself. In this manner, I believe Hoffman is intimating that ‘consciousness’ is an infinite reality, with almost infinite possibilities. And that our species specific consciousness is one small manifestation of countless possible manifestations. Though I could be wrong about this particular part of Hoffman’s theory, the basic principle is this: consciousness is just assumed to ‘exist’, and the world we inhabit is entirely made of what Hoffman calls ‘conscious agents’.
Hoffman defines his term ‘conscious agents’ as a kind of probability space where one conscious experience leads to another. Within the probability space are three intuitive frameworks: perception, decision, action. Through these three processes, a conscious agent interacts with the world, causing an experience. The conscious agent then chooses what action to take based on the experience, interacts with the world through the decided upon action, and (via the action) ends up effecting the state of the world. Hoffman assumes conscious experiences like the smell of garlic or the feel of hot water are fundamental. He says, ‘they just exist, in the way most assume space-time exists’. This probabilistic relationship between conscious experiences can be seen as maybe an infinite space. Hoffman has already begun to try and prove his theory with advanced mathematics. He is very aware that for his conscious agent theory to be true, it must be shown to be able to create our physical world.
Following the math of his theory has led Hoffman to some interesting places; and in my view, spurs interesting thoughts about consciousness as the moral axiom. When you do the math explaining just fifty conscious agents, you arrive at an ‘object’ that is insanely complicated. But then remember, in Hoffman’s framework, when this ‘object’ is projected all the way into space-time it becomes a trivial product of our perceptions. Now imagine this: if just fifty conscious agents create an ‘insanely complicated object’, what does that mean for an infinite number of conscious agents? According to Hoffman, the math says that multiple conscious agents (whether interacting or not) satisfy the definition of a single conscious agent. This means that Hoffman’s calculations point to there being one, infinite conscious agent that contains all conscious experiences, and exists prior to experience. A timeless field that is the ‘potential for all experiences, and requires no experience to exist’.
Amazingly, Hoffman’s mathematical conception aligns with various spiritual conceptions of God, and even some historical, philosophical conceptions of ‘The One’. For the ancient philosopher Plotinus, ‘The One’ was the ‘uncaused, cause’ of everything in the universe. Deriving from the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, Plotinus saw ‘The One’ as a kind of singular object that contained within it an infinite complexity. Around 500 years earlier, Plato’s student Aristotle covered similar ground by conceiving of an ‘unmoved mover’. Aristotle’s unmoved mover was his conception of the ‘first cause’ for all the movement throughout the universe. Each of these historical notions point to a ‘being’ or ‘thing’ that exists in some kind of infinite manner beyond our idea of conscious experience.
Hoffman makes no claims about God, or any kind of spiritual aspect to his theory of conscious agents. Ultimately, the math will lead where the math leads. Either he will be able to test, and simulate enough aspects of his theory for it to gain serious traction as an answer to the fundamental nature of our reality, or he won’t. Yet for the rest of this writing, I would like to assume that Hoffman’s theory is true. If consciousness is indeed fundamental. If there really is an infinite ‘field’, or ‘object’ that contains the ingredients for every single conscious experience - what does that mean for a consciousness based conception of morality? It would seem that a moral framework that uses consciousness as its axiom would be bolstered by the discovery that our reality is built off of consciousness itself.
If human consciousness has a direct connection to the ‘one’, infinite conscious agent that lies beyond our conception; does that not signify that each form of human consciousness has inherent worth? Does it not show that the primary (and fundamental) quality of human consciousness should take precedence over our secondary differences like skin color, ethnicity, or nationality? And does it not lend credence to the idea that each form of human consciousness deserves the greatest opportunity possible to have ‘good’ conscious experiences? If the one infinite conscious agent contains the ingredients for all the experiences humans know to be ‘morally good’; would we be wrong to map some kind of moral construct onto this field that lies beyond experience?
It should be noted that there is a bit of a contradiction in labeling conscious experiences ‘good’ or ‘bad’ within an idea framework that says our perceptions are false. One can make the argument that there is no experience that is really ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for a form of consciousness that has no direct access to reality. This line of thinking would presume that the moral judgements we make about human experiences are just subjective products of our evolution. Yet I don’t believe we need to deconstruct our moral experiences to such a degree. For this thought experiment I’m just going to assume things like murder, racism, and starvation are bad - and things like love, friendship, and empathy are good. At this point in human history, despite the fact our reality is dependent on our perceptions; we have a pretty good understanding of which moral experiences make us feel good, and those of which that make us feel bad. In my view, this is what matters most.
The question then becomes what could one say about the moral nature of ‘good’ conscious experiences that are derived from an omnipotent conscious agent. Does our moral perception of the experience track all the way back to its fundamental source? That is to say, does the one conscious agent have some kind of inherent moral structure? And if there is such an inherent moral structure within the one conscious agent, does that lay down a justification for moral frameworks that call for human beings to behave in a certain way towards each other? After all, if there is an inherent moral structure to the one conscious agent that contains all experiences; then it would seem that our own moral structure should align with manifesting the ‘good’ conscious experiences contained within the ‘one’.
The theory of conscious agents opens the door for a rational foundation for a universal morality. A morality based on the importance of ‘world creating’ human consciousness, and the moral quality of our conscious experiences. Throughout human history we have had various conceptions of moral frameworks that appeal to things like love, grace, empathy, compassion, charity, understanding, and friendship. Yet drilling down to their ideological basement has led to either a supernatural being, or our own human intuition about the world.
Take for example, the African moral or sociological conception of ‘Ubuntu’. Expounded upon by human rights giants like Nelson Mandela, or the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Ubuntu could be seen as an ideological framework that says human consciousness finds its value in other human consciousness’. In Tutu’s words, ‘a person, is a person, through other persons’. Ubuntu also recognizes the primary (and universal) quality of human consciousness, along with the moral qualities of our conscious experiences. Ethical constructs arising from Ubuntu thought center around what an individual can do for others and their community. In other words, ethical concerns surrounding Ubuntu entail what kind of moral experiences we bring about in other human consciousness’.
I believe Hoffman’s theory of conscious agents could provide solid ground for a universal moral framework like Ubuntu. If it is ever proven mathematically to be true, Hoffman’s theory could prove to be the long awaited construct that bridges the rational and the scientific, to the realm of spiritual contemplation. And maybe, just maybe, it could provide a pathway for humanity to finally put its tribal, secondary differences aside, and recognize the universal primacy and importance of human consciousness itself.