can matter be explained in terms of consciousness

8/9/2019 Can Matter Be Explained in Terms of Consciousness

1/7

Can Matter be Explained in Terms

of Consciousness?

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, researchers have made great progress toward identifying physicalactivities in the brain that correlate with conscious experiences such as thoughts and other

mental activities. But, even if every known function of consciousness can be paired with

parallel matter-energy transfers in the brain, and those events detailed down to the level

of quantum processes, as scientists like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff areattempting to do, will we really have explained consciousness? This essay questions

whether the results of such research can lead to a definitive explanation of consciousness,

and proposes an alternative approach as a complement to these efforts. While research

into the details of neurological processes and quantum brain dynamics is veryworthwhile, the parallel functions approach is an attempt to explain consciousness in

terms of matter and energy. It may well be that consciousness can never be explained inthis way. This argument is supported by evidence that consciousness is the ground of all

phenomena, rather than an abstract epiphenomenon of matter, and by showing that any

attempt to identify consciousness with specific physical structures leads to an infinite

descent that ends in logical contradiction.

Most scientists trained in the current paradigm believe that consciousness is an

epiphenomenon of material evolution. They argue that the universe evolved for billionsof years before life and consciousness began to appear. This view of consciousness, like

any other scientific theory, has its a priori assumptions, and the first step in the formalpresentation of a scientific theory is to enumerate the a priori assumptions upon which thetheory is based. Surprisingly, there is one assumption, perhaps the most basic assumption

of all in the current scientific paradigm, that is rarely ever articulated. This is because it

seems to be so obviously true that most scientists see no need to include it explicitly inthe written accounts of their work. This rarely-mentioned assumption is the assumption

that physical reality is independent of consciousness.

In the formulation of the theory of relativity, for example, Albert Einstein spelled out theassumptions of constant light speed and no preferred reference frame, but saw no need to

mention mind-matter independence. Einstein was certainly aware of this underlying

assumption, but to find his acknowledgement of it, we have to turn to his more generalwritings. In James Clerke Maxwell: A Commemorative Volume, he said: "The belief in

an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural

science."

Those who believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter usually consider

the identification and understanding of the physical structures and electro-chemical

processes that are associated with perception and thought to be the only "explanation" of


2/7

consciousness possible. While this approach seems reasonable, it is based upon the a

priori assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of a material reality that

existed prior to, and independent of consciousness. What if this assumption is wrong?Quantum mechanics has produced strong evidence that it is wrong. It may even be that

consciousness is a more basic aspect of reality than matter and energy or space and time.

If so, we are more likely to be able to successfully explain the material universe in termsof consciousness, rather than the other way round as most scientists have been trying to

do.

CONSCIOUSNESS IN TERMS OF MATTER:

NEUROPHYSIOLOGY AND QUANTUM BRAIN DYNAMICS

In the last ten years or so, an impressive amount of careful, detailed research hassuccessfully correlated many neurophysiological structures and complexes with processes

and experiences associated with consciousness. Certain features of physical reality at the

quantum level, revealed by Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiment, especially

nonlocality and complementarity, suggest to some researchers that the functioning ofconsciousness can best be explained in terms of quantum brain dynamics. For example,

Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, in their paper Orchestrated Reduction of QuantumCoherence in Brain Microtubules: a Model for Consciousness, presented at the

conference, Toward a Science of Consciousness (1996, Tucson II), argued that quantum

processes, including the much discussed quantum-wave collapse, can affect larger-scale

physical structures, like the brain. They proposed the hypothesis that such effects arefound in the form of orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) of cyctoskeletal

microtubules in the brain. They concluded that "Orch Or in brain microtubules is the

most specific and plausible model for consciousness yet proposed." This orchestratedobjective reduction, is thought to be based on nonlocal entanglement of quanta, resulting

in a quantum-level coherence that can sweep through the brain giving rise to a global

awareness, i.e., the functioning of consciousness.

