Mind or Matter: The Fundamental Reality

Was the universe designed and created or was it a cosmic accident, a product of time and chance? The debate has raged for millennia with increasing sophistication in models, data, and arguments, particularly since The Enlightenment period. The West is currently captivated by naturalistic explanations with nearly all scientific funding and investigation aimed exclusively and myopically at material causes. But beneath the naturalistic paradigm lies a deeper paradox—that not only did non-living molecules produce life, but non-conscious matter produced consciousness. For at the heart of the question of origins and first causes lies a fundamental reality: either mind is a product of matter, or matter is a product of mind.

If this is indeed the foundational question upon which the entirety of each respective framework rests, then it is the most critical question to investigate. Consequently, if it is a question we can gain insight on, then the entire framework becomes rather inconsequential—for it matters not how sophisticated or compelling the house of cards may be if it is built upon a false premise. This is a fundamental flaw of human reasoning as confirmation bias can cause us to only see and interpret evidence which aligns with our current ideas and beliefs, and indeed it can even cause us to bend the evidence to ensure that it does. The scientific method and peer review process can, in theory, mitigate this propensity, but they can never entirely eliminate it—especially if the reviewers are also held captive by the same biases. Though rare, a few intellectually honest scientists have admitted this is the case with our current naturalistic models and paradigms.

"…Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."

-Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician, Physicist, Philosopher of Science, "Cosmos, Bios, Theos," 1992 p. 113

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

-Richard Lewontin, Leading evolutionary geneticist, Harvard University, "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review of Books, 1997

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it."

-H.S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks as Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol 31, May, 1980 p.138

Something From Nothing

A commonality between materialistic and theistic origin frameworks is, that by logical necessity, there must be something that is eternal. Without this starting premise, each framework devolves into an infinite regression of causes. The standard view of cosmology prior to the 1960's was the Steady-State model which postulated that the universe itself was eternal. But as more and more scientific evidence emerged, it became increasingly clear that the universe had a beginning.

This was initially quite an inconvenient and unwelcome revelation to most secular scientists as the implication was that the universe was not self-existent, for what has a beginning is not eternal and therefore must have a cause. But as the evidence accumulated, more and more scientists abandoned Steady-State and adopted the Big Bang model, particularly after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) in 1965. But while it is now nearly universally adhered to, the Big Bang model of cosmology literally only traces the universe back to a point—it does nothing to answer where all the initial matter and energy came from to produce that theoretical series of events.

There have been various attempts to address this issue without "allowing a Divine Foot in the door." One theory postulates that our current universe is merely the latest in a series of big bangs, which eventually collapse in on themselves and start the cycle all over. This of course merely pushes the question back to a time and place as inaccessible by science as the theistic framework, but claims to be more "scientific" by way of being completely materialistic. The problem is that it invokes an infinite regression, which eventually defaults back to the philosophical assumption that matter and energy are eternal. It also begs some other philosophical questions because if each big bang produces space and time, then where and when did the matter and energy exist prior to the explosion? If space and time, like matter and energy, are also eternal, then how did we arrive at today if there were an infinite number of days before today? If they are not infinite, in what greater space or reality do they exist, and if they are infinite, how were they crammed into an infinitesimally small finite space?

Another theory, detailed by physicist Lawrence M. Krauss in his book, A Universe From Nothing, gets around the infinite regression of big bangs and issues surrounding eternal matter by arguing matter can indeed spontaneously come into existence from nothing without any "Divine Foot in the door." But to achieve this trick requires redefining what nothing is. For all other language speakers, nothing means nothing, as in the complete and utter lack of anything, the absence of all magnitude and quantity, or that which does not exist. But for Krauss, nothing is actually something, namely, quantum fields. But for quantum fields to generate matter (and antimatter), space and time must also exist, so once again we are confronted with the necessity for something (or several things) to both exist and be eternal—therefore raising all those pesky philosophical questions—and as such, the tantalizing title of the book ultimately amounts to nothing.

Logical Eternity

If something by necessity must be eternal for any origin theory to be coherent, then one must ask what something makes the most logical sense of being eternal? As eternal means having no beginning or end, in other words, being timeless, a theory which argues that time is eternal immediately runs into some logical problems. Given that space and time are intrinsically linked and are required for matter to exist, these three somethings logically cannot be eternal. If they are not eternal, they had a beginning, and if they had a beginning, they had a cause. Quantum fields aren't nothing, but one could argue that they are a something that is eternal. However, quantum fields are theorized to produce matter and antimatter, not space and time. If quantum fields require space and time to produce matter in, then once again we're up against the eternal time paradox.

