The modern human being faces a profound existential dilemma: either he fights for his survival, with all the consequences that this implies, or he assumes a humble and holistic attitude that will transform his position in the world, the universe and reality.

Written and published by Nihilitus

Date of publication: March 27, 2022

When we are invoking the zombie mythos, we are not speaking about the living dead that are a recurring entertainment theme in modern media fantasy for capturing mass audiences.  This is not an analysis of supernatural or fantastic issues. The purpose is addressing the central question of what is inside on human beings. We try to unveil what is behind human actions against nature, against himself and ultimately against the reality in which he lives.

It is normal for us to think that human beings live for themselves, that their purpose in life is to extend the legacy of humanity to future generations because that is what life is all about, passing it on. Human beings have conditioned the meaning of life to their existence, because beyond that there is nothing important, or nothing that can interest us as humans. However, this centrality of humanity in itself^₁ is not normal, or rather it is not natural. 

Thanks to the knowledge that quantum physics has left us, today we know that life is not a process exclusive to human beings, but that it exists in non-human dimensions that do not necessarily depend on a biological structure. Although plants and animals share vital processes with human beings, it is only recently that humans have allowed them the vital value of their nature because before they were simple “things”. And what is not biological can have life? Of course, it can, a kind of life that we do not yet understand, but it happens. At the subatomic level we know that particles possess a kind of proto-consciousness, but that is a complex issue that requires another analysis.

What is important to make clear is that life is a very complex process where many variables interact, and the human being is only one of them. So, the first mistake is to think that life is determined by human existence on this planet, and in general, in the universe. If the human being sees himself as the forger of life, then what is around him is dead and incomplete? Since the human being emerged on this planet, the tendency, in effect, has been that: quit the meaning of life to what is not human.

As such, the human being became the centrality of the world, of the universe, of reality. The non-human became only a means to human welfare, therefore, a manipulable and disposable object that had nothing to do with the story of human achievement. But the non-human also became an obstacle, the enemy that would limit the universal purposes of humanity. Disconnection from the world has prevented humanity from understanding and preventing complex contemporary problems such as global warming, which is still not universally accepted. And if we go to a deeper level, we find that human centrality produces uncontrolled events of chaos that that could lead to the end of life on the planet.

It is easy to conclude that humanity has replaced life with death, chaos with order, isolation with unity. The separation of the mind from the body has been definitive^₂. That is why modern humanity lacks spirituality, it is dead because human is alone by self. Only think on his own benefit. Being spiritual not necessarily means be religious. The spirituality is about finding a purpose with metaphysical ends (necessarily linked to a non-human nature). The modern human lacks this, even though there are very powerful religions of universal scope.

For all these reasons, the analysis starts from understanding the modern human as a zombie because he is essentially dead, lacking a spirituality that gives him a metaphysical meaning and provides him with a place and reason in the universe in accordance with his relationship with the non-human. The modern human is incomplete because he is incapable of understanding the complex network that sustains life on the planet and beyond. In this incompleteness, the human follows his purposes without measuring the destruction of his own growth, which is contradictory because in the end he is promoting his own annihilation.

Alex Wendt is a German political scientist who has proposed to retake classical vitalism^₃ with the radical categories of quantum physics. This new vitalism sheds light on the new human who can reconnect with the universe, with the non-human and in general with a broader concept of life. But in making this proposal, Wendt (2015) rightly identifies four characteristics of the modern human that are preventing this new trend from materializing.  

First, modern humanity is completely material. The relationship of the human being with reality is deeply influenced by classical materialism. This means that at the ontological level there is the conviction that the physical aspects of reality are all that really exists^₄, therefore, the mental or spiritual dimension are consequences of the first one, meaning, they depend on matter for their existence. For the materialistic mind the essence of things does not lie in their spirituality, but in the physical, therefore, everything is made of matter (for example, recognize that matter at its basic level is made of atoms).

Second, modern humanity is fragmented, and separation is a constitutive part of its identity. This means that as a physical organism – as a body or mind – it depends on itself and not on other people. With this is not denying that the associative sense exists, it is clarifying that any link occurs, but from the independent position of each person, this is a precondition for any association. Wendt (2015) clarifies that in the case of classical modern humanity biological separability implies mental separability, but in the quantum case mental states may depend non-locally on other minds.

Third, the nature of the modern human being is determined by local causal forces at either the macro or micro level, which means that human behavior and its relationship to reality will be subject to conditions of separability and causality^₅. Although the mind does not follow causal patterns, science has endeavored to make us believe that reasons are causes^₆. It is more difficult to universally apply efficient causality to human behavior because it is not subject to a logical chain that can be predicted like physical objects.

