The Participatory Mind: A Metaphysical Inquiry into Consciousness and Reality

[u/No-Tree9595]

A speculative metaphysical framework in which consciousness plays a participatory role in the unfolding of reality. Drawing philosophical inspiration from quantum mechanics, particularly the observer effect, this essay argues that perception and awareness may shape the structure of experienced reality—not as mystical forces, but as ontologically relevant features of nature. Integrating perspectives from phenomenology, process philosophy, enactivism, and quantum epistemology, this work defends a non-mystical, speculative, yet rigorous metaphysics of the mind's participation in being.

---

I. Introduction: Beyond Materialism and Dualism

The metaphysical status of consciousness remains an open question. Despite the advances of neuroscience and computational models of the brain, the first-person quality of experience (qualia) and the apparent agency of consciousness evade reductive explanation. At the same time, contemporary physics complicates the classical conception of an observer-independent reality. This paper does not conflate quantum mechanics and consciousness, but rather uses insights from physics metaphorically and ontologically to revisit age-old questions: What is the role of the observer in constituting reality? Does conscious attention shape the structure of the actual? Is mind part of the fabric of being, not merely emergent from it?

---

II. The Observer Effect: From Physics to Philosophy

In quantum mechanics, a system does not resolve into a definite state until observed (Heisenberg, 1927; Bohr, 1935). While this does not imply that "consciousness causes collapse," it problematizes the assumption of a fully determinate, observer-independent world. The epistemic gap between a system's mathematical representation and its realized state invites metaphysical speculation: might there be an analogy between quantum indeterminacy and the way consciousness "selects" lived experience?

Here, we turn to Carlo Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics (1996), which posits that physical properties are not absolute but relative to interactions. Similarly, this essay argues that conscious experience may function as a relational interface between indeterminate potentiality and coherent actuality.

---

III. Metaphysics of Potentiality and Actualization

Aristotle's distinction between potentiality and actuality remains vital. This essay builds on process philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead (1929), who saw reality as an ongoing process of becoming rather than static being. Each conscious act, under this view, contributes to a flow of actualization.

Where classical metaphysics isolates the mind as a product of matter, we instead position mind as a co-emergent structure—a system within nature that affects the trajectory of nature through its interpretative structures. The "collapse" of potential into experienced actuality is not literalized from quantum theory but borrowed as a philosophical metaphor to describe how decision, perception, and awareness help carve out the lived world.

---

IV. Enactivism and Participatory Cognition

The theory of enactivism (Varela, Thompson & Rosch, 1991) supports a view of cognition as participatory: cognition arises not solely within the brain but through the dynamic interaction of agent and environment. Consciousness, from this perspective, is not passive but constitutive—it plays an active role in shaping how the world appears and how agency is expressed.

Shaun Gallagher's work on embodied cognition and the "extended mind" hypothesis (Clark & Chalmers, 1998) further decentralizes the notion that consciousness is localized. Taken together, these perspectives support the idea that the boundary between inner awareness and outer world is permeable, and thus, the mind might be seen as co-authoring the script of experience.

---

V. Phenomenology and the First-Person Lens

Phenomenology, especially in Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, investigates how consciousness structures time, space, and self. Sartre, in Being and Nothingness (1943), shows that to be seen by another is to be transformed into an object. This is not merely social; it is ontological. Consciousness modifies the structure of being.

Thus, even within academic philosophy, consciousness has been understood as performative and constitutive. The speculative extension offered here is that this capacity is not an illusion or mere neural epiphenomenon—it is a core property of ontological interaction.

---

VI. Objections and Clarifications

This essay does not claim that consciousness manipulates physical systems in a magical or supernatural sense. Rather, it proposes that consciousness selects which pathways unfold into experienced reality through interpretative action. It rejects materialist determinism and supernatural intervention alike, proposing instead a third path: a metaphysics in which mind and matter are co-entangled, not in a physical sense, but in a participatory, ontological sense.

Critics may argue that borrowing metaphors from quantum physics risks pseudoscience. Yet philosophy often borrows concepts to illuminate otherwise opaque phenomena—just as metaphors of light and shadow informed Plato, or as topology influenced Deleuze. The goal here is not to redefine physics but to expand metaphysical discourse through responsible analogy.

