Is Consciousness the Fundamental Reality?—A Dialogue on Science, Perception, and the Observer Problem

What happens when one of the most fundamental assumptions of modern science is challenged—the assumption that consciousness is merely a by-product of brain activity?

In this in-depth interview, Dr. Kanwar Singh presents a radically different perspective. Rather than treating consciousness as an object to be explained by neuroscience, he argues that consciousness is the very condition that makes all observation, measurement, and scientific inquiry possible. According to his view, the deepest blind spot of modern science is not a lack of data, but its tendency to overlook the observer who generates and interprets that data.

Together with educational psychologist and consciousness researcher Rebekka Brandt, the conversation explores questions that lie at the intersection of consciousness studies, philosophy of science, neuroscience, epistemology, and the nature of reality itself.

Can science fully understand reality while excluding the experiencing subject? Is consciousness a product of the brain, or could it be more fundamental than matter? Are long-standing distinctions between observer and observed, subject and object, ultimately limiting scientific understanding?

Throughout the interview, Dr. Singh argues that humanity may be making a profound methodological mistake: searching for consciousness as if it were an external object while overlooking the fact that every scientific investigation already takes place within consciousness.

The discussion ranges from the observer problem in science and the limits of human perception to questions of identity, non-duality, and the possibility of a new scientific framework that integrates insights from psychology, neuroscience, cosmology, and philosophy.

Whether readers find these ideas convincing or controversial, the interview raises a question that remains central to both science and philosophy:

Can the observer ever be removed from the process of knowing, or is consciousness the missing foundation of our understanding of reality?

Introduction

Welcome, everyone.

Today we are pleased to welcome Dr. Kanwar Singh, MD, who will share insights from his latest investigation into consciousness and reality. His work challenges conventional scientific assumptions and proposes a fundamentally different way of approaching the nature of existence.

Joining him is Rebekka Brandt, an educational psychologist and science communicator from Germany. She has been critically examining how contemporary research approaches the problem of consciousness, and today she brings a series of questions that aim to clarify — and challenge — the foundations of Dr. Singh’s perspective.

Opening Question

Rebekka Brandt (Host):
Thank you, Dr. Singh. I would like to begin at the most basic level. Consciousness cannot be touched, seen, or grasped in the way physical objects can. Yet science relies precisely on such forms of observation.

So my question is: What exactly are you investigating, and how do you justify treating consciousness as a scientific subject rather than something inherently beyond science?

Consciousness as Primary Reality

Dr. Singh (Guest):
The difficulty you are pointing to arises from a very subtle but fundamental misunderstanding. When we say that consciousness cannot be observed, what we implicitly assume is that observation must take place from the outside—as if consciousness were an object among other objects.

But that assumption is already flawed. We are not outside of consciousness looking in. We are not observers of consciousness in the same way we observe physical phenomena. We are that very consciousness.

Everything we know—every thought, every perception, every measurement—appears within it. So the idea that consciousness cannot be studied because it cannot be objectified overlooks the fact that it is not something secondary or hidden. It is the most immediate and primary aspect of reality.

If you consider what is happening right now, thoughts are occurring, perceptions are arising. Neuroscience can map neural activity and describe correlations, but it has never demonstrated that a neuron itself thinks or experiences. There is always a gap between the physical description and the lived reality.

My position is that this gap is not a temporary limitation of science, but a sign that we are looking in the wrong direction. Consciousness is not something produced by matter—it is the very field within which matter is known.

So when I say it is scientific, I do not mean that it can be handled like a physical object. I mean that it is the most fundamental aspect of reality, and therefore the most essential subject for scientific inquiry—if science is willing to expand its framework.

The Observer Problem in Science

Rebekka Brandt:
So in that sense, would you say that science has overlooked something essential—that the observer is not being properly accounted for?

Dr. Singh:
Yes, precisely. Modern science is extraordinarily powerful in analyzing objects, but it systematically overlooks the observer. It operates as if the observer could be removed from the equation, as if observation were happening from nowhere.

But this is not the case. Every experiment, every measurement, every interpretation is carried out within consciousness. The scientist is not external to the system being studied.

I often use a simple analogy: imagine a group of people trying to count themselves, but each person forgets to include themselves in the count. No matter how carefully they proceed, the result will always be incomplete.

In a similar way, science accounts for the external world in great detail, but it omits the one element that makes all observation possible. This omission is not trivial—it shapes the entire structure of scientific inquiry.

If we begin to include the observer—not as a disturbance, but as an essential component—then the nature of the investigation changes fundamentally.

Are We the Universe?

Rebekka Brandt:
You take this even further and suggest that we are not merely observers within the universe, but that we are, in some sense, the universe itself. That is a very strong claim. How should one understand it without falling into metaphor or exaggeration?

Dr. Singh:
The difficulty here lies in the way we use language and concepts. When we say we are “part of the universe,” we assume a division between ourselves and the whole. We imagine the universe as something out there, and ourselves as something inside it.

