A theoretical dualistic model of conscious reality

On an earlier page in this series, I presented a mostly grounded semantic model of conscious reality. Its only theory was that solipsism is false. On the previous page, having on an even earlier page identified a problem with that variant of idealism which allows for one mind to exist "within" another, I described a variant semantic model of idealism which solves that problem: idealism as a network of minds - a client-server model, with Source as "server" and ordinary minds - humans, animals, plants, etc - as "clients", potentially also communicating amongst themselves peer-to-peer.

In that model, all that exists is - consistent with idealism - mind: the Mind of Source plus the minds of individual conscious subjects. Our individual minds are "networked" to the Mind of Source, in which is imagined and updated the virtual "physical" reality in which we perceive ourselves to exist. At the end of the previous page, I noted a drawback to this approach: it requires the Mind of Source to actively process, continuously, day-in and day-out, the inputs of clients, to update the imagined "physical" reality, and to supply outputs back to clients. That is a lot of work which it might seem better to... well, out-Source.

On this page, then, I extend the mostly grounded model of the earlier page into a theoretical model in which that work is offloaded, and I discuss reasons to prefer it as a model over all those considered so far.

On this theory, Source creates through causal efficacy a genuinely independent, genuinely (ontologically primitive) physical reality with certain laws or regularities built into it, such that it is in some sense self-sustaining, rather than requiring Source's perpetual processing (in Mind) of inputs, the updating/synchronising of the vision, and the generation of outputs, to maintain.

On this theory, each unitary, immaterial, undifferentiated subject of consciousness "peers out and pokes" at a genuinely physical reality through the portal of a mind-brain-body complex within the overall physical reality. The model is still client-server in the sense that there is one central, shared reality which each conscious subject perceives through its own avatar, but it is now unreliant on the Mind of Source; it updates itself autonomously.

Aside from the advantage of avoiding the need for Source to maintain and synchronise a virtual reality in Mind, and to constantly receive inputs and generate outputs, it also has the advantage of according with our actual experience, which accords with a principle which I might term the principle of preferential straightforwardness: that, all else being equal, we ought to prefer those theories which offer the most straightforward explanation of the facts; the explanation which accords most with that which seems to be the case on immediate inspection, or, in other words, the most obvious and realistic explanation - at least until such time as we encounter new facts which change that epistemic situation. In this case, it seems that all else is, indeed, equal: both models are essentially client-server, the only difference is in the ontological nature, and mind-independence, of the shared reality.

This model does not require that the matter of physical reality be solid as naively conceived; it allows for the strange behaviour of matter as described by quantum mechanics.

The second reason to prefer this dualistic model over an idealistic model is in its better accounting for evil. In my analysis of that monistic idealism which holds that the minds of psyches are "within" the universal mind, and that all subjects of consciousness are identical, I pointed out that the model does not seem to account very well for the existence of evil. I asked (paraphrasing): if we are all identical at our core, then why would some aspects of our Identity fight against, torture, oppress, violate, and slaughter other aspects of our Identity? This does not seem to be a sensible thing to do to Oneself.

How, then, does (can) the dualistic view that I have proposed above do better? I have suggested that the Mind of Source is the source of the rest of reality - both of our individual consciousnesses as well as of the genuinely physical - and mind-independent - shared reality in which our consciousnesses are embedded (which is not to deny the existence of other realities). I now also suggest that this Source is wholly good as we understand that term: that Source created us, and placed us in this reality, with the best of intentions - to live, love and enjoy, both in loving relationship with one another, and in loving relationship with Source, to Whom we are inextricably and intimately bonded as our Creator. Given this theory, it now seems appropriate to switch from referring to this Being as "Source" to referring to this Being as "God".

So, how did it all go wrong? How did it come to be that evil and suffering entered existence? Well, I have proposed a source consciousness, God, who is fundamentally good and loving, and who created a genuinely mind-independent physical reality for us to enjoy. It is, then, possible, and coherent, to propose that there exists at least one other source consciousness, one that is the opposite of good and loving, one that is predatory and wicked, which somehow sensed, through its faculties of mind, the mind-independent physical reality created by God. I refer to this source consciousness, since it seems, at least superficially, to meet the definition, as Satan.

Now, I theorise that Satan, being wicked and predatory, perceived an ideal environment in which to predate, and to steal the energy of another source consciousness whose nature was morally opposite. Thus, we have an accounting for the existence of evil and suffering in this physical realm: this physical reality, whilst created by a good God, is also in a real sense independent of God, is causally affected by the consciousness-minds embedded within it, and has been invaded by consciousness-minds which are from another, and morally opposite, source than our good Creator. Of course, this raises a whole lot of questions, which are beyond the scope of this page to address, so I will simply make this point: whilst this is all theoretical, I do have personal experiences of evil spiritual entities which lead me to a belief in the existence of both metaphysical evil and a source consciousness which is evil, and so what I propose above is at least consistent with my experiences.

This is - in essence - the ontology that I provisionally work with. Though it might be somewhat crudely expressed on this page, I am more interested here in introducing it at an abstract level than in refining it palatably, so as to contrast it against the ontological models considered so far in this series, so as to highlight its explanatory advantages.

Some might argue that, in positing that consciousness is the primary reality, this model is best classified as idealistic. I see it instead as dualistic, in these three senses:

1. Ontological: It posits that both consciousness and matter are ontologically primitive, albeit that the Subject of the former generates the latter.
2. Moral: It posits that good and evil are real and opposite moral polarities.
3. Theistic: It posits (at least) two source consciousnesses, one whose moral nature is goodness and one whose moral nature is evil.

This page, then, represents the essence of how I have validated my dualistic intuitions through a process of reasoned inquiry.