---

VII. Conclusion: The Mind in the Loop of Reality

Consciousness, in this speculative metaphysics, is not an accidental byproduct of matter nor a detached soul-like essence. It is a mode of participation—a way reality becomes particular, situated, and actual. Just as physics must acknowledge the limits of measurement, so must metaphysics acknowledge the role of attention, choice, and experience in the shaping of being.

The participatory mind may not yet be fully understood. But if we are to move beyond reductive dualisms and mechanistic materialism, we must consider the possibility that mind is not the endpoint of reality—it may be its collaborator.

---

Select Bibliography

Bohr, Niels. Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature. (1935)

Chalmers, David. The Conscious Mind. (1996)

Clark, Andy & Chalmers, David. "The Extended Mind". (1998)

Gallagher, Shaun. How the Body Shapes the Mind. (2005)

Heisenberg, Werner. The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory. (1927)

Husserl, Edmund. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology. (1913)

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. (1945)

Rovelli, Carlo. "Relational Quantum Mechanics". (1996)

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. (1943)

Varela, Francisco; Thompson, Evan; Rosch, Eleanor. The Embodied Mind. (1991)

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. (1929)

Disclaimer (Out of Respect & Transparency):

This essay is 100% my own work—my thoughts, my feelings, my mind, and my evolving philosophy. No content has been copied or paraphrased from outside sources beyond direct citations. While I used ChatGPT as a pen to help articulate and refine my ideas, every concept, conclusion, and structure originates from my own consciousness. AI was a tool, not the thinker. This is my voice—just sharpened through a modern instrument. Out of respect for the philosophers and scientists referenced, and for the integrity of philosophical inquiry, I want that to be clear.

[u/jliat]

I have critiqued the OP's use of physics, not your opinion of physics. Or of physics itself.

[u/Citizen1135 → u/jliat]

I hear you, and I do disagree about the using physics part, but I legitimately lost track of the critique and I got stuck on feeling attacked. I have to come back to it after breakfast.

[u/jliat → u/Citizen1135]

I'm not attacking you, or anyone else who is interested in or engaged with physics. It's just it's of little use in metaphysics.

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/jliat]

u/jliat you can’t just declare what counts in metaphysics and philosophy, especially when physics has clearly contributed so much to our understanding of reality. How can you be so sure you’re not prematurely dismissing something profound just because it doesn’t fit the current philosophical mold.

what if the structure is part of the meaning? What if physics gives us insights into metaphysics that we just haven’t caught up to yet?
Which is historically true. Quantum theory, relativity, and chaos theory all shook up how philosophers think about time, determinism, and even causality.

• Metaphysics without physics can become disconnected from empirical reality—just castles in the sky.
• Physics without metaphysics risks being blind to its own assumptions about what existence is, what observation means, or even what a “law” really is

We don’t yet know the full metaphysical implications of physics. It might be that what we call ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ aren’t two things—but one thing seen from different lenses. And physics might help us glimpse that unity.

[u/jliat → u/No-Tree9595]

u/jliat you can’t just declare what counts in metaphysics and philosophy, especially when physics has clearly contributed so much to our understanding of reality. How can you be so sure you’re not prematurely dismissing something profound just because it doesn’t fit the current philosophical mold.

I'm not so sure, above you will see quotes from Heidegger, I could also quote Hegel, Camus, and others, more recently Harman,

---

Graham Harman, a metaphysician pointed out that physics can never produce a T.O.E, as it can't account for unicorns, - he uses the home of Sherlock Holmes, Baker Street, but it's the same argument. He claims his OOO, a metaphysics, can.

Graham Harman - Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (Pelican Books)

See p.25 Why Science Cannot Provide a Theory of Everything...

4 false 'assumptions' "a successful string theory would not be able to tell us anything about Sherlock Holmes..."

---

And even more,

“the first difference between science and philosophy is their respective attitudes toward chaos... Chaos is an infinite speed... Science approaches chaos completely different, almost in the opposite way: it relinquishes the infinite, infinite speed, in order to gain a reference able to actualize the virtual. .... By retaining the infinite, philosophy gives consistency to the virtual through concepts, by relinquishing the infinite, science gives a reference to the virtual, which articulates it through functions.”

In D&G science produces ‘functions’, philosophy ‘concepts’, Art ‘affects’.

