Neuroscience and Being

1. Between Subjectivity and Objectivity. Modern neuroscience explores the experience of being (or the self) in terms of brain activity. Here, two levels intersect:

a) The “self” as a neural construction (objectifiable)

• Researchers like Antonio Damasio and Joseph LeDoux show how the sense of identity arises from neurobiological processes: the proto-self, the core self, and the autobiographical self.

• Within this framework, being (or at least the self) can be modeled as an emergent, objective phenomenon—observable in measurable neural correlates.

In other words: part of being can enter the domain of neuroscientific objectivity, as empirical data about the “self.”

b) Being as irreducible experience (subjective)

• However, even neuroscientists recognize that the first-person experience—the felt sense of being—cannot be reduced to electrical patterns.

• The quality of being conscious (qualia) remains inexplicable from a purely objective standpoint. This is known as the “hard problem of consciousness” (David Chalmers).

Thus, being escapes mere objectivity: it is a lived phenomenon, not merely a describable one.

2. Indian Metaphysics: The Self (Ātman) as Transcendental Ground. In the Vedāntatradition, especially Advaita Vedānta (non-dualism), the Self is called Ātman, and it is identified with Brahman, the ultimate reality.

a) Neither objective nor subjective, but transcendental

Ātman is not an object to be known through the senses, nor a mental construct, but the ultimate subject of knowing—the pure witness (sakshi). It is non-dual reality: that which remains when all distinctions between subject and object dissolve.

“Tat Tvam Asi” — Thou art That: Being is not a thing; it is your innermost nature, prior to all objectivity.

b) Objectivity is an appearance (Māyā). The world of objects (what “is”) is not fully real. It is a projection conditioned by ignorance (avidyā). Only pure being, without attributes (nirguna Brahman), is real. Everything else participates in being but does not exhaust it.

Thus, being does not belong to the domain of the objectifiable, but is that which makes objectivity itself possible.

3. Quantum Physics and Being: The Observer as Foundation. Some contemporary philosophical approaches inspired by quantum physics (though still debated) challenge the notion of an objective reality independent of the observer.

a) Consciousness collapses the wave function (von Neumann–Wigner interpretation)

In quantum mechanics, a system exists in a superposition of states until it is observed. Some physicists (e.g., Eugene Wigner) proposed that the consciousness of the observercollapses that superposition into a definite state.

Thus, what exists is not independent of the observer: the being of things depends on the conscious act.

b) David Bohm and the implicate order

David Bohm proposed that reality has an implicate order: an indivisible totality in which what we perceive as separate objects (“objectivity”) are only superficial manifestations of a deeper reality. This underlying reality is non-local, holistic, and processual—more akin to a flowing consciousness than to a fixed substance.

In this view, being is a dynamic process, not a static entity: a totality in motion (holomovement).

Integrated Conclusion: Being cannot be reduced to an object of the world (as something that “is” in the empirical sense), nor to a mere psychological subject. In all three traditions—neuroscience, Indian metaphysics, and quantum physics—being is revealed as the condition of possibility of objectivity itself, and not just another of its contents.

We may thus say:

Being does not belong to the domain of what is objectively observable, but rather grounds, sustains, and transcends it.

4. Existential Phenomenology (Heidegger, Sartre). In Being and Time, Martin Heideggerredefines being not as another entity, but as that which allows entities to appear as such. Being is what gives meaning to Dasein—the human being as that which understands being.

For Heidegger, Being is neither object nor subject, but a horizon of meaning, an opening. He does not identify Being with consciousness, but affirms that only through Dasein—the being who questions Being—can Being be understood.

“The being of beings only reveals itself in the openness of Dasein.”

In summary: For Heidegger, Being is not consciousness, but consciousness (or openness) is the mode through which Being discloses itself.

5. Metaphysical Idealism (Kastrup, Mørch, Schelling, Hegel). In contemporary ontological idealism (e.g., Bernardo Kastrup) and in the Hegelian tradition, Being is consciousness itself, the absolute foundation.

a) Bernardo Kastrup

He proposes that consciousness is the only ontologically fundamental reality. Everything that appears as objective or subjective—even space and time—emerges from a transpersonal universal consciousness.

“Consciousness is not in the brain. The brain is in consciousness.”

Therefore, for Kastrup:

✅ Yes, Being is consciousness. It is the metaphysical One from which all else emerges through dissociation.

6. Advaita Vedānta and the Ātman–Brahman Identity. In the Indian non-dual tradition:

Brahman, the absolute Being, is pure consciousness (cit), without attributes (nirguna).

Ātman, the individual self, is not different from that universal consciousness.

“Sat–Cit–Ānanda” — Being is existence (sat), consciousness (cit), and bliss (ānanda).

✅ In this framework, there is no doubt: Being and Consciousness are the same reality.

7. Neurophenomenology and the Science of Consciousness (Varela, Chalmers). From the neurophenomenological approach:

• A distinction is made between consciousness as subjective experience(phenomenal consciousness) and being as objective or neural existence.

• Francisco Varela proposes a circular integration between lived experience (subjective) and embodiment (objective): being arises in this circularity.

However, neither Chalmers nor Varela identify Being with Consciousness. They see consciousness rather as a correlate or manifestation.

❌ Thus, there is no ontological identity, but a close structural relationship.

8. Philosophical Interpretations of Quantum Physics (Bohm, Wheeler, Laszlo). In certain cosmological interpretations:

• Bohm’s implicate order posits a totality in which consciousness and matter are not separate: both emerge from an implicit being.

• Ervin Laszlo speaks of the Akashic field, where information, consciousness, and reality are expressions of a fundamental vibrational totality.

✅ Once again, Being appears inseparable from Consciousness.

Integrated Philosophical Conclusion

Being is neither limited to objectivity nor reducible to subjectivity. It is the ontological condition of possibility for both.

In idealist, non-dual, and quantum-informed traditions,

Being and Consciousness are one:

Consciousness is not something that Being has, but the very way in which Being manifests.