Space, time, and matter coming into existence simultaneously in standard Big Bang cosmology at least makes logical sense, but it has some profound implications which is initially what made the theory so revulsive to secular scientists. Those logical implications are that the Big Bang required an external cause, that said cause must by necessity be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial in order to cause space, time, and matter to suddenly exist, and finally, that the cause must have agency in order to choose to initiate that sudden existence as they logically had not existed for eternity past.

With agency then comes the implication of mind, which when coupled with the characteristics of being spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, paints a rather clear—though altogether mysterious—picture of the ultimate cause being an infinite, eternal, and omnipotent being. One who had no beginning, therefore was not created nor caused. One who is infinite, therefore nothing exists beyond our outside of them. One who is omnipotent, therefore has the power and energy to create the entire material universe, and One who is omniscient, therefore has the knowledge and mind required to intelligently order that universe.

Illogical Arguments

Often, as a reflexive retort against this uncomfortable but logical deduction, there arises the question of why there must only be one such being rather than many. This is an odd argument as it does nothing to support the materialist framework, but merely attempts to silence the theist argument through uncertainty. However, the possibility of polytheism does not at all make materialism suddenly more plausible, it's simply a red herring, a distraction meant to insert doubt wherever possible and divert the discussion.

There is a simple answer to this question though, for there can only be one infinite, eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient being by logical necessity. If there were two or more timeless, spaceless, and immaterial beings, they could not be infinite as there would be one or more beings beyond or outside of themselves. They also would not be omnipotent as there would be one or more beings possessing power outside of themselves, and they would not be omniscient as there would be one or more beings possessing knowledge beyond or outside of themselves.

Therefore, multiple spaceless and immaterial beings can, and almost certainly do exist, but there can only be one which is the ultimate source or origin, the ultimate cause, and the ultimate being which preceded all others. That ultimate being would be God. It's no coincidence that even in polytheism, within each pantheon of gods there is almost universally a chief deity who has ultimate power and authority who typically preceded, created, or spawned all the others (the Sumerian An, Egyptian Ra, Greek Zeus, Norse Oden, etc.).

Another common witticism is to ask, if God made the universe, who made God? This again doesn't strengthen the materialist argument, it simply attempts to drag the theist argument down with them into infinite regression. However, it is an illogical question as only what has a beginning must have a cause. The only way to avoid the infinite regression is to begin with an assumption of a cause which is eternal. Either the material reality is eternal, or the cause of the material reality is. As all evidence and logic points to the material reality not being eternal, something which is outside of space and matter must be the cause, and it is perfectly logical to assume that cause is eternal as it would also be outside of time. Being eternal, that cause is uncreated, having no beginning and no end. It simply was, is, and will be.

The Immaterial Cause

If space, time, and matter aren't eternal but had a beginning, then they had a cause. And if it logically follows that the cause then would have to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and eternal with agency, then mind produced matter, not the other way around. This may be a tough pill for some to swallow, but there are other lines of evidence that seem to corroborate this conclusion. For example, while materialists claim that the physical world is all that exists, they struggle mightily in explaining the world that Plato called the abstract world which is full of intangible, but demonstrably real objects. I mentioned the challenge posed by just one of these objects in the second chapter of Mere Spirituality:

"Take for example, the reality of mathematics in the abstract world. These concepts, equations, numbers, and theorems exist independently of the human mind. We do not invent or imagine them, nor are they subjective to the human observer. Instead, we discover these external, independent, and objective truths. But though they are independently and universally true, they are not physical and exert no force upon the physical world, nor does the physical world exert any force upon them. Therefore, the abstract world has no material causal mechanism or explanation. Its intricacy, elegance, and precision screams of mind and intellect, and it aligns so perfectly with the physical world that it cannot be mere coincidence. Yet, it has no direct relationship to the physical world—it can only be perceived by the mental world. So, if objects in the abstract world aren’t a product of the physical world and aren’t a product of the human mental world, then where, or in what mind, do they exist?"

Abstract object like mathematics and logic are not products of the human mind, but rather they are perceived by them. They clearly are not products of the physical world, and yet any study and investigation of the physical world requires them. Indeed science itself cannot prove math or logic, yet it must presuppose them to function at all. So, ironically, science—which so often is used as a secular crucifix to ward off any notion of immaterial realities—is itself founded upon immaterial realities. The simplest explanation for this slightly unsettling truth is that abstract objects originate and reside in a universal mind, accessible and understandable by other individual minds due to them being created in its image and likeness.

