Consider a framework that blends Spinoza’s idea of one unified substance with Berkeley’s emphasis on mind-dependent reality. Instead of treating the mental and physical as separate, imagine them as two ways of perceiving one underlying field—like a single ocean whose waves sometimes appear as “thought” and sometimes as “matter.” In this view, consciousness and the world emerge together from a continuous substrate of raw informational data.
To picture this, start with a simple observation: thoughts exist. These thoughts, and the physical objects we perceive, may be patterns formed from the same underlying “stuff.” By aligning Spinoza’s monism—his claim that there is fundamentally only one substance—with Berkeley’s idealism—the idea that reality is ultimately mental—we arrive at a unified informational field. This field exists prior to the split we usually assume between mind and matter. Instead of a stark divide, think of a single continuum that can appear in different modes depending on how we engage it. Your own consciousness becomes a kind of lens, shaping raw data into the stable forms you experience as everyday objects and events.
This perspective simplifies certain philosophical puzzles. Usually, explaining how physical brain activity gives rise to subjective experience feels like bridging an impossible gap. But if brain activity and subjective experience are just two “faces” of the same underlying field, then the question isn’t how one becomes the other—it’s how a single substrate shifts its mode of expression. In other words, you’re no longer struggling to explain how a physical object can turn into a thought. Instead, you’re asking how a flexible informational medium can take on either mental or physical characteristics depending on context.
We can also look at this from the standpoint of scientific inquiry. Consider quantum mechanics, where the act of observation seems tied to how particles behave. Many interpretations stumble when trying to separate a supposedly objective physical world from the observer’s conscious measurement. Under the unified field model, this tension eases. There is no absolute “physical” state waiting to be observed. Instead, what we call “observation” is just the informational field taking on a particular shape because a conscious perspective engages it in a certain way. This might inspire new approaches to experimental design, where scientists consider not just the external data, but also the role of observers’ perceptual filters in shaping what that data becomes.
Neuroscience could also benefit from this shift. Rather than seeing neurons as mere signaling units, we might view them as structures tuned to resonate with certain patterns in the underlying informational substrate. The brain isn’t creating consciousness out of nothing; it’s fine-tuning what is already there, filtering raw data into coherent experiences. Research could explore whether certain neural activities align with particular “patterns” in the informational field, linking first-person reports to measurable states in a more direct way than current models allow.
This conceptual move remains radical and speculative. Yet it has the potential to reshape debates about consciousness, measurement, and the nature of reality. By reframing mind and matter as modes of one unified field, we open a door to fresh experiments, new philosophical questions, and a more integrated understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit. Instead of a strict division between the observer and the observed, we get a vision of reality as a fluid, continuous substrate that can show different faces depending on how it is approached. It challenges a central assumption—that mind and matter stand apart—and encourages us to think more flexibly about what it means to experience and understand our world.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Explore All Posts
Return to The Labyrinth of Thought