It would seem that knowledge of the physical processes associated with consciousness,

from the firing of neurons down to the last quantum interaction, should bring us literallyto the "bottom" line. But does the identification of micro-structures and quantum

processes related to conscious mental activities really explain consciousness? Identifying

the connection between quantum processes and brain functions may yield valuable

practical applications in biology, medicine and psychology, but does it bring us any closerto understanding what consciousness is? Or are we, in fact, still where Leibnitz was three

hundred years ago when he said that even if we could magnify a human being to the point

that we could walk inside and observe every moving part, we still would not findanything called consciousness? Can consciousness be explained in terms of matter and

energy, or is there another way to approach the problem that may lead to a deeper

understanding of the relationship between mind and matter?

EPR PARADOX, BELL'S THEOREM AND THE ASPECT EXPERIMENT


3/7

The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox was a thought experiment designed to

demonstrate failure of the uncertainty principle in the case of the creation of a pair of

twin particles and the subsequent determination of certain physical characteristics of theparticles at some distance from the point of their creation. The logic of the situation

described by Einstein, et al, was inescapable. If the particles were actual physical entities,

like tiny baseballs traveling through space at less than light speed, the uncertaintyprinciple failed. Bohr's response was that it is incorrect to think of quanta as localized

phenomena with paths through space. They only exhibit such effects when they impinge

upon physical obstacles or receptors, irreversibly making their presence known in a waythat could be observed and recorded in the mind of an observer. Einstein found this

explanation totally unacceptable on the grounds that it violated the theory of relativity

and the common sense assumption that sub-atomic paricles are localized bits of matter

with definite physical characteristics, even if we cannot observe them directly. If Bohr'sexplanation was wrong, the uncertainty principle was wrong, and the whole fabric of

quantum theory would fall apart. But quantum theory, with the uncertainty principle as an

integral part continued to predict experimental results with great accuracy. This was

indeed a paradox.

If elementary particles travel through space as localized phenomena, as EPR (andcommon sense) insist, then it is easy to show that the correlation between a pair of

particles in an EPR-type experiment cannot exceed a specific numerical value. John Bell

was able to show mathematically that if Bohr was right, that value would be exceeded.

Experiments carried out by Clauser and Freedman, Aspect, and others, have proved thatEinstein was wrong; Bohr was correct. As John Wheeler has said: "No elementary

phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon." This startling

conclusion has been born out by a number of experiments, including the so-called'delayed-choice' experiment.

In the classical two-slit experiment, light is shown to have both particle and wavecharacteristics. A barrier with two slits in it is placed between a light source and a blank

screen. When both slits are open, interference patterns are observed on the screen,

demonstrating the wave nature of light. By closing one of the slits, the experimenter cancause the light to behave as particles, striking the screen one at a time, creating a single

patch of light, scattered around a point directly behind the open slit. In the delayed-choice

experiment, the solid screen is replaced by a venetian-blind screen that can be opened or

closed after an emitted photon has had time to pass the slits, but before it reaches thescreen. Two particle collectors are placed behind the screen, one in line with the light

source and the left slit, the other in line with the source and the right slit. If a photon is

emitted and the venetian-blind screen is left open, the photon registers in one collector orthe other, indicating a linear path through one of the slits. If the venetian-blind screen is

closed after the photon, traveling as a particle, would have passed through one of the slits,

the photon strikes the screen, contributing to an interference pattern developing there. Inthis way, the photon is induced to act as a wave or a particle by a choice made after it has

passed the slitted barrier. Thus we can decide, after the fact, whether a photon behaved as

a wave or as a particle. This demonstrates the fact that elementary phenomena like


4/7

photons do not exist as localized particles or waves until they register by impacting upon

a receptor.

CONSCIOUSNESS AND PHYSICAL REALITY

Verification of Bohr's view, known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantummechanics, raises an even more interesting question: How do we know that quanta, the

building blocks of physical reality, exist before registering in the consciousness of an

observer? Common sense, i.e., our normal, every-day experience of things, prompts us tothink that they must, but this is the same common-sense idea that led to the EPR paradox.