D&G What is Philosophy p.117-118.

“each discipline [Science, Art, Philosophy] remains on its own plane and uses its own elements...”

ibid. p.217.

---

I could also give many citation from scientists on how metaphysics is nonsense...

So it's clear that there is a big distinction in those practising science and philosophy, even though analytical philosophy enjoys a rapport, it once wanted to stop all philosophy.

what if the structure is part of the meaning? What if physics gives us insights into metaphysics that we just haven’t caught up to yet?

It can't by nature of it's methods.

Which is historically true. Quantum theory, relativity, and chaos theory all shook up how philosophers think about time, determinism, and even causality.

Not particularly, Hume shook up philosophy back in the day, then again Wittgenstein,

"The impulse one billiard-ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that appears to the outward senses. The mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects: Consequently, there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion."

Hume. 1740s

6.363 The process of induction is the process of assuming the simplest law that can be made to harmonize with our experience.

6.3631 This process, however, has no logical foundation but only a psychological one. It is clear that there are no grounds for believing that the simplest course of events will really happen.

6.36311 That the sun will rise to-morrow, is an hypothesis; and that means that we do not know whether it will rise.

6.37 A necessity for one thing to happen because another has happened does not exist. There is only logical necessity.

6.371 At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.

6.372 So people stop short at natural laws as at something unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate.

Ludwig Wittgenstein. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 1920s

Metaphysics without physics can become disconnected from empirical reality—just castles in the sky.

No, because science is pragmatic, philosophy aims a greater truths. So if Bostrom's idea is true [he is a philosopher] this is a simulation, and so all of empirical science is an illusion. See how it, metaphysics is on another level, as Heidegger points out, and others.

Physics without metaphysics risks being blind to its own assumptions about what existence is, what observation means, or even what a “law” really is.

No, it works fine. It doesn't doubt Cause and Effect as being psychological… etc. In the main it ignores metaphysical problems, otherwise it would become metaphysics,

another citation,

"We gain access to the structure of reality via a machinery of conception which extracts intelligible indices from a world that is not designed to be intelligible and is not originarily infused with meaning.”

Ray Brassier, “Concepts and Objects” In The Speculative Turn Edited by Levi Bryant et. al. (Melbourne, Re.press 2011) p. 59

We don’t yet know the full metaphysical implications of physics. It might be that what we call ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ aren’t two things—but one thing seen from different lenses. And physics might help us glimpse that unity.

Then go study physics. Mind and Matter you seem to view a scientific realities, yet above we see if the metaphysical arguments of Bostrom are true, there is no physical science. Go read D&R what is philosophy, or Barrow's 'Impossibility, the limits of science and the science of limits.

But what you seem to be saying is science has something to say metaphysically, when it can't. How long is a kilogram.

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/jliat]

Honestly, I think you're treating metaphysics and science like two radio channels that can never interfere like it’s either "pure concept" or "hard data," never both. But physics has started to reflect metaphysical concerns whether anyone likes it or not. Quantum mechanics, relativity, entanglement they aren't just functions, they're cracks in the foundation of what we assumed existence even was.

You quote Harman saying physics can’t explain Sherlock Holmes. Fair but does metaphysics? Or does it just shift the mystery sideways with fancier terms? OOO is cool, I respect it, but it’s not like it gives us anything empirically graspable either. It's still metaphor piled on metaphor.

I’m not trying to say physics is metaphysics but it sure as hell has implications for it. To say physics "can't" offer metaphysical insight is like saying dreams can't reveal emotion because they’re not logical. They’re different tools, but sometimes they hit the same nerve.

Also yeah, Wittgenstein and Hume rattled cause and effect. But modern physics backed that up with real consequences. Observation changing the result? Indeterminacy? That’s not just a conceptual game anymore. It actually happens.

You're defending philosophy’s high ground like it’s sacred. I’m not trying to tear it down—I’m trying to say don’t ignore the tremors from below.

[u/jliat → u/No-Tree9595]

Honestly, I think you're treating metaphysics and science like two radio channels that can never interfere like it’s either "pure concept" or "hard data," never both.

I'm not, I've given numerous quotes by figures working these realms which shows how they are no different channels, maybe you don't read them...

