Idealism Additional Theories

As creator and host of Closer To Truth, I [RLK] receive ideas from viewers globally. These unsolicited papers are often elaborate treatises, the majority of which focus on consciousness or cosmology. I look at all of them, keep an open mind (with at least one eye squinty skeptical), learn some, respond as I can. I marvel at the passion and respect the dedication.^[1]

Addressing the “ultimate questions” of cosmic existence and human sentience is the highest calling of human beings, which is why I appreciate diverse ideas (Kuhn, 2023). While I cannot agree with many of the assumptions, and certainly not with most of the assertions, I see the scope of subjects as exemplifying the kinds of issues and challenges that enliven the human spirit (small “s”).

To conclude this section on Idealism, I note several models of idealism I've received (among many). The only judgment I pass is that consciousness in general, and idealism in particular, fire the imagination as well as stir the passions.

Paddock & Buervenich's Flip-Book Idealism

Flip-Book Idealism (FBI), developed by neuroscientist Silvia Paddock and physicist Thomas Buervenich, agrees with other forms of idealism that spacetime is not primary and that consciousness exists outside of it. According to FBI, observer/participants, who are individuations of this consciousness, detect patterns in a facet of consciousness called the “Urgrund”—the fundamental essence of existence—and shape this information into frames of experience by translating complex signal patterns into qualia.

One hallmark of FBI is that the generation of experiential frames by consciousness creates the arrow of time. Its observer-based viewpoint of reality aligns with quantum mechanics, such that wave-particle duality and entanglement (“spooky action at a distance”) are no longer odd or mysterious. FBI distinguishes itself from other forms of idealism by asserting that conscious agents primarily interact with one another through the intermediary of the Urgrund in a kind of question-and-answer game and by proposing that spacetime is a set of rules that consciousness needs to adhere to when creating experiential frames to allow for the experienced world to be consistent. FBI does not solve the hard problem of consciousness but attests to its significance (Paddock & Buervenich, 2023).

According to reviewer Jo Edwards, “The central idea is that our subjectivity is the inherently conscious universe enjoying local snapshots in discrete time ‘frames’, set by brain interactions, that are elided into a sense of movement and continuity, as for a cartoon flipbook.” He concludes that the authors make “a nice case for these being fundamental time units that in the brain are a few milliseconds long but elsewhere will follow rules of quantum field theory—perhaps as decoherence intervals. I think this is the right direction to go in. It is nice to see mainstream quantum theory rather than fringe interpretations or invocations of entanglement, tachyons, or dark matter. Like genes, consciousness is likely to be based on kitchen sink biophysics” (Edwards, 2024).

Duan's Platonic Computation

Materials scientist turned consciousness researcher Simon Duan proposes that “metaconsciousness” (the power to conceive, perceive, and be self-aware) is the formless, contentless, infinite potentiality and thus is the most fundamental and irreducible existence. Creation of all else is rendered by the “Platonic computer” that exists in the realm of Forms, and which is made by, of, with, and from metaconsciousness. “Platonic computation” models how metaconsciousness generates the perceived actualities, including abstract entities as well as all physical and nonphysical realities. It is postulated that this is achieved via digital computation using the Platonic computer. The hypothesis of “Platonic computation” offers a solution to the inverse hard problem of consciousness: how matter arises out of consciousness (Duan, 2022; Duan, 2024).

Jaffe’s Cognitive Dream Interface Theory

Dermatologist/Mohs surgeon Andrew Jaffe proposes Cognitive Dream Interface Theory (CDIT) as an idealist theory of phenomenal consciousness, positing that one fundamental awareness is experienced through localized individual perspectives within a shared, lawfully constrained world. Its distinctive starting point is ordinary dreaming. Dreams are treated not merely as metaphor but as a familiar demonstration that awareness can experience a complete world containing apparent space, time, bodies, memory, causality, other individuals, and an autobiographical self without being identical to any of them. CDIT asks whether waking reality could represent a vastly more stable, constrained, and intersubjectively shared expression of this same capacity (LaBerge, 1985; Voss et al., 2009).