Finally, the modern human being lacks free will, his behavior is subject to the interaction of internal and external causes that are combined in his body and over which he cannot have any control, which leads us to address fundamental ontological questions because if reality is deterministic and the will has no role in it, this means that it is unalterable. The non-human does not count as a subject. Being reified, it is only a means that lacks will, therefore, its position in the world does not have any influence.

In compiling these properties, the first thing Wendt notes is the absence of experience, meaning, and purpose in a teleological sense. This is because they are not consistent with a strictly classical ontology. Experience is not constitutive of contemporary human nature because science cannot explain consciousness^₇ or at least has not found a deterministic causal explanation to justify it, thus invalidating it as a means of accessing knowledge of the real. By extension, without experience (or what is the same without recognizing that consciousness is a fundamental part in the construction of scientific knowledge) there can be no meaning, consequently, private and collective events are approached as data that can be collected and stored in a physical base for their reproduction. This leads to the denial of purpose because teleology (which is its nature) is incompatible with a mechanistic worldview.

With these clarifications we can return to the original question of the analysis: what is the modern human in general terms? Following Wendt’s (2015) reasoning, and our own arguments, two answers arise: either he is a machine, or he is a zombie. It is very clear that the modern human is not following a pattern consistent with life, but the opposite. He is a living corpse that is destroying the vital processes of the planet. He is not alive because he has no purpose or spirituality, he denies his own consciousness, he considers it epiphenomenal. It is a machine that lives isolated and separate, it has reified the nature of the non-human for its own purposes stripping it of consciousness and value. Human reality only exists because of what it can see, observe, measure. The capacity to feel (as a knowledge based on subjective experience that is universal and not exclusive to humanity) is reduced or is not an important component for the construction of scientific knowledge.

Although this diagnosis is fatal and not very hopeful for the future of humanity on the planet, there are trends that point to a restoration of coherence. Science itself has been able to observe this change that aims not only to transform human nature, but also reality itself. Dana Zohar (1994) describes several characteristics of this change that are gradually becoming prominent in human societies.

A holistic approach must be assumed for the understanding of life, of the human relationship with the non-human and, in general, of the understanding of reality. Classical scientific knowledge of Newtonian origin must be overcome. Insisting on the isolation of the parts is an impediment to understanding the complexity of human societies and their relationship with reality. The mechanistic vision must be overcome. Structures of dynamic integration must be promoted, so that the approaches of analysis, and at a more advanced level, the basis of human identity is sustained in a universal relationship. Only in this way will human projection exceed its own limitations and integrate the non-human.

It is necessary to overcome the individualism/collectivism dichotomy. Neither individualism nor extreme collectivism are capable, by themselves, of understanding the complex nature of the modern human being, who is traversed by both dimensions and requires the necessary space to cultivate his creativity and freedom. It is necessary to develop a new alternative, a third way that will mediate between both dimensions of human reality. Our whole sense of what it is to be a community must be transformed.

Pluralism must be embraced as a new collective vision of human understanding. That means overcoming some of the fundamental principles of classical materialism, leaving behind the idea of absolute truth, of one expression of reality, of one best way of doing things, of absolute choice. Instead, a more pluralistic view must be adopted that can accept the pluralities and diversities of our new experience. Learning to live with many points of view, with many ways of experiencing reality.

Sensitivity must be recovered as a way of assimilating and validating knowledge. Changing boundaries of responsibility and identity (personal, cultural, national, sexual and gender), experimental ways of life and family structure, new technological systems, new sources of information and new and changing markets demand a flexible response. Mechanistic patterns of fixed roles and rigidly organized structures for management and control fail to fully tap the vast potential latent in human response and imagination. We are not machines. Living systems were designed to cope with ambiguity and creative challenge; the future requires us to use this.

The hierarchical vision of power must be overcome. Ontologically speaking, this implies understanding that power is born “from the bottom up”, or in other words, assuming that it is an emergent phenomenon. Modern humanity has given pride of place to the opposite mode, so that “top-down” social and political structures, structures imposed by tradition, inheritance, revelation or external authority are permanently clashing with internal conflicts. Modern human reality is incompatible with the establishment of unchallenged absolute power. There is something profoundly radical in contemporary social and political consciousness. A new vision is spreading forcefully, emerging from within, from the roots where individual people think, feel and act.

A universal ecological vision must be assumed. It is necessary to build a social reality that is in harmony with the natural world around us. Human social goals can and should evolve in harmony with the broader context of life in which society is embedded.

