13. Is There a Way Out?

After breaking our minds over different philosophies and their problems, where do we stand now? Did we even get close to answering the What Is? question. As you may have seen, we are not even close. Every puzzle we solve leads us to more puzzles. Every assumption that we make that explains one property of our experience seems to struggle with the others.

Here is the situation. Our rational mind is trying to explain the world and the mind itself. Our mind is capable of conceiving almost infinite possibilities that could explain these.

• We have empirical knowledge about the world we perceive which along with our rational knowledge helps us discount some possibilities that are logically inconsistent as impossible. And we are still left with infinite potential explanations.
• Empirical knowledge of the mind is trickier: the mind is the very tool we use to observe anything, so studying it isn’t like pointing a telescope at a planet.

And we are given the difficult task of finding a philosophy among the infinite potential possibilities. Let’s say we pick one and build an informal philosophical system that is consistent. It doesn’t have to be proven by any means. Based on the Münchhausen trilemma, it will have at least one of the following:

• Brute statements taken to be facts.
• Self-referential cycles.
• Acceptance of infinite regressions

The problem with brute statements - They always lead to more questions. You want to use God as an entity to explain everything? Where does God come from? You think today’s best physics - the Standard Model - is the final word? It still can’t say why we have exactly these particles with exactly these masses and charges. The solution to it is to either accept self-referential cycles or acceptance of infinite regressions, the remaining two options we listed. For example, Some say God just exists without needing a cause (a brute starting point); some say God is self-existent (a self reference); a few, like the mathematician Cantor, pictured God as a kind of endless infinity.

The problem with self-references and infinite regressions - They are outright scary and lead to numerous paradoxes which stump us. As we have seen, both the physical world and the mind seem to potentially have numerous infinities and self-loops.

There is also a problem in the interaction between mind and the physical world. The physical world is changing and it’s very hard to explain lasting, single, unchanging identities - like the ‘me’ that feels the same over decades - using only stuff that is constantly changing. But if we decide to use non-physical entities to explain the mind, we run into other questions.

• If the physical brain is not what gives rise to the mental experience, who really has a mental experience? All humans? Only some humans? Some animals too?
• How does this non-physical entity interact with the physical world that seems to follow laws?
• Where does our sense of free will come from?

Considering all this, what are our options?

Don’t know. Don’t care.

Do you even need a philosophy that understands the nature of reality? Billions of people have lived and died without needing one. So why bother? Just get on with your life without thinking too much. Let’s partyyyyyy!!!

I don’t know - but I will find the truth

Admit ignorance, then commit to the search. Keep asking why, keep testing, keep refining. There is no guarantee the search ends - this book has shown you why it might not - but the search itself is worthwhile. Every paradox you untangle and every assumption you expose is real progress, even if the final answer stays out of reach. The joy is in the hunting, not just the catching.

Compromise and pick a complete philosophy with brute statements

Build yourself one or pick an existing philosophical system that has a lot of brute statements which are taken as fundamental truths. Remember that all of these have some uncomfortable moral implications that you have to grapple with.

• For example, you can pick physicalism and brush away the problem of qualia using brute statements. But how do you handle the identity problem? You can worry about it when human cloning and teleportation really becomes a thing.
• If you pick dualism, you have to face the uncomfortable question of which animals, insects or microorganisms around you really have the mental substance/property. Or you could just not care.
• If you pick idealism, you still face the same question as dualism. Which animals, insects or microbes are having a conscious experience and aren’t just zombies in the dream.

Just remember…..

Embrace the infinities and self-references

Try to embrace the self-references and infinites. Build a philosophy with infinities and self-references. Yes, there are paradoxes. So what? Swim in these paradoxes and have fun. Chase those infinities. Maybe take the mystic path and see if they were right. Maybe you will really understand the absolute infinity with your mystic knowledge.

We have infinite possibilities in front of us. The situation may look overwhelming. But remember that your mind conceived of these possibilities. Of the four options I have listed above, no one option is better than the other option. Go for what you feel works for you. You can always change it later if it doesn’t work. That’s the best part about having infinite choices.