By Prana Lite 
A Dialogue Between the Matter Model and the Consciousness Model
In modern academic discourse, materialism remains the dominant framework through which the nature of reality is understood. This model, deeply rooted in the scientific revolution, asserts that matter is the fundamental substance of the universe. According to this view, consciousness is an emergent property of complex physical systems—particularly, the brain. As influential as this model has been, significant challenges have arisen from both scientific and philosophical fronts.
An alternative framework, the consciousness model, posits that consciousness is not a byproduct of matter, but the fundamental substrate of reality itself. This view aligns with many non-dual traditions, and increasingly, it is receiving attention within academic philosophy and certain branches of neuroscience and physics. In this article, we will explore these two models—the materialist matter model and the consciousness model—through the lens of both scientific inquiry and non-dual understanding, drawing on the works of researchers such as Bernardo Kastrup and non-dual teachers like Rupert Spira.
The Matter Model: A Dominant but Challenged Paradigm
The materialist model, sometimes referred to as “physicalism,” holds that the only things that exist are material substances. In this view, consciousness is considered a secondary phenomenon that arises from the interactions of physical elements, primarily neurons in the brain. This view aligns with the famous dictum from Carl Sagan, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” In materialism, all phenomena, including human experience, can ultimately be explained through physical processes.
However, despite its dominance, the matter model faces significant challenges. One of the most persistent problems is what philosophers call the “hard problem of consciousness,” a term coined by philosopher David Chalmers. The hard problem refers to the difficulty in explaining why and how subjective experience arises from physical processes. While neuroscience has made significant strides in understanding the correlates of consciousness—the neural activity that corresponds to certain experiences—it has yet to provide a compelling explanation for the existence of consciousness itself.
Moreover, recent advances in quantum mechanics further complicate the materialist model. Research from physicists such as John Wheeler and Eugene Wigner, as well as recent interpretations of the double-slit experiment, suggest that the observer plays a crucial role in the manifestation of physical reality. This leads us to question whether matter exists independently of consciousness, or whether consciousness is fundamental in shaping the very fabric of what we call “matter.”
The Consciousness Model: A Fundamental Paradigm
The consciousness model, which aligns with non-dual philosophy and certain idealist traditions, reverses the assumptions of materialism. Instead of positing that matter gives rise to consciousness, this model asserts that consciousness is the primary reality, and what we perceive as matter is an appearance within consciousness.
Philosophers like Bernardo Kastrup have advanced this model using both empirical and philosophical arguments. In his work, Kastrup challenges the notion that matter can exist independently of experience. Drawing on insights from quantum mechanics, Kastrup points out that the act of observation itself seems to influence the behavior of matter, implying that consciousness has a foundational role in how reality unfolds. He argues that rather than being a product of brain activity, consciousness is the medium through which all experience—including the experience of a physical world—occurs.
Kastrup also engages with the “combination problem” in panpsychism, a competing view that attributes a form of consciousness to all matter. The combination problem asks: If consciousness is a property of fundamental particles, how do these micro-consciousnesses combine to form the unified subjective experience that humans have? The consciousness model offers a more coherent answer: there is only one unified field of consciousness, and the sense of individual consciousness arises through a process of differentiation within that field, much like a whirlpool in water retains an apparent form while still being part of the whole.
Neuroscientific Evidence and the Consciousness Model
Although mainstream neuroscience often upholds the materialist framework, emerging evidence hints at consciousness as something more than a mere byproduct of brain activity. For instance, studies on near-death experiences (NDEs), such as those conducted by Dr. Pim van Lommel, challenge the notion that consciousness is confined to brain function. During clinical death, when brain activity ceases, some patients report vivid, structured experiences that suggest a form of awareness existing independently of the brain.
Furthermore, research in neuroplasticity has shown that mental training, such as meditation, can physically alter the brain’s structure. The Dalai Lama, in collaboration with neuroscientists like Dr. Richard Davidson, has been involved in research showing that long-term meditation can enhance regions of the brain associated with empathy, attention, and emotional regulation. This plasticity challenges the idea that the brain solely produces consciousness, suggesting instead that the brain may be more like a receiver or filter of consciousness.
The Philosophical Implications: A Shift in Understanding
From a philosophical perspective, the consciousness model presents a radically different metaphysical landscape. Rather than viewing consciousness as an emergent, contingent phenomenon, it places consciousness at the center of all experience. This model resonates with Advaita Vedanta and other non-dual traditions, which teach that the true nature of the self (Atman) is pure consciousness, and that this consciousness is not personal or individual but universal (Brahman).
If consciousness is fundamental, then the boundaries between the subjective and objective dissolve. What we call “matter” is simply an appearance within consciousness, much like a dream appears within the mind of the dreamer. This non-dual understanding challenges not only materialism but also our entire way of conceptualizing the world and our place within it.
Scientific Research Supporting the Consciousness Model
Recent work in the fields of neuroscience and physics provides indirect support for the consciousness model. Research on the observer effect in quantum mechanics, for instance, suggests that consciousness may play a role in collapsing the wave function of quantum particles. Similarly, the study of psi phenomena, such as telepathy and precognition, has raised questions about the non-local nature of consciousness. While mainstream science remains skeptical of such phenomena, meta-analyses, such as those conducted by Dean Radin at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, show statistically significant results that challenge the materialist assumption that consciousness is confined to the brain.
In addition, studies in neurobiology, particularly those exploring the effects of psychedelics, suggest that reducing brain activity through substances like psilocybin and DMT correlates with expansive, highly vivid conscious experiences. This finding, paradoxical from a materialist standpoint, supports the idea that the brain may act as a filter that restricts, rather than produces, consciousness.
Everything appears in conformity with our understanding of ourselves – Rupert Spira
Conclusion: Toward a Unified Model of Consciousness
While the materialist model has been the dominant paradigm in both science and philosophy, its limitations in addressing the nature of consciousness are becoming increasingly clear. The consciousness model, which posits that awareness is primary and matter secondary, offers a compelling alternative. As more empirical evidence and philosophical inquiry support this shift, we may be approaching a point where consciousness is recognized not as an epiphenomenon of brain activity but as the fundamental substance of reality itself.
This shift in understanding has profound implications—not only for the fields of neuroscience and philosophy but for how we understand ourselves and our place in the universe. If consciousness is indeed primary, it challenges us to rethink the nature of existence, identity, and the relationship between the self and the world.