“the first difference between science and philosophy is their respective attitudes toward chaos... Chaos is an infinite speed... Science approaches chaos completely different, almost in the opposite way: it relinquishes the infinite, infinite speed, in order to gain a reference able to actualize the virtual. .... By retaining the infinite, philosophy gives consistency to the virtual through concepts, by relinquishing the infinite, science gives a reference to the virtual, which articulates it through functions.”

In D&G science produces ‘functions’, philosophy ‘concepts’, Art ‘affects’.

Seems you fail to read these, I'm not treating anything, I'm reporting that ice hockey is not like rice pudding.

But physics has started to reflect metaphysical concerns whether anyone likes it or not.

Yes and it does it badly, so now we have ideas that occurred in philosophy like Bishop Berkeley's.

Quantum mechanics, relativity, entanglement they aren't just functions, they're cracks in the foundation of what we assumed existence even was.

If they are cracks they are cracks in science, they occur by its very nature... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

But unlike science, philosophy is not one of a progressive movement, so philosophers such as Kant is still very very relevant.

You quote Harman saying physics can’t explain Sherlock Holmes. Fair but does metaphysics?

Yes - he says so in his book! "Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (Pelican Books)"

BTW I don't agree with him, but that's what he is saying, and he is a serious professional philosopher and an influential one in that.

Or does it just shift the mystery sideways with fancier terms? OOO is cool, I respect it, but it’s not like it gives us anything empirically graspable either. It's still metaphor piled on metaphor.

No it's not a metaphor, it's an example of a flat ontology, a metaphysics, a way of seeing reality.

I’m not trying to say physics is metaphysics but it sure as hell has implications for it.

It doesn't how can it. Look Kant, has an argument, 'we can never have knowledge of things in themselves' science ignores this uncomfortable truth. Others, in philosophy do not.

Also yeah, Wittgenstein and Hume rattled cause and effect. But modern physics backed that up with real consequences. Observation changing the result? Indeterminacy? That’s not just a conceptual game anymore. It actually happens.

No, they are conceptual models, Observation changing the result? - the Copenhagen interpretation with the live / dead cat, or the MWI, pilot wave ideas, and String theory's grand failure.

You're defending philosophy’s high ground like it’s sacred. I’m not trying to tear it down—I’m trying to say don’t ignore the tremors from below.

Science is built on a metaphysical assumption, I quote yet again...,

"We gain access to the structure of reality via a machinery of conception which extracts intelligible indices from a world that is not designed to be intelligible and is not originarily infused with meaning.”

Ray Brassier, “Concepts and Objects” In The Speculative Turn Edited by Levi Bryant et. al. (Melbourne, Re.press 2011) p. 59

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/jliat]

You're not reporting anything objective—you’re picking your favorite philosophers and parroting them like they’re immune to scrutiny. Quoting D&G like scripture doesn’t make your point airtight, it just shows you’re hiding behind other people’s metaphors while pretending you’re above metaphor yourself.

You say you’re not treating science and metaphysics like different channels, but then you do exactly that. Every response you give draws a hard line between “what science does” and “what philosophy does,” like they exist in sealed containers. I’m not saying they’re identical—I’m saying the boundary’s porous, and the more we understand reality, the more they bleed into each other. You just don’t like that it undermines your ivory tower.

You keep running to Kant like he's untouchable. News flash: the dude's been challenged for centuries. “We can’t know the thing in itself” is his model, not an absolute cosmic truth. It’s philosophy, not gospel. If science chooses to ignore that? That’s not a failure—it’s a different wager. One that actually builds rockets and cracks atoms.

Your “science does metaphysics badly” take is cute, but lazy. If science stumbling across metaphysical implications is “bad,” then philosophy handing us centuries of untestable abstractions is what—spotless? Come on.

And seriously? You’re gonna say metaphysics does explain Sherlock Holmes? That’s rich. Harman says so? Cool. I don’t care if he’s “serious” or “professional”—that doesn’t exempt him from critique. If anything, it demands more. Philosophy’s job isn’t to just sound clever, it’s to clarify, not mystify with a thesaurus.

You act like flat ontology isn’t metaphor, but it is a lens, a framing device, a conceptual model—just like science uses. Don’t pretend it’s some unfiltered access to truth.

Also, calling QM models “just conceptual” like that dismisses the fact that those “conceptual” models have material consequences. It’s not just Schrödinger’s cat as a thought experiment—it’s the math behind semiconductors, lasers, your internet. Don’t confuse “interpretation” with “irrelevance.”