CDIT reverses the explanatory direction of physicalism. Rather than beginning with matter and asking how subjective experience emerges from physical processes, it begins with awareness, the one phenomenon known directly, as a natural primitive from which experience arises. Neuroscience, evolution, and physics retain their explanatory roles, but describe the organization and regularities of the shared interface rather than the origin of awareness itself. The brain is part of the experienced structure through which awareness becomes localized as a particular perspective.

Localization also addresses why experience occurs as this individual rather than another. No preexisting self requires assignment to a particular body. Each conscious organism is a localized window of the same fundamental awareness, and from within each window that perspective necessarily appears as “me.” Localization precedes autobiography: infants experience before developing a stable autobiographical identity, while dreams show that identity, memory, and biography can change without eliminating first-person experience.

CDIT differs from panpsychism because matter does not contain separate units of consciousness; from solipsism because waking reality is shared across perspectives; and from dissociation-based idealism because individuality arises through localization rather than fragmentation of a cosmic mind. Waking life differs from ordinary dreaming through its extraordinary constraint, continuity, mathematical regularity, and intersubjective agreement.

Dreaming makes CDIT’s central proposal directly familiar. Every night awareness can experience another identity, different memories and relationships, and an apparently external world that seems real while the dream lasts. Upon awakening, the temporary autobiography largely disappears while awareness remains. CDIT proposes the same basic architecture for waking life on a far more stable and shared scale: awareness is fundamental, conscious selves are its localized perspectives, and the physical world is the highly constrained experiential reality they share. Dreams therefore provide a first-person example of the relationship between awareness, identity, and experienced reality that CDIT proposes as fundamental.

References

Jaffe, A. T. (2026). Living the Dream: Cognitive Dream Interface Theory (CDIT), A Philosophical and Scientific Inquiry into Consciousness and Reality. Essentia. Forthcoming September 1, 2026.

LaBerge, S. (1985). Lucid Dreaming: The Power of Being Awake and Aware in Your Dreams. Jeremy P. Tarcher.

Voss, U., Holzmann, R., Tuin, I., & Hobson, J. A. (2009). Lucid dreaming: A state of consciousness with features of both waking and non-lucid dreaming. Sleep, 32(9), 1191–1200.

Rodrigues's C-Pattern Theory

Neuroscientist Pablo Rodriguez posits that the brain can generate only c-patterns, no experiences, because experiences are qualitatively different from matter. Experiences are thus regarded as created by the universe, in that c-patterns are constantly “read” and converted to experiences. C-Pattern Theory has three basic points.

First, the brain doesn't generate conscious experiences; it generates c-patterns, which are complex geometric three-dimensional structures composed of all action potentials from all of the brain's [relevant] neurons firing at any given moment. The c-pattern's specific form and geometry are postulated as being what fully defines any conscious experience. So, for every moment, there's a different c-pattern and a corresponding experience defined by it.

Second, an experience is defined by a c-pattern's form, but each is created by the universe, not by the brain; rather, a c-pattern's specific form and geometry encodes an experience as a discrete expression of a universal geometric experience language, which the universe understands perfectly and decodes into real, actual experiences.

Third, we are not body and brain; we are consciousness. If c-patterns are mere symbols converted to experiences, then only consciousness can be what's having all experiences. And as we are the ones experiencing, we are parts of consciousness. Different organisms have different c-patterns, experiences, and levels of understanding reality. So, this world is just what our c-patterns currently allow until we manage to expand them to the next level. Thus, true human progress is possible only if the experience language is deciphered and c-patterns are expanded towards greater understanding (Rodriguez, 2023).

Koyoti's Is-Ness

Engineer and spiritual journeyist Michael Koyoti states that “all consciousness is one.” Every human spirit is unique, with our singular thoughts, perceptions, and experiences, like a whirlpool in an infinite ocean of consciousness. While universal consciousness is infinite in space and time, each conscious being experiences creation from a unique perspective. The power of spirit does not come from its past achievements or future aspirations but from its existence in the present instant. This is the essence of our existence. Awareness of this essence is the state of “Is-Ness” (Koyoti, 2023).

