|
Christian de Quincey |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
COMMUNICATIONS |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Scrapbook |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sitemap |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Consciousness & Quantum Holographyby Christian de Quincey How encouraging it was to see and sense the excitement among the Quantumn Holography (QH) group (including, Ed Mitchell, Karl Pribram, Peter Marcer, Walter Schempp, George Farre, and Daniel Dubois) at the conference “Computing Anticipatory Systems,” in Liege, Belgium, August 9-15, 1999. I’m particularly intrigued to explore in what ways QH challenges standard versions of quantum theory and relativity. Clearly, the issue of nonlocality is at the heart of this. My own special focus of interest is to see how QH could throw light on the question of the mind-body relation, of how consciousness and matter-energy are related. On this point, I think we need to be careful not to assume that quantum nonlocality necessarily has anything to do with the fact that consciousness is not locatable in space (see my short article on “Consciousness: Nonlocal or Nonlocated? “ in IONS Review [August-November 1999, #49] and posted on this website). Also, in any discussion of consciousness we need to be clear on how we are using the term. When we talk of “consciousness” are we speaking of psychological consciousness (i.e. as distinct from the “unconscious”), or are we speaking of philosophical/ontological consciousness in contrast to wholly non-conscious (wholly non-sentient, non-mental, non-subjective) physical reality (as it is assumed in standard modern science). The deep philosophical problem is how ontological consciousness exists at all in the physical universe. This is Chalmers’ so-called hard problem. For example, Mitchell talks of “proposed non-locality as the basis of perception, which is the evolutionary basis of consciousness” (Mitchell, “Report on Computing Anticipatory Systems Conference”). For this to be the case, I assume Mitchell must be talking of “psychological consciousness” (distinct from the “unconscious”). In which case, such a position assumes that “ontological consciousness” already exists at the quantum-EM level. Therefore, a theory such as QH does not advance our knowledge of the “hard problem”—of how there is any consciousness at all in the physical universe. At best, it may be able to throw light on how—given the prior existence of ontological consciousness—psychological consciousness might evolve from primitive proto-consciousness (e.g. what we recognize as the “unconscious”) to higher states such as self-reflective awareness that we know in our own case as humans. I take it that Mitchell does not mean to imply that QH is the basis of perception, and that “perception is the basis of consciousness” in any ontological sense. Now although it seems to me that QH cannot “explain” the emergence of consciousness in the physical world this, of course, does not mean that QH could not be of enormous benefit in helping us to understand the physical correlates of the evolution (in the sense of development of what already exists in some primitive form) of consciousness at the quantum level. And such understanding could be tremendously beneficial in dealing with psychological consciousness through work on the brain (such as Pribram and Schempp are currently doing). It remains to be seen how QH could be relevant to the “big question” of ontological consciousness, and “noetic” issues such as experiences of transformation of consciousness that guide people to live more meaningful and enlightened lives. These are philosophical and “noetic” concerns—and are what draw me to want to come to a better and deeper understanding of the implications of QH research. One thing seems perfectly clear to me: Consciousness and the physical world—mind and body—are intimately and inextricably interrelated. And I am satisfied that this relationship “goes all the way down” below the level of the brain and nervous system to the underlying chemical, electromagnetic, and quantum processes in all matter (not just in human or animal bodies). Thus, I am persuaded that there is a profound and intimate relationship between consciousness and events at the quantum level. The consciousness-matter relationship permeates all other levels, too—but I suspect that for reasons to do with the insubstantial (even “ghostly”) nature of physical reality at the quantum level (where “matter” dissolves into vibrationary processes and events) the relationship between consciousness and the physical world may be more accessible to understanding. Again, this is why I am intriqued to know more about the “major breakthrough” in understanding that QH claims to offer. Quantum nonlocality undoubtedly opens the possibility of discovering quantum explanations for “psi” and “subtle energy” effects that until now have stumped standard science. If nonlocal effects are possible in the physical world (and we do have experimental evidence from quantum physics to confirm this) it should become easier for even hard-headed skeptics to crack open their worldview just enough to take these psi phenomena seriously and encourage more investigation. It is tempting to rush to a premature identification between quantum nonlocality and the nonlocation of consciousness. But I caution researchers and theorists not to make this leap: The way nonlocal quantum events challenge our familiar notions of how space is structured may have nothing to do with the fact that consciousness transcends space. Another aspect of this same temptation is to think of consciousness as some form of “energy” or “field.” To do so is to spatialize consciousness, and that seems to me to be a fundamental mistake. It objectifies consciousness—when the one undeniable characteristic of consciousness is its incorrigible subjectivity (and intersubjectivity). This same temptation shows up, I think, in attempts to find a “mechanism” for consciousness phenomena such as telepathy and clairvoyance and psychokinesis, as well as for mind-body phenomena such as healing. Mechanisms involve causal relationships that take place in space. They are physical. Consciousness is non-physical (in the sense that it does not occupy space and is not objective). I suspect, therefore, that mechanisms are irrelevant to consciousness, and that phenomena involving consciousness have far more to do with meaning than with mechanism. A question I'd like to explore: “Can quantum holography inform us about meaning in the universe?” This issue of meaning was very dear to the work of quantum physicist David Bohm. To me, the most fascinating aspect of the whole field of quantum theory is how it profoundly calls into question our conception not only of “matter” but also of “physical.” Very simply, we just do not know what matter is, and this goes for “energy,” too. In the end, we do not really know what we mean by “physical”—never mind, “consciousness.” It could well be (as I believe) that what is physical will turn out to be very different from what standard science assumes it to be the case. And central to this new understanding of the physical—of what matter and energy are—will be a recognition that it is inherently and intrinsically sentient and subjective. Matter itself (energy itself) has its own interiority “all the way down.” In other words, quantum events are as much consciousness-events as they are “physical” events, and therefore always involve issues of meaning as well as of mechanism. (Both Carl Jung and David Bohm shared a deep intuition about this—an intuition that would be unremarkable within many indigenous or shamanic worldviews.) |
|
||