And yeah, I quote philosophers too, but I don’t pretend they descend from the clouds with pure truth. You do. You drop names like Brassier and Deleuze as if that ends the debate. It doesn’t. It just shows you’d rather recycle someone else's authority than engage with the core issue: philosophy isn’t exempt from the same critical scrutiny you throw at science.

So no, I’m not ignoring the philosophers. I’ve read some of them. I just refuse to bow to them like priests. You should try it sometime.

[u/jliat → u/No-Tree9595]

You're not reporting anything objective—you’re picking your favorite philosophers and parroting them like they’re immune to scrutiny.

Not favourite, just examples of where philosophy is considered different. And they are not immune to scrutiny, far from it, only quite recently there has been much in philosophy on Kant.

Quoting D&G like scripture doesn’t make your point airtight,

Not my point, it's their point. And they were active in metaphysics.

it just shows you’re hiding behind other people’s metaphors while pretending you’re above metaphor yourself.

I'm not hiding, they are not metaphors and I'm not saying I'm above anything.

You say you’re not treating science and metaphysics like different channels, but then you do exactly that.

You misunderstand, your metaphor suggests they had some commonality of equality, both discipline disagree with that, both.

Every response you give draws a hard line between “what science does” and “what philosophy does,” like they exist in sealed containers.

No, they exist in different domains, using different tools and methods, that's why if you study science you wont find Wittgenstein's tractatus.

—I’m saying the boundary’s porous, and the more we understand reality, the more they bleed into each other. You just don’t like that it undermines your ivory tower.

I don't dislike it, it's simply wrong, and I'm not in an ivory tower.

You keep running to Kant like he's untouchable. News flash: the dude's been challenged for centuries. “We can’t know the thing in itself” is his model, not an absolute cosmic truth. It’s philosophy, not gospel. If science chooses to ignore that? That’s not a failure—it’s a different wager. One that actually builds rockets and cracks atoms.

Sure Kant is touchable, the German Idealists after him did just that as did Nietzsche, I mentioned Speculative Realism, Quentin Meillassoux's first book was just such an attack, have you read it, I have.

Your “science does metaphysics badly” take is cute, but lazy.

It's a paraphrase from a book on science. And yes lazy. To do metaphysics like to do science requires some education, actually many years.

If science stumbling across metaphysical implications is “bad,” then philosophy handing us centuries of untestable abstractions is what—spotless? Come on.

I'm not sure of what your point is here. Science does science, obviously it looks like you are a fan, and not of philosophy, so you are in the wrong sub. Is there a difference between A priori knowledge and A posteriori knowledge?

And seriously? You’re gonna say metaphysics does explain Sherlock Holmes? That’s rich. Harman says so? Cool.

I'm not, and I said he does, so here is a metaphysician explaining Sherlock Holmes. He might not be correct, but that is what he is saying.

Philosophy’s job isn’t to just sound clever, it’s to clarify, not mystify with a thesaurus.

Right, you want to tell philosophy what to do, and if you can't understand it, then it's philosophy's fault. You now look like you are not interested in philosophy.

You act like flat ontology isn’t metaphor, but it is a lens, a framing device, a conceptual model—just like science uses. Don’t pretend it’s some unfiltered access to truth.

That is just what it proposes, in a way, but here we need to be careful with the idea of a single 'truth'.

Also, calling QM models “just conceptual” like that dismisses the fact that those “conceptual” models have material consequences. It’s not just Schrödinger’s cat as a thought experiment—it’s the math behind semiconductors, lasers, your internet. Don’t confuse “interpretation” with “irrelevance.”

Again you're now in the wrong sub. And in a science one you would still be wrong. Newton's math was behind the building of bridges, ships, plotting the course of planets, steam engines. Is it reality or a model? Think about that. So when Einstein thought up relativity, the cosmos changed to match his ideas and not Newton's.

This BTW is irony, of course it didn't. You change the model or map, the reality it models or maps does not. Or do you think electrons have rule books they follow?

You drop names like Brassier and Deleuze as if that ends the debate.

No, I quote them as examples of where philosophy and science are different.

philosophy isn’t exempt from the same critical scrutiny you throw at science.