But this division is already constructed within our perception. It is not something we have independently verified—it is simply how our mind organizes experience.

To clarify this, consider the analogy of the ocean. A drop of water appears separate, but it is not truly independent of the ocean. Its apparent individuality does not negate the fact that it is entirely constituted by the same substance.

Similarly, what we call the individual is a localized expression within a single, continuous reality. When I say that we are the universe, I do not mean that an individual ego contains the cosmos. I mean that there is no fundamental separation between the observer and what is observed.

The universe is not something external to us. It is the totality of existence, and we are not outside of that totality.

Is This Philosophy or Science?

Rebekka Brandt:
At this point, many would say that this sounds closer to philosophy or even spirituality than to science. Similar ideas have been expressed, for example, in Buddhist thought. What distinguishes your work from those traditions?

Dr. Singh:
It is true that similar insights have appeared in various traditions. The question is not whether the idea is new, but how it is treated.

Take the example of the Buddha. If we consider his insights as mere philosophical reflections, then they remain in the realm of interpretation. But if we consider them as observations about reality, then the question becomes: why were they never developed into a scientific framework?

When Newton described gravity, his ideas were not treated as philosophy. They were formalized, tested, and integrated into science.

The issue, in my view, is that certain insights about consciousness were historically placed into categories that prevented them from being investigated with scientific rigor. They became “philosophy” or “spirituality,” and therefore remained outside the domain of systematic inquiry.

My work is not about repeating those ideas, but about bringing this kind of insight into a framework where it can be examined, developed, and eventually tested in a way that is consistent with scientific methodology.

Experience, Oneness, and Duality

Rebekka Brandt:
Some might interpret what you are describing as a kind of experience—perhaps an altered state or a realization. Is this something one can experience directly?

Dr. Singh:
This is where it becomes important to be precise. Experience, as we normally understand it, always involves a dual structure: there is someone who experiences something.

What I am describing is not another experience within that structure. It is not a special state, not a moment of insight or bliss.

Rather, it is a shift in understanding that dissolves the assumption of separation itself. When that assumption is no longer taken as fundamental, the distinction between experiencer and experienced is no longer absolute.

So it is not an experience in the conventional sense. It is a recognition of the underlying unity of reality.

On Letting Go and Identity

Rebekka Brandt:
You also use the term “letting go,” which is widely used today in many contexts. What does it mean in your framework?

Dr. Singh:
The term is often misunderstood. In many contexts, “letting go” refers to releasing emotional burdens or past experiences. That is not what I am referring to.

What must be let go is far more fundamental: the identification with a limited, separate self that perceives reality through a fixed framework.

Even if someone abandons social roles or identities, the deeper structure remains intact as long as perception is still organized around the idea of a separate observer.

So the issue is not psychological content, but the structure of perception itself. The limitation is not cultural—it is rooted in how we, as a species, perceive reality.

Human Perception VS. Ultimate Reality

Rebekka Brandt:
So this is not about improving human perception, but about recognizing its limits?

Dr. Singh:
Exactly. Every species has its own way of perceiving the world. What we take to be reality is shaped by the structure of our senses and our cognitive processes.

This means that what we experience is not reality in itself, but a representation filtered through a specific biological system.

If we want to understand reality at a deeper level, we cannot assume that our current mode of perception is sufficient. We have to question its limitations.

The goal is not to enhance perception within the same framework, but to recognize that the framework itself is limited.

A New Branch of Science?

Rebekka Brandt:
Where would such an approach fit within existing scientific disciplines?

Dr. Singh:
It does not fit neatly into any existing discipline. Neuroscience, psychology, and physics each address aspects of reality, but none of them fully engage with the role of consciousness as the basis of all experience.

What is needed is a new kind of scientific framework—one that integrates these disciplines but is not confined by them.

Such a framework would include the observer as part of its investigation and would aim to understand reality not only in terms of objects, but in terms of the conditions under which those objects are known.

Participation and Future Work

Rebekka Brandt:
Is this something researchers can actively engage with?

Dr. Singh:
Yes, but it requires a different kind of commitment. This is not about casual curiosity or intellectual exploration alone.

It involves examining one’s own assumptions about perception and identity in a sustained and rigorous way. Distraction and habitual patterns of thinking tend to reinforce the existing framework.

So participation is not merely observational—it is transformative. It requires a willingness to question the very basis of how one experiences reality.

Closing

Rebekka Brandt:
Thank you for this extensive discussion. I am very interested in exploring this further and would consider visiting your institute, possibly together with other researchers from Europe—both skeptics and supporters.

Dr. Singh:
That would be very valuable. Skepticism is essential in any genuine inquiry. What matters is not belief, but investigation.

If there is truth in what I am suggesting, it should be possible to examine it—not by accepting it, but by engaging with it directly.

Outro (Host)

Thank you all for joining us.

We will continue this dialogue in future sessions and provide further information in the description.

Until next time.

The Research Review

Search This Blog