The Role of Quantum Theory
in a Science of Consciousness
by David Pleasants, MA
Copyright (c) G. David Pleasants III 2000
KEYWORDS: Consciousness, quantum theory, nonlocality, Bose-Einstein Condensates
Table of Contents
Descartes and Newton................................................................................................................... 4
Quantum Theory............................................................................................................................ 6
Complementarity and Quantum Wholeness..................................................................................... 8
Collapse of the Wave Function..................................................................................................... 11
Nonlocality.................................................................................................................................. 13
Quantum Tunneling....................................................................................................................... 15
Bose-Einstein Condensates.......................................................................................................... 16
Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Brain Dynamics.................................................................... 18
Quantum Gravity and Orchestrated Objective Reductions............................................................. 19
Future Areas of Potential.............................................................................................................. 22
The newly emerged science of consciousness, one of the youngest and
oldest sciences in human history, is currently undergoing a surge of interest
in the use of non-classical physics. In recent years, many models of
consciousness have been proposed using quantum mechanical processes. In this paper
we will investigate the potential application of quantum theory to
consciousness studies, as well as the strengths and weakness of some of the
proposed quantum models of consciousness.
Consciousness studies, in the form of psychology and philosophy of mind, is one of humankind's oldest disciplines. For thousands of years various religious philosophies as well as general philosophies have attempted to investigate consciousness through introspection as well as other means. Until just recently, the harder sciences including physics and chemistry have had very little to say about consciousness. Recent advancements in areas such as neurophysiology and cognitive science have made enormous gains into our understanding of how the brain works. And yet these disciplines, as extensive as they are, are still based on Newtonian physics and consequently, are hitting a barrier in their quest for consciousness.
Even though the 20th century witnessed a revolution in physics brought on by relativity theory and quantum mechanics, this revolution has not fully entered into the biological and life sciences. Even in physics, the majority of scientists still think that the revolutionary concepts of these theories do not apply in these cases. In fact, just in the last few months, the head of the physics department of a California University expressed his opinion "that quantum physics has nothing to do with consciousness" (Pleasants, 2000).
So why do some scientists still pursue quantum mechanical models of consciousness with such zeal? The answer lies in the view of the universe that quantum physics suggests. It is perhaps thought by these scientists that both the brain and consciousness, being parts of the universe, will abide by the same laws as the rest of the universe and so might have characteristics found in quantum systems.
In this paper we will discuss some of the main features of quantum physics and how these features may relate to our study of consciousness. Among the features being discussed will be superposition, collapse of the wave function, complementarity, nonlocality, quantum tunneling, and Bose-Einstein condensation. We will also discuss quantum models of consciousness that use these concepts as well as concepts such as quantum field theory and quantum gravity.
Before we study quantum theory and its implications for the study of consciousness however, we must first briefly discuss the state of today's science of consciousness and the types of issues that are at the forefront of the field.
One of the important issues within the science of consciousness is that of qualia, which can be defined as the experiential nature of consciousness. Qualia are events of phenomenal consciousness, as opposed to psychological consciousness such as visually recognizing patterns or dexterously using the body's motor skills. It is the suchness of an experience.
David Chalmers, one of the field's most popular theorists, brings the issue of qualia to a head by dividing the "problem of consciousness" into the "hard problem" and the "easy problem". The latter describes the problem of trying to discover how states of the brain correspond to states of consciousness. The hard problem on the other hand, goes beyond generalized states of consciousness to ask how it is possible that the non-material substance of qualia arises from the material world of matter, or even if it does.
Even though Chalmers expresses his respect for quantum theory and the "new physics", it is his opinion that most quantum models of consciousness (as well as "classical" models) do not offer any possible solutions for the hard problem. Even though the hard problem well recognized in the field, many scientists have pointed out that in defining the problem of consciousness, Chalmers has made many assumptions about reality, which are based in a Cartesian-Newtonian worldview. At this point however, it is important to point out that even though I agree with Chalmers' general assessment of quantum models of consciousness, I still strongly believe that investigating these types of theories are worthwhile, possibly providing us with an avenue which might even eclipse these current theories. It is my opinion that quantum theory is rich with intriguing concepts that are neither fully understood nor fully exploited.