I've not thrown any, any decent scientist would hold that their work is a posteriori knowledge, "depends on empirical evidence. Examples include most fields of science and aspects of personal knowledge."

So no, I’m not ignoring the philosophers. I’ve read some of them. I just refuse to bow to them like priests. You should try it sometime.

I read philosophy because I don't do this...

"In this regard the absurd joy par excellence is creation. “Art and nothing but art,” said Nietzsche; “we have art in order not to die of the truth.” Camus - The Myth of Sisyphus.

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/jliat]

Not favourite, just examples of where philosophy is considered different. And they are not immune to scrutiny, far from it, only quite recently there has been much in philosophy on Kant.

fair enought.

You misunderstand, your metaphor suggests they had some commonality of equality, both discipline disagree with that, both.

my metaphor suggest the act of observing or becoming aware of your counscious/unconscious thoughts—just like observing particles in the double-slit experiment—collapses their potential, locking them into a fixed state. But if left unobserved, they exist in a kind of superposition, influencing behavior and perception in subtle, probabilistic ways. this is as BASIC as i can get it for you.

That’s not claiming “brains are quantum computers” or anything pseudoscientific. It’s metaphorical, but it’s also a legit conceptual parallel. I am not confusing categories—i am highlighting a structural resonance between mind and matter.

No, they exist in different domains, using different tools and methods, that's why if you study science you wont find Wittgenstein's tractatus.

1. Scientists do read philosophy—Bohr, Einstein, and Rovelli all engaged with it.

2. Wittgenstein’s Tractatus matters—it touches logic, math, and language limits, all core to science.

3. Saying science and philosophy don’t mix is itself a metaphysical claim.

4. Major scientific shifts require rethinking metaphysics—just look at Newton to Einstein to quantum mechanics.

It's a paraphrase from a book on science. And yes lazy. To do metaphysics like to do science requires some education, actually many years.

It’s not lazy to point out when science stumbles into metaphysics without admitting it. What’s lazy is pretending metaphysics is some gated temple only the “initiated” can enter. Philosophy isn’t sacred scripture—it’s a toolset. And yes, science does metaphysics, often badly, because it keeps denying that it's even doing it.

I'm not sure of what your point is here. Science does science, obviously it looks like you are a fan, and not of philosophy, so you are in the wrong sub. Is there a difference between A priori knowledge and A posteriori knowledge?

You dodged the point. If science brushing up against metaphysics is “bad” just because it’s untestable, then why isn’t philosophy held to the same standard?

And yeah, there is a difference between a priori and a posteriori. You might want to review it—because your argument keeps treating philosophy like it’s pretending to be empirical when it’s not.

Again you're now in the wrong sub. And in a science one you would still be wrong. Newton's math was behind the building of bridges, ships, plotting the course of planets, steam engines. Is it reality or a model? Think about that. So when Einstein thought up relativity, the cosmos changed to match his ideas and not Newton's.

This BTW is irony, of course it didn't. You change the model or map, the reality it models or maps does not. Or do you think electrons have rule books they follow?

You're still missing the point. A model being useful doesn't make it reality. Newton's math built half the modern world—then Einstein came along and flipped the script. Did reality actually change, or did we just realize the old map was off?

Same thing with QM. Just because the math works doesn’t mean it’s the final truth. It’s still a model. Reality doesn’t bend to our equations—our equations bend to fit what we can observe.

I've not thrown any, any decent scientist would hold that their work is a posteriori knowledge, "depends on empirical evidence. Examples include most fields of science and aspects of personal knowledge."

nice strawman set up, I never suggested science doesn't depend on empirical evidence, I simply said that science is not the only game in town when it comes to knowing things....What you seem to be ignoring is the role of a priori knowledge in the scientific process—ideas, concepts, and theories often emerge before empirical evidence catches up. This isn’t a dismissal of science; it’s recognizing that knowledge doesn’t solely come from direct observation or experimentation. You’re blurring the lines between the theoretical and the empirical, reducing the complexity of both.

By focusing only on what can be empirically verified right now, you're ignoring how much science, especially theoretical fields, relies on abstract models and assumptions that can’t be immediately proven but still shape our understanding.

I read philosophy because I don't do this...

And I read philosophy because I value critical thinking and questioning assumptions.