The famous Schrdinger's cat conundrum illustrates the difficulty of this question. The

cat's state (dead or alive) depends upon the collapse of a wave function to form a physical

quantum from a decaying radioactive source in a box containing the cat and a vial ofpoison that will be released when the quantum registers. If the cat, poison and radioactive

source are all part of a quantum mechanical system, what constitutes registration? Does

the registration of the quantum triggering the release have to wait for a conscious

observer? Is the cat a conscious observer?

Schrdinger did not believe that the Copenhagen interpretation could possibly be correct,and the purpose of this thought experiment was to show just how ridiculous it was. Now,

however, we know that the Copenhagen interpretation is correct! The problem of when

and how the quantum wave collapse occurs is even more critical if we accept John Von

Neumann's conclusion in his classic work, The Mathematical Foundations of QuantumMechanics, that no logical physical separation is possible between quantum systems and

classical physical objects. If quanta do not exist until they register as effects on a

receptor, and we have no way of knowing of them until evidence of their effects isreceived in our consciousness via a chain of quanta and receptors, how are we to know

whether they exist or not, without the presence of consciousness?

Belief in the independent existence of physical phenomena is a basic assumption of the

current scientific paradigm. Is there any way to determine whether or not we should

abandon this belief? Fortunately, we don't have to base our decision on belief. We can usethe scientific method to testing our hypothesis and determine whether it is true or false.

We can form a hypothesis from the belief in an external world independent of

consciousness by noting that if this belief is true, the material world would exist pretty

much as we perceive it, with or without the existence of consciousness. But now we havea problem: This is not a scientific hypothesis It cannot be verified or falsified because

we can't observe a universe without an observer.

Current observations suggest that billions of years of physical evolution passed before

conditions favorable for organic life arose, and therefore, perhaps the universe did exist

without consciousness, and still does, in distant galaxies and lifeless planets in our ownsolar system. This argument, however, is spurious because it assumes that the only

possible form of consciousness is that associated with life as we know it.


5/7

To assure the proper application of the scientific method, we must guard against closing

our minds to possibilities other than those implied by the assumptions of our current

paradigm. If we insist on staying within the current paradigm of scientific materialism,we are stuck. The belief in the independence of the material world remains just that -- a

belief. But what about the converse? Can the belief that the material world IS NOT

independent of consciousness be turned into a scientific hypothesis and tested? Is itpossible that the physical universe and consciousness are interdependent?

Suppose, for a moment, that consciousness is the organizing agent that creates allstructure in the universe. Without it, the second law of thermodynamics, known to

operate in closed physical systems, would soon bring the universe to maximum entropy.

There would be no structure or order distinguishing any part of the universe from any

other part. If consciousness is the organizing agent behind all structure, then trying tounderstand consciousness by analyzing the physical structure of the brain is like trying to

determine the meaning of a symbol such as the letter 'A', a word, or a mathematical

symbol by analyzing the physical properties of the ink and the paper upon which the

symbol is printed.

THE LOGICAL NECESSITY OF THE NON-QUANTUM RECEPTOR

Nearly all physicists now accept Bohr's interpretation as the correct understanding of

quantum mechanics. Most, however, are not ready to admit that acceptance of the

Copenhagen interpretation necessitates acknowledging involvement of consciousness inquantum processes. The logical ramifications of the Copenhagen interpretation, however,

force us to consider the possibility that reality is not consciousness independent.

Consider the psychoparallelism described by Von Neumann: The act of observation

divides the world into two parts: the observer and the observed. The flow of information

is traced, through the mechanism of reflected elementary particles (photons), from theobject to the receptive structures of the eye of the observer, and then, through the optic

nerve and brain, a series of elementary particles (electrons) carry the information to the

consciousness of the observer. Finally, the observer's conscious perception involves thecreation of mental images that 'parallel' features existing in the external world.