In order to make fully clear the extent of the recent revolution in physics, it is important to first discuss the paradigm in which it arose and which continues to influence most of the scientific community, not to mention the general public. This is also the same paradigm in which Chalmers' hard problem was constructed.
For thousands of years Western scientific thought, having originated from the Greeks, proposed that reason and logic were more important than ritual and intuition. In the seventeenth century, this paradigm was expanded and strengthened by both the philosophy of Renee Descartes and the physics of Sir Isaac Newton. Descartes created his philosophy to "serve as a scientific basis for investigating nature" and to avoid conflict with the religious authority of his time (Garrett, 2000). This philosophy created both a dualism between God and Creation and a dualism between mind and matter (Garrett, 2000). In Descartes' time, the Christian Church had persecuted many individuals who challenged the paradigm supported by the Church. In order to combat this oppression (and more importantly to stay alive), Descartes proposed that the spirit of humanity was the domain of the Church, but the rest of the universe, including nature and the body, was devoid of spirit and could therefore be studied without religious concern. Consequently all matter within nature including the body, became ontologically profane; that is, devoid of spirt and consciousness.
Descartes' dualism continued unabated and even found new strength in the physics of Sir Isaac Newton. With the success of Newton's physics, the universe acquired a very mechanistic view in which God was relegated to a divine mathematician whom had masterfully designed a clockwork universe and had then set it into motion.
The Newtonian worldview continued strongly until the aforementioned scientific revolutions of the early twentieth century. With the advent of such new theories as relativity and quantum mechanics, physics and consequently the Western scientific worldview, entered a period of crisis, one from which we have not yet recovered. This crisis is due to the fact that both relativity and quantum theory have unraveled the dualism and determinism of the Cartesian/Newtonian worldview. (Unfortunately it seems that the news of this unraveling has not fully reached the consciousness of most scientists and non-scientists alike.)
Even though quantum theory has been the most experimentally successful theory in history, to this day the meanings of its results are hotly debated. Whatever the case may be the implications of both quantum theory and relativity have in essence dissolved the demarcation with which Descartes had divided the world. As Paul Churchland explains:
... the basic principle of division used by Descartes is no longer as plausible as it was in his day. It is now neither useful nor accurate to characterize ordinary matter as that-which-has-extension-in-space. Electrons, for example, are bits of matter, but our best current theories describe the electron as a point-particle with no extension whatever… And according to Einstein's theory of gravity, an entire star can achieve this same status… If there truly is a division between mind and body, it appears that Descartes did not put his finger on the dividing line. (as cited in Pylkkanen, 1992, Ch. 2.3)
And yet this virtual dividing line continues to affect all levels of consciousness, within science and without. As we will see however, quantum theory creates a new paradigm that holds many exciting possibilities for future discussion and research.
In the first part of this century Max Planck's work with lumpy energy and Albert Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect helped create a new model of energy. This revolutionary model clearly demonstrated that energy, instead of having a continuous structure as dictated by nineteenth-century thermodynamics, manifests itself in the form of packets or quanta.
One of the most common forms of these quanta was that of light, and so consequently the concept of light as a particle, the photon, emerged. These photons were not particles in any Newtonian nor Cartesian sense of the word however. This was demonstrated by what is known as the double-slit experiment, which illustrates how light acts like a wave by interfering with itself, producing an interference wave pattern. In 1923 Louis de Broglie used Einstein's own equation, E = mc2, to show that Planck's constant, which had previously only been applied to energy, must also refer to matter. De Broglie showed that just as light manifests itself as both waves and particles, matter manifests itself as both particles and waves. He did this by demonstrating that the interference patterns in the double-slit experiment also occurred when using matter (in the form of electrons). Therefore it appears that traveling particles somehow interact and interfere with one another as if they were really waves.