Emotions Beyond Chemicals

While the materialist explanation of mind and consciousness is that they are just a product of chemical and electrical interactions in the brain, there are many lines of evidence which run contrary to this hypothesis. But this assertion gave rise to the idea that depression was nothing more than a chemical imbalance in your head and therefore could be fixed by simply altering brain chemistry—specifically via SSRI's (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). As I've detailed elsewhere (see Psychological Warfare: The Licensed Therapist Lie), more and more evidence is coming out showing that assumption to be wrong.

A recent groundbreaking study found that SSRI's are only more effective than sugar pills 15% of the time. The study also warned that the side effects and withdrawal symptoms from SSRI's are often worse than the depression they were supposed to treat. Dr. Joanna Moncrief, the lead author of the study and professor of Critical and Social Psychiatry at University College London said, 

"We have a mistaken view of what psychiatric drugs are doing. This idea that they work by targeting the underlying biological mechanisms that produce the symptoms of mental disorders is actually not supported by evidence for any type of mental disorder, whether that's depression or schizophrenia or whatever... It's not helpful to think of depression as a brain disease, I think that we should be thinking of it as an emotional reaction to life circumstances and life events. And indeed, there is very strong evidence that people who suffer from adverse life events are much more likely to get depressed."

In other words, emotions, even strong ones like depression, cause a physiological response to external stimuli which produce chemical and hormonal changes in the body. Environment, lifestyle, mindset, or circumstances will have a far greater impact on mental health than chemically altering the body's natural response to them. SSRI's, if they work at all, simply numb the brain and mask the symptoms, and if you really want to numb your emotions, healthcare professionals are more than happy to prescribe ketamine instead. But this realization then begs the question that if emotions aren't caused by chemicals, but rather chemicals are caused by emotions, what are emotions and where do they originate?

Mind Beyond the Brain

In his book, The Immortal Mind, neurosurgeon and former atheist Dr. Michael Egnor answers that question by making the scientific case for the immaterial mind, drawing upon scientific studies and his own medical experience which challenges the common perception that the mind is merely the product of brain activity. As a neurosurgeon with over 7,000 brain operations under his belt, he has encountered many patients with large portions of their brain completely missing due to birth defects, yet it having little effect on their lives. A few examples described children with as much as two-thirds of their brain absent, yet them growing up to be perfectly healthy and normal honor-roll students and athletes. Another patient had the entirety of both hemispheres of his brain completely missing, possessing only a brain stem. While this condition left him unable to walk or speak, he was fully conscious and aware as well as capable of emotional responses.

Wilder Penfield is arguably one of the greatest neuroscientists to have ever lived, devoting his entire life to the study of epilepsy. Over the course of his observation and experiments with epileptic patients, he mapped the brain and was able to correlate certain regions with specific functions. What he noted however, was that there was no such thing as intellectual seizures. Penfield could observe or invoke brain seizures which could affect motor control, speech, memory, emotions, or sensations, but there was no region of the brain he could stimulate to induce a seizure involving math, reason, or theological or philosophical concepts—Plato's world of abstract objects. He discovered movement centers in the brain, audio and visual centers, sensation centers, memory centers, speech centers, and emotional centers, but there was no abstract thought or reason center in the brain. Penfield concluded the most reasonable explanation was that those key faculties of the mind do not originate from the brain.

Penfield also conducted experiments on patients stimulating the motor control regions of the brain in which he would randomly have them raise their arm or he would stimulate the brain causing them to raise their arm. As the brain has no sensory nerves, they could not feel when he stimulated their brain, nor could they see him. Yet in each and every one of the thousands of trials, the patient always knew if they had chosen to move of their own free will, or if he had controlled their action. Penfield concluded that as he could not evoke will, he couldn't find a region of the brain associated with it, and his human subjects were always aware of their will, that will, like abstract thought, was a faculty of the mind which does not originate in the brain.

Benjamin Libet later conducted a famous series of experiments which showed a spike in brain activity milliseconds before subjects took an action, which would seem to indicate the brain does indeed control free will. However, he then asked his study subjects to veto their decision right before taking action, choosing not to follow through with it. Curiously, there was no brain activity recorded in the veto. Libet remarked that this finding aligned with the traditional religious understanding of free will in that the material flesh (the brain in this experiment) can tempt the immaterial soul (the mind and will in this experiment) or default to a certain learned or instinctual behavior, but the will can always choose to override it.