The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires that a moving elementary

particle has no localized form until it impacts upon a receptor. And information is carriedfrom the object to the observer by a series of sources, particles, and receptors. But what is

the final receptor? If it is a physical structure, it is by definition made of elementary

particles, and if the energy of the incoming quanta is absorbed by physical particles, howcan we account for the image of the object of observation that arises in consciousness? Is

it composed of energy? If so, there is a minimum volume within which the image of an

object can appear and be stored, since energy can only occur in quanta, or discrete, finitepackets. What is the consciousness that perceives this image? Is it also made up of quanta

of matter and energy? If so, then the elementary particles of which it is composed also

had no local physical form until they registered on a prior receptor. And that prior

receptor, if it was composed of quanta of matter and energy, also had to have had a prior


6/7

receptor, and so on. Thus the quest for the first receptor becomes an infinite regression in

time and space. But time and space are finite in the physical world and there is, therefore,

a "bottom" to physical phenomena, the infinite regress or descent is impossible, and wehave a logical contradiction. Conclusion: the final receptor and the images it perceives

are not composed of quanta of matter and energy.

This is the same logical contradiction discovered by the inner research of mystics as they

seek to discover the nature and location of the self. See, for instance, the teachings of

Ramana Maharshi. The mystic asks: Who am I? and where does this "I" reside?Attempting to locate the perceiving self, one soon realizes that any part of the physical

body, the head, heart, brain, etc., identified as the location of the self, immediately

becomes an object perceived by the self, and the perceiving subject is therefore

something other than the structure. The conclusion, again, is that consciousness issomething beyond matter and energy.

Given this conclusion, we can no longer maintain the assumption of scientific

materialism, i.e., that reality consists of nothing but matter and energy interacting in timeand space. No one can deny the fact that consciousness exists; we all experience it

directly. But the separation of reality into the observer and the observed and the logic ofinfinite descent forces us to conclude that consciousness cannot be composed of quanta

of matter or energy. In order to continue in an objective, scientific manner, we must

therefore abandon the limiting assumption of materialism and allow non-quantum

consciousness to take its place as real, right along with matter and energy.

What is the nature of this conscious non-quantum receptor? The great difficulty in

answering this question lies in the fact that it is, by definition, the very essence ofawareness, the principle that allows sentient beings to exist in such a way as to be able to

ask this question in the first place. We can begin, however, by identifying the basic

functions of consciousness: The primary function of drawing distinctions, first betweenself and other, and then in what it perceives to be other than itself. The secondary

function of consciousness is to organize those distinctions into logical structure and order.

Some of the innate features of consciousness that we can identify include:

* Continuity - Consciousness exhibits infinite divisibility, or continuity, distinguishing

it from the discreet quanta of matter and energy.* Nonlocality - Because of its inherent continuity, consciousness is able to perceive

phenomena ranging from a single quantum to objects composed of many distinct parts.

This awareness suggests that the form of consciousness in which images are formed isconnected, comprising a unified whole.

* Complementarity - Consciousness and the physical universe are complementary

aspects of the reality we experience, since they are both necessary for that experience tooccur.

* Uncertainty - The identification of consciousness with a structure of matter and

energy, e.g., the body through which it perceives the physical universe, gives rise to


7/7

uncertainty because of the limitations of knowledge imposed by the boundaries of that

which is perceived to encompass the self.

With Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiment, quantum physics has revealed that the

quantum level of reality exhibits the last three of these features.

At first it may seem curious that some of the features of consciousness are necessary

features of the physical universe at the quantum level. On the other hand, if

consciousness is actually the ground of all phenomena, rather than an abstractepiphenomenon of matter, then this finding is perfectly natural and would have been

expected, if we had not assumed mind and matter, consciousness and energy, to be

separate in the first place. If we accept the similarity of the features of quantum reality

and consciousness revealed by empirical evidence and the logic of infinite descent to bemore than coincidence, we begin to see reality as a unified whole, something that

includes both subject and object, something that manifests as a spectrum ranging from

non-quantum consciousness to quantized energy and matter. This "something" is the root

of all phenomena, the ineffable potential from which all forms are selected by thedrawing of distinctions.

CONCLUSION

Instead of trying to explain consciousness in terms of matter and energy, perhaps we

should be trying to explain matter and energy in terms of consciousness. By approachingthe problem in this way, we will be able to obtain information complementary to the

information from research into parallel physical processes and structures. Attacking the

problem from both sides will lead to a better understanding of the interaction of mind andmatter and produce a more meaningful explanation of consciousness.

can matter be explained in terms of consciousness

Documents