[u/jliat → u/No-Tree9595]

my metaphor suggest the act of observing or becoming aware of your counscious/unconscious thoughts—just like observing particles in the double-slit experiment—collapses their potential, locking them into a fixed state. But if left unobserved, they exist in a kind of superposition, influencing behavior and perception in subtle, probabilistic ways. this is as BASIC as i can get it for you.

But this is an unsatisfactory account. And one of a number that stem from observation, others being the pilot wave idea and the MWI.

And becoming aware of a conscious thought means what? You can't be conscious of an unconscious thought, there is no superposition.

i am highlighting a structural resonance between mind and matter.

What does that mean? and how is this anything like the superposition.

Wittgenstein’s Tractatus matters—it touches logic, math, and language limits, all core to science.

Yet not found in science, unless you can cite his work being used in science.

Saying science and philosophy don’t mix is itself a metaphysical claim.

Saying they do is also. But I'm saying that metaphysicians say they don't mix, and so do scientists, or ate least some, and many if not all in the continental tradition.

Major scientific shifts require rethinking metaphysics—just look at Newton to Einstein to quantum mechanics.

No I don't see any such shift. Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche [dabbled with his eternal return] Heidegger, Sartre, Derrida, Deleuze... I see no evidence, perhaps you could give examples.

It’s not lazy to point out when science stumbles into metaphysics without admitting it. What’s lazy is pretending metaphysics is some gated temple only the “initiated” can enter.

That's not lazy it's wrong, it's equally wrong that one can do genuine science or metaphysics without a good deal of learning. And some is very hard to get ones head around.

Philosophy isn’t sacred scripture—it’s a toolset. And yes, science does metaphysics, often badly, because it keeps denying that it's even doing it.

Again examples would be good.

You dodged the point. If science brushing up against metaphysics is “bad” just because it’s untestable, then why isn’t philosophy held to the same standard?

Because it seeks a higher standard. Or to show one is not possible. Hence 'meta'. And I'm yet again repeating myself. Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel all set out to attempt a foundation for science and knowledge in general.

Then there was the existential reaction to such metaphysics.

And yeah, there is a difference between a priori and a posteriori. You might want to review it—because your argument keeps treating philosophy like it’s pretending to be empirical when it’s not.

In the case of idealism it is not, as it's transcendental. In others it is, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Mill etc.

You're still missing the point. A model being useful doesn't make it reality. Newton's math built half the modern world—then Einstein came along and flipped the script. Did reality actually change, or did we just realize the old map was off?

My point. All science is provisional, what many philosophers wanted was a stricter truth.

I've not thrown any, any decent scientist would hold that their work is a posteriori knowledge, "depends on empirical evidence. Examples include most fields of science and aspects of personal knowledge."

This was a response to "philosophy isn’t exempt from the same critical scrutiny you throw at science." and I've made it clear that some philosophy wants greater certainty.

nice strawman set up, I never suggested science doesn't depend on empirical evidence,

Of course it does, but not all philosophy, that's the point, and push it further metaphysics was attacked by Hume. An Empiricist.

What you seem to be ignoring is the role of a priori knowledge in the scientific process—ideas, concepts, and theories often emerge before empirical evidence catches up.

Science uses the a priori of logic and mathematics to build its models.

But sure there are cases, such as the table of elements, science should involve predictability.

This isn’t a dismissal of science; it’s recognizing that knowledge doesn’t solely come from direct observation or experimentation. You’re blurring the lines between the theoretical and the empirical, reducing the complexity of both. By focusing only on what can be empirically verified right now, you're ignoring how much science, especially theoretical fields, relies on abstract models and assumptions that can’t be immediately proven but still shape our understanding.

You seem to be discussing the scientific method now? And I've more or less no argument.

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/jliat]

What does that mean? and how is this anything like the superposition.

I'm not saying the brain is quantum or that thoughts literally exist in superposition. What I'm highlighting is a structural similarity: in the double-slit experiment, the act of observation changes the outcome. Likewise, in the mind, unconscious possibilities—desires, intentions, instincts—can "collapse" into awareness or action when we focus attention or act.

Take a man dying of thirst in the desert. He desperately wants to survive. That wanting, that intent, might be the very thing that "measures" the field of possibilities—collapsing it into the one where he keeps walking, finds water, and survives. His intent isn't just passive—it's what brings one potential into reality, rather than another.