And yet the notion of waves of matter was nonsensical. The solution to this puzzle, via Erwin Schrödinger, was that these were waves of probability. Schrödinger proposed that the interference wave pattern of the double-slit experiment was a manifestation of combined probability waves, showing where photons (or electrons) are most likely to be located. In this view, the probability wave is referred to as a wave function and operates as a mathematical description of all possible locations of the particle combined into a single whole, referred to as superposition of all possible states.
Even ontologically stranger, the superposition described by the wave function appears to collapse into a single actual position once a measurement is made. Referring back to the double-slit experiment, if a measurement is made discerning which slit the particle passed through, then the interference pattern collapses. It's as if the actual location of the particle does not manifest itself until it is observed or until it comes into contact with the photosensitive plate. The latter is referred to as decoherence and describes a collapse of the wave function without a conscious observer.
This quantum model of nature, which consists of the wave aspect of the particle (the wave function) going through both slits and then collapsing into the particle aspect (a single location), was most strongly supported by Neils Bohr and eventually came to be known as the Copenhagen interpretation. One of the strengths of the Copenhagen interpretation is that it is strongly aligned with the implications of Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which asserts that no one can ever know with absolute certainty both the velocity and the location of a particle. These values are in fact inversely proportional to each other, so that increased certainty in of one property decreases the certainty of the other.
The Copenhagen interpretation, which can also be referred to as a quantum epistemology (Nadeau & Kafatos, 1999), proposes that these properties (the wave aspect and the particle aspect) are not intrinsic to the particle itself but are simply attributes, which exist together in a superposition and do not manifest themselves until disturbed by an observation. The Copenhagen interpretation stresses that the relationship between these attributes is one of complementarity.
Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos in their book, The Non-local Universe, describe the conventional definition of complementarity:
The usual textbook definition of complementarity
says that it applies to "apparently" incompatible constructs, like
wave and particle, or variables, such as position and momentum. And since one
of the paired constructs or variables cannot define the situation in the
quantum world in the absence of the other, both are required for a complete
view of the actual physical situation. Thus a description of nature… requires
that the paired constructs or variables be viewed as complementary, meaning
that both constitute a complete view of the situation
while only one can be applied in a given situation. (Nadeau & Kafatos,
1999, p.88)
While the concept of complementarity is an interpretative aspect of quantum theory, is has been strongly supported by experimental results. Even so, most scientists, including some in the field of quantum physics, have been reluctant to ascribe this feature of nature to the macroscopic world in which we live. This goes for the brain as well, which most people characterize as only a macroscopic object, but which contains a multitude of components and processes small enough to be significantly affected by quantum mechanical processses.
Bohr characterized this macroscopic dismissal of complementarity as a type of "macro-level illusion" (as cited in Nadeau & Kafatos, 1999, p.90).
The very nature of quantum theory
thus forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the claim of
causality, the union of which characterizes the classical theories, as
complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the
idealizations of observation and definition respectively.
(Bohr, as cited in Nadeau & Kafatos, 1999, p.90)
By bringing into question the ontological nature of macroscopic objects and their causal relationships, Bohr brings to our attention the underlying assumptions which most scientists make concerning the brain as well as other objects on the macroscopic level. Bohr goes on to say:
Just a relativity theory has taught us that the convenience of distinguishing sharply between space and time rests solely on the smallness of velocities ordinarily met with compared to the speed of light, we learn from the quantum theory that the appropriateness of our visual space-time descriptions depends entirely on the small value of the quantum of action compared to the actions involved in ordinary sense perception. (as cited in Nadeau & Kafatos, 1999, p.91)
And so quantum processes are active on the macroscopic scale even if their effect is mostly negligible. This effect can be substantial however on a level of scale present in the brain. Not only does complementarity play an important role in the brain's biomolecular interactions, but also it might play a significant role in consciousness beyond biomolecular interactions, which we will explore later in this paper.