Guevara-Calderon’s Perception Mechanism Theory

Independent researcher José Tomás Guevara Calderón’s Perception Mechanism Theory (PMT) proposes that consciousness is something fundamental and undifferentiated—termed Universal Consciousness—and by treating Universal Consciousness not as a substrate but as the primordial possibility from which experience can be rendered, PMT reframes the hard problem as a question of rendering architecture rather than metaphysical identity.

Thus, PMT offers a mechanistic account of how awareness generates the world as experienced, such that the felt qualities of experience are not generated by the brain but selected, shaped, and expressed through it. PMT’s unique contribution is the distinction between consciousness as substrate and the processes that transform this substrate into perceptual, cognitive, and narrative experience. The multi-layer "RA/PM" architecture comprises four functional layers. RA4 is the non‑symbolic possibility space of consciousness, not spatial or temporal, analogous to a ground state of awareness. RA3 is a boundary membrane or transition layer where constraints, quantum‑classical effects, and curvature dynamics shape the possible forms of experience. RA2 is the symbolic layer, generating cognition, self‑models, language, and conceptual structures. RA1 is the rendered layer: the stable, coherent world of sensory experience.

The Perception Mechanism (PM) selects, stabilizes, and actualizes experience by filtering information from these layers. PM functions as a selection‑and‑actualization operator rather than a representational system, explaining why conscious experience is unified, coherent, and structured despite the heterogeneity of neural and cognitive processes.

PMT clarifies the partial insights of existing theories by locating them within the rendering pipeline by mapping existing theories to the RA layers for accuracy and balance. Materialist and functionalist theories describe RA1 and RA2 outputs; higher‑order and global workspace theories describe RA2 coordination; quantum theories describe RA3 boundary behavior; panpsychist and idealist theories intuit RA4 but lack mechanistic articulation. PMT provides the architectural mechanism linking these fragments into a coherent whole.

By treating consciousness as substrate and experience as rendered output, PMT reframes the hard problem as a question of rendering architecture rather than metaphysical identity. Thus, by shifting the explanatory space from ontology to mechanism, this approach offers a unifying framework that may help explain both the fragmentation of existing theories and the stability of conscious experience.

Reference

Guevara, J.T. (2025). Twelve Theories of Consciousness — and How GTC/PMT Completes the Picture. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17082952 (doi.org in Bing)

Hawkins's Map of Consciousness

Psychiatrist and spiritual teacher David Hawkins claims human consciousness comes arrayed with 17 levels and associated “energy fields,” with the “frequency” or “vibration” of energy increasing with each rise in level, along with corresponding implications for emotional tone, view of God, and view of life. Consciousness is pervasive, connecting to God via “devotional nonduality” and enabling, at its higher levels, a beneficial and healing effect on the world. Hawkins says his scientific framework elucidates the spiritual levels delineated by saints, sages, and mystics, with highest levels representing Self-realization, the void, nothingness vs. allness, full enlightenment, and divine realization^[2] (Hawkins, 2014, n.d.).

Footnotes

[1]. Readers of Landscape of Consciousness (along with viewers of Closer To Truth) come from ∼190 countries. The passion to explore ultimate questions of consciousness (along with ultimate questions of cosmos, life, and meaning) brings together people from diverse countries, regions, religions, races, ethnicities, genders, ages, educational levels, income levels, and social classes. The only thing we all have in common is the pursuit of these ultimate questions: expressing wonder and awe, and being willing to hear diverse views. But this “only thing” is a “big thing.” We all face the mysteries of cosmic existence and human sentience—the human condition, aspiration, and spirit that unify us all.

[2]. From low to high, Hawkins's 17 levels of consciousness: shame, guilt, apathy, grief, fear, desire, anger, pride, courage, neutrality, willingness, acceptance, reason, love, joy, peace, enlightenment (Hawkins, 2014). I should note that while Hawkins has his acolytes—one of whom implored me to include him on the Landscape—others call him a plagiarist and a charlatan.