Other intriguing insights into this mind/brain paradox came from Roger Sperry who won a Nobel prize for his work on split-brain cases. These cases, either by birth or by medical procedure to keep brain seizures in one hemisphere from spreading to the other, offered a rare opportunity to study how the brain functions. He discovered that the left and right hemispheres of the brain have distinct roles and functions which are not mirrored or duplicated on the other side. However, despite the brain being split or cut in half, severing all the connections between these two hemispheres, there seemed to be little adverse effect on those with this condition.

Justine Sergent followed up on Sperry's research with her own split-brain experiments, finding that while perception is split in the brain, conception is not. She devised experiments showing one arrow only to the right hemisphere, and another arrow only to the left hemisphere of split-brain patients. Despite one hemisphere of the brain not being able to communicate what it perceived with the other hemisphere, when asked whether or not the two arrows were pointing in the same direction, each patient was able to answer correctly every time. She concluded that there was an aspect of mind that wasn't in the brain.

Yair Pinto furthered that research by presenting simple stories to split-brain patients. He would show two pictures that together demonstrated a cause and effect—for example, a picture of a baseball and a picture of a broken window—but only show one to each hemisphere of the brain. Despite neither hemisphere having all the information or able to communicate with the other hemisphere, the patients always understood the cause and effect presented to them. Pinto concluded that while perception is split, consciousness is united, suggesting that the former was a function of the brain, but not the latter—consciousness came from somewhere else.

Consciousness Beyond the Body

Arguably the most dramatic evidence of consciousness and the mind being immaterial come from reports of near-death experiences. While rare, there is a rather large and growing body of verifiable testimonies where individuals have been physically unconscious due to injury or sedation, with accounts often coming from operating tables. These accounts describe details which would be unknowable to the individual even if they had been awake and conscious such as specific details of people, actions, objects, music, or conversations in locations or vantage points the physical body of the person had no access to.

These accounts are hyper-realistic experiences which differ from drug-induced hallucinations or hypoxia. Furthermore, some near-death experiences have been reported in cases where the patient was medically documented to have no brain activity. One of the most famous of these cases was that of Pam Reynolds, who was able to recount details of her brain surgery which occurred with her body cooled to 50 degrees Fahrenheit and her heart stopped with no blood going to her brain for nearly 30 minutes.

In Dr. Egnor's book, he draws on all these studies to conclude that the mind is both immaterial, and, as the title of his book indicates, also immortal. The evidence for the former is very strong, however, the latter—the idea the mind is immortal—doesn't necessarily logically follow. As I've covered in other articles (see The Metaphysics of Sex and Gender and the popular Understanding the Underworld) The Greeks certainly believed the soul was intrinsically immortal, and that concept has largely informed Western thought, however, the Hebrew or Jewish understanding was quite different. Due to our Greek influences, it's understandable most would assume immaterial equates to immortal, but there is a strong biblical case against that notion which must be considered. The biblical account would indicate that immortality is not a characteristic intrinsic to humanity as with sin came death (mortality). It is only through the gift of eternal life given by God to those who accept his payment for their sin that humanity once again has access to immortality.

The Mysterious Mind

Whether the soul is mortal or immortal is another question, however. Though it does have some rather substantial implications, the question at hand is whether matter produced mind or mind produced matter. The scientific evidence, as well as logic, would indicate that an immaterial, eternal, and omniscient mind created the material universe. Not only that, but that same mind then also populated that material universe with other immaterial minds. Those minds are bound to material bodies, but are not products of them. The mind interacts with the material body, but is not itself the material body—it is metaphysical or spiritual in nature.

Interestingly, while studies of the physical brain have not found any region correlated with will or intellect, they have definitely found regions tied to memories and emotion. This is not to say that emotions should be ignored or disparaged, but rather to point out that while the biblical texts frequently acknowledge and validate emotions, they associate them with the heart or flesh, which can easily deceive us or lead us astray. As such, we are to live by truth, which is perceived by our minds through revelation. Of course, we are to honor God and worship Him in spirit and truth with all our heart, soul, and mind (Mat 22:37). But it is interesting that the physical brain serves as a center for both emotions and memories because in the book of Revelation, it states that in eternity, there will be no more sadness (Rev 21:4), and the prophet Isaiah states that in eternity, the former things will not be remembered (Isa 65:17).

The question is tantalizing, has been debated for millennia, and I'm sure is far from settled. But the sign posts we can see are not ambiguous—they seem to be pointing in one particular direction. While not definitive, there is a growing body of evidence which would lead us to conclude that mind is not the product of matter, but rather that matter is the product of mind. Mind over matter may not be our reality, but it may be the ultimate and fundamental reality which our minds are able to perceive through the abstract world of logic and reason with the divine mind which reigns over all.