Spirituality must be recovered. It is necessary to resignify society. The social vision must have a teleological dimension. That is, we must be able to answer questions such as what is the distant society, what is its purpose and direction, in what dimensions of underlying reality do we find its roots, its value systems, its moral foundations. These are ultimately spiritual questions. They have to do with how we understand the ultimate meaning and sanction of our actions and projects. Such concerns were the driving force behind the founding of most religions, but spirituality itself is less organized than religion, less tied to a specific dogma or practice. A spiritual dimension in society need not (indeed, in a pluralistic society, should not) be identified with any organization or group.

This new living must thrive in harmony with scientific knowledge. Old science and organized traditional religions have found themselves at odds over the history and nature of the universe and the nature of human beings. At worst, mechanistic science openly contradicts religious beliefs, and vice versa. At best, they agree to differ and go their separate ways, each declaring the other irrelevant to their own interests.

If we are to rediscover the moral and spiritual roots of our society, we must do so in a way that reflects, extends and develops, rather than contradicts, the knowledge that science is giving us about the nature of the physical and living worlds of which we are a part. Such a dialogue is meaningless if the science we have in mind is mechanistic science. The radically new science of the twentieth century is more compatible with our spiritual intuitions. Taking its insights into account can help us articulate a more “modern” spiritual and moral vision.

1 If we use the inference to the best explanation or IBE, we can argument this trend is typical of the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene is defined as the era of human beings because of their influence on the planet, which is currently notoriously visible in global warming, the extinction of non-human species and the destruction of nature.

2 This is the origin of the contemporary mind-body problem and the greatest challenge facing humanity to reconcile a harmonious coexistence with non-human nature. Western Greek thought rationalized this separation since Plato followed by Christian religious thought that conceived the body as a limitation to achieve spiritual purity. This separation is deeply rooted in modern human identity because it has been cultivated for millennia.

3 Initially vitalism proposed to understand life from an élan vital or non-material and non-observable life force that is the motor of life (Zohar and Marshall 1998).

4 First, it is important to recognize the influence of Newtonian thought on the foundations of modern science. Newtonian physical reality is observable, measurable, separable, predictable and universal in scope, so that laws can be formulated to explain it. Objectifying the external and internal world of the human being became an obsession. Consequently, subjectivity and everything concerning the human spiritual dimension was degraded to a lower level of knowledge not valid for science. Thus approached, the matter had no purpose or intention. As Zohar (1990) notes: “there were no atoms of desire, of life or of soul as there had been for some of the early Greek atomists; and, therefore, the new physical science of the seventeenth century had nothing to say about the spiritual side… of life. The physical was opposed to the mental as a world apart, and in turn the mental was seen in terms that were not physical.”

5 The notion of separation comes from Newtonian thought. The physical world that Newton conceived of was based on isolated, impenetrable atoms bouncing around in space and colliding with each other. The concept of force is important in this model because it is what allows atoms to interact with each other. But, in addition, this separation was strictly subject to the determination of time/space. This implied that matter had weight and extension, therefore, it could be calculated, and its behavior could be predicted. Matter thus acquired an atomistic basis, because it was made up of small parts that interacted with each other, this motion being calculable and predictable. The same principle was applied to understand the individual and collective behavior of people.

6 Non-local causality in classical physics is not possible. All relationships occurring in the physical world are subject to efficient causality whereby B moves through the influence of A. Complex and contradictory human thought had to be adjusted to this logic, so, as Wendt (2015) points out, if reasons matter in explanations of human behavior, then it must be through local causes, like everything else.

7 The problem of consciousness (or hard problem as posed by panpsychism) is one of the greatest mysteries of modern science that still has no convincing explanation. After decades of scientific study crude materialism simply cannot explain where consciousness originates and how it is created. So frustrating has this limitation proved to be that a part of materialistic scientific thought has taken it for granted that it is an epiphenomenal event. Of course, in this way they were spared from discovering their own limitations and fundamental errors that are more than evident today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Wendt, Alexander. 2015. Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Edición para Kindle.

Zohar, Danah. 1990. The Quantum Self: Human Nature and Consciousness Defined by the New Physics. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Zohar, Danah e Ian Marshall. 1998. Who’s Afraid of Schrodinger’s Cat? The New Science Revealed – Quantum Theory, Relativity, Chaos and the New Cosmology. New York: Quill William Morrow.

———. 1994. The Quantum Society: Mind, Physics and a New Social Vision. New York:  William Morrow and Company, Inc.