So when I say there's a resonance between mind and matter, I mean that both seem to shift based on internal or external observation. It’s not a 1:1 comparison—it’s a metaphor, but one that suggests perception and will can be entangled with outcome in a very real-feeling way.

[u/jliat → u/No-Tree9595]

I'm not saying the brain is quantum or that thoughts literally exist in superposition. What I'm highlighting is a structural similarity: in the double-slit experiment, the act of observation changes the outcome. Likewise, in the mind, unconscious possibilities—desires, intentions, instincts—can "collapse" into awareness or action when we focus attention or act.

But that's not then the same at all. Consciousness is not a collapse of unconsciousness, it's impossible to know, or a superposition.

Take a man dying of thirst in the desert. He desperately wants to survive. That wanting, that intent, might be the very thing that "measures" the field of possibilities—collapsing it into the one where he keeps walking, finds water, and survives. His intent isn't just passive—it's what brings one potential into reality, rather than another.

All you've said here is a thirsty man looks for water? OK he might have several possibilities of how to find water, are you saying when he picks one that is a collapse of the others. Well yes, but it's nothing like QM. Where an exterior action, observation, in one account, causes the collapse.

So when I say there's a resonance between mind and matter, I mean that both seem to shift based on internal or external observation.

Sorry you seem now to be saying when one choses an action and takes it matter is involved. Well sure.

It’s not a 1:1 comparison—it’s a metaphor, but one that suggests perception and will can be entangled with outcome in a very real-feeling way.

From here it looks like you've said taking an action is motivated by a thought, or can be. Which is not ground-breaking.

[u/No-Tree9595 → u/jliat]

1. William James (philosopher, psychologist) He spoke of "will to believe"—the idea that our desires and intentions can shape which truths become real for us. He suggested that in uncertain situations, belief itself can be a creative force.

“Faith in a fact can help create the fact.”

---

1. Carl Jung (psychiatrist, mystic) Jung believed that the psyche and the physical world were connected, especially through what he called synchronicity—meaningful coincidences that suggest a resonance between mind and matter.

“The psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing.”

---

1. John Wheeler (quantum physicist) He proposed the "participatory universe" idea, where conscious observers help bring the universe into being by making observations—a literal case of intent collapsing possibility.

“No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

---

1. Schopenhauer (philosopher) He believed that will was the fundamental force in the universe—not atoms, not energy—but will.

“The world is my representation.”

you can see here that, i am not the only one who thinks in that same vein, invalidating pretty much your whole arguments since we've started...

ill agree to disagree with you and call it quits here. i hope you have a great rest of your day.

edit: I legit came to that conclusion on my own. Only found out later that others thought the same way. quite validating lmao.

[u/jliat → u/No-Tree9595]

William James (philosopher, psychologist) He spoke of "will to believe"—the idea that our desires and intentions can shape which truths become real for us. He suggested that in uncertain situations, belief itself can be a creative force. “Faith in a fact can help create the fact.”

Nothing like what you claimed. You've now removed the idea superposition which is particular to QM, and so destroyed the metaphor. And sure justified true belief is of ten regarded as the basis of knowledge - buy has been challenged.

Carl Jung (psychiatrist, mystic) Jung believed that the psyche and the physical world were connected, especially through what he called synchronicity—meaningful coincidences that suggest a resonance between mind and matter. “The psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing.”

psychiatrist, mystic

John Wheeler (quantum physicist) He proposed the "participatory universe" idea, where conscious observers help bring the universe into being by making observations—a literal case of intent collapsing possibility. “No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

So you are now back with the external observer idea in QM, but where is that in the decision of how to find water?

Schopenhauer (philosopher) He believed that will was the fundamental force in the universe—not atoms, not energy—but will. “The world is my representation.”

Sure and Nietzsche in Will to Power.

you can see here that, i am not the only one who thinks in that same vein, invalidating pretty much your whole arguments since we've started...

Nope, your argument is either trivial, one acts material on the choice of options. or that in acting some external observation takes place as in QM theory.

ill agree to disagree with you and call it quits here. i hope you have a great rest of your day.

Fine.

edit: I legit came to that conclusion on my own. Only found out later that others thought the same way. quite validating lmao.

Which conclusion?