Head to head
Bentley Hart’s Monism vs Recurrent Processing Theory
Bentley Hart’s Monism: Consciousness, Being, God and Lamme's Recurrent Processing Theory, compared field by field from their entries in the Atlas.
At a glance
- Bentley Hart’s Monism belongs to the Idealism family in Kuhn's Landscape of Consciousness, Recurrent Processing Theory to Materialism.
- Bentley Hart’s Monism treats consciousness as fundamental; Recurrent Processing Theory treats it as emergent.
- On AI consciousness, Bentley Hart’s Monism says “No” and Recurrent Processing Theory says “Likely”.
- On life after death, Bentley Hart’s Monism says “Yes” and Recurrent Processing Theory says “No”.
- On mind uploading, Bentley Hart’s Monism says “No” and Recurrent Processing Theory says “Yes”.
- On meaning and purpose, Bentley Hart’s Monism says “Cosmic/Ultimate” and Recurrent Processing Theory says “Humanistic only”.
Add more theories to this comparisonCompare other theories
The claim
In brief
Bentley Hart’s MonismThis is a metaphysical theory that constructs an ultimate unified monism by asserting the profound inseparability of consciousness (mind) and being (existence) itself. It posits that ultimate reality is God, who is the absolute unity of consciousness and being, fundamentally rejecting reductive physicalist explanations.
Recurrent Processing TheoryLamme's Recurrent Processing Theory (RPT) posits that consciousness is both necessary and sufficient when reciprocal (recurrent) feedback connections occur among neural areas, particularly in sensory systems. This processing, which happens locally in sensory and post-sensory areas (Stage 3), generates phenomenal experience without requiring global broadcast access.
What consciousness is
Bentley Hart’s MonismConsciousness and being (existence) are two inseparable aspects of a single, ultimate ontological reality.
Recurrent Processing TheoryConsciousness is identified as a specific recurrent processing state holding within relevant neural circuitry, such as the visual system.
Big questions
Can AI be conscious?Differ
Bentley Hart’s MonismNoConsciousness is a restricted instance of infinite mind (God) and is not reducible to computation or physical processing. Therefore, artificial systems based purely on physical mechanisms cannot instantiate true consciousness.
Recurrent Processing TheoryLikelyAs a Materialism Theory, AI consciousness must, in principle, be possible if the requisite pattern of recurrent processing could be artificially duplicated in a non-biological substrate.
Bentley Hart’s MonismYesConsciousness is identified with ultimate being and God, meaning it is fundamental and cannot be destroyed. Hart’s theology suggests individuals are destined for union with God, becoming 'uncreated'.
Recurrent Processing TheoryNoConsciousness is tied to physical brain activity and specific neural circuitry (recurrent processing states), suggesting cessation upon bodily death.
Bentley Hart’s MonismNoConsciousness is metaphysically unified, physically infrangible mental agency , making it impossible to capture, duplicate, or upload via computational means, which would only replicate 'third-person' processes.
Recurrent Processing TheoryYesSince consciousness is the recurrent processing state itself, a perfect duplication of that process onto a new medium (upload) would generate the first-person self, enabling virtual immortality.
Bentley Hart’s MonismCosmic/UltimateThe entire reality is rationally coherent and grounded in God, the ultimate reason and consciousness, inherently supplying ultimate meaning, purpose, and value.
Recurrent Processing TheoryHumanistic onlyThe theory focuses on a purely physicalist, neurobiological explanation of phenomenal experience and does not support any ultimate cosmic meaning or purpose.
Nature of mind
Ontology
Bentley Hart’s MonismIdealist Monism/Theistic Monism
Recurrent Processing TheoryPhysicalism
Mind and body
Bentley Hart’s MonismNon-reductive correlation/Theistic interaction (Justification: Hart argues the causal descriptions of material and mental spheres are radically disparate and incommensurable, making reductionism incoherent. Interaction, while problematic for materialists, is possible, perhaps through the power of God).
Recurrent Processing TheoryIdentity/Reductionist approach, arguing that the notion of mind must move toward that of the brain, and consciousness is identical to a recurrent processing state in physical circuitry.
Fundamental or emergent
Bentley Hart’s MonismPrimitive
Recurrent Processing TheoryEmergent
Qualia
Bentley Hart’s MonismQualitative aspects of experience (mental reality) are irreducible. The irreducibility of mind is the same as the irreducibility of being, suggesting qualia are grounded in ultimate intelligibility.
Recurrent Processing TheoryQualia are generated when a certain recurrent processing state holds of the relevant visual circuitry, making the visual state conscious.
How it works
Mechanism
Bentley Hart’s MonismThe unification of the conditions for knowledge (mind) and the conditions for existence (being) into a single, simple, ultimate act or reality (God).
Recurrent Processing TheoryRecurrent processing (feedback connections) in sensory and post-sensory areas (Stage 3) is considered sufficient for consciousness.
Where it is
Bentley Hart’s MonismUbiquitous/Cosmic (Justification: Consciousness, being unified with ultimate Being/God, is the ground of all reality, aligning with Idealist metaphysics).
Recurrent Processing TheoryLocalized in sensory and post-sensory areas, specifically recurrent activations in the 'back of the head'.
What it does
Bentley Hart’s MonismMind holds causal priority over matter. Conscious, unified mental acts depend upon the infinite mind (God). The theory rejects the causal closure of the physical.
Recurrent Processing TheoryConsciousness is the specific recurrent processing state itself. The underlying purpose is implied to move the understanding of mind toward the brain.
Evidence and criticism
Testability
Bentley Hart’s MonismSpeculative/Conceptually Testable (Justification: The theory is a high-level metaphysical framework founded on philosophical critiques; Hart questions the possibility of a science of mental reality under physicalist assumptions).
Recurrent Processing TheoryEmpirically testable
Tests so far
Bentley Hart’s MonismNot stated
Recurrent Processing TheoryNot stated
Criticisms
Bentley Hart’s MonismCritics find the conclusion to unify consciousness, being, and God 'strange'. The theory faces the standard challenge of articulating the continuity or interaction between the disparate mental and material spheres without invoking rejected concepts like strong emergence.
Recurrent Processing TheoryCritiques Global Workspace Theory (GWT) as being 'all about access but not about seeing'. Is itself criticized by Ned Block as a 'truncated form of the global workspace account'.
Sources
Key sources
Bentley Hart’s Monism
- Mind, Being, God - Spiritual Science and the Science of Mind, Part Four (2022)
- Science, consciousness, information: spiritual science and the science of mind, Part One (2021)
- Does consciousness defeat materialism (Part 2) (2019)
Recurrent Processing Theory
- Towards a true neural stance on consciousness, Victor Lamme (2006)
- How neuroscience will change our view on consciousness, Victor Lamme (2010)
- Wu, 2018 (Discussing Lamme's RPT) (2018)
More comparisons
Bentley Hart’s Monism vs …
Recurrent Processing Theory vs …
- Recurrent Processing Theory vs Orch OR
- Recurrent Processing Theory vs Spira’s Non-Duality
- Recurrent Processing Theory vs Goff’s Panpsychism
- Recurrent Processing Theory vs Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism
- Recurrent Processing Theory vs Christian Soul Theory
- Recurrent Processing Theory vs Chalmers’s Panpsychism