Complementarity, by resolving the dualism of supposed polarities, lends support to the notion of quantum wholeness, an important philosophical feature of most quantum mechanical models of consciousness. Nadeau and Kafatos elaborate:
The notion from classical physics that the observer and the observed system are separate and distinct is also, Bohr suggested, undermined by relativity theory before it was undermined in a slightly different way by quantum physics. Just as one cannot, in relativity theory, view the observer as outside the observed system because one must assign that observer particular space-time coordinates relative to the entire system, so one must view the observer in quantum physics as an integral part of the observed system. There is in both cases no outside perspective. (Nadeau & Kafatos, 1999, p.92)
This notion of an "outside perspective" was a very strong part of Cartesian philosophy and Newtonian physics. It is ironic that even though Einstein used his own theory of relativity to effectively delete any possibility of an "outside perspective" with regards to spacetime geometry, he was still unable to accept the same deletion within quantum physics. Instead of ascribing to the Copenhagen interpretation Einstein was a realist, countering that a particle's features remained real and fixed; it was just our knowledge that was incomplete. (As we will see when we get to nonlocality, Einstein was sadly mistaken.) Bohr tied his Copenhagen interpretation to Einsteinian physics in another way as well, pointing out that within the theory of relativity, space and time are complementary attributes of the universe. Bohr also pointed out that within relativity theory, both mass and energy were complementary as well. A question then arises regarding consciousness: does consciousness arise from the play of complementary attributes or is it itself a complementary attribute. And if so, what is its complementary counterpart? These questions, although interesting, are unfortunately beyond the scope of our present discussion but do represent an area for possible future research
Another aspect of quantum theory that is applicable to the science of consciousness is the collapse of the wave function apparently caused by a conscious observer. As mentioned earlier, within the double-slit experiment an interference wave pattern exists when the electrons (or photons) are allowed to pass through both slits. If we, as conscious observers, measure through which slit each particle passes, then the interference wave pattern collapses and its complementary aspect, the particles aspect emerges. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the particle (in its particle aspect) does not even exist until it is observed. Even though a collapse does occur when an observation is made, there remains no scientific or mathematical correlation of what an observation or measurement is. This is known as the measurement problem.
Although there is no direct mathematical correlation, there are several ontological interpretations of the measurement problem that have various implications to our understanding of reality. One interpretation is that it is consciousness instead of the physical methods we use, that indeed collapses the wave function. This was first proposed by London and Bauer in 1939, but was later popularized by Wigner in 1961. One of today's physicists that strongly supports this view is Amit Goswami, whose main supposition is that all events remain in superposition until a conscious observer interacts with the event, causing the collapse of the wave function and the precipitation of the event into actuality (Goswami, 1993, italics added). From this view one can easily extrapolate that the entire universe was in superposition until a conscious observer came into being and interacted with the universe. This is acceptable to Goswami who thinks that the entire universe is self-aware, a slight variation of panpsychism, which describes how all things in the universe are conscious in some way
Another interpretation is that consciousness does not cause the collapse of the wave function, but rather consciousness is the collapse of the wave function. Proponents of such an interpretation are Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, whose model of consciousness rests on a wave function choosing to collapse itself. This model, which goes beyond simple decoherence into the realm of protoconsciousness, will be explored later in the paper.
Still another approach to the measurement problem is to make Schrödinger's wave function primary and demote the collapse of the wave function to an artifact experienced by the observer. One such approach is known as Everett's many-worlds theory, which postulates that reality bifurcates every time a quantum measurement is made. Thus the observer experiences a collapse instead of a superposition because that observer now exists in a state of superposition herself. In this way the universe is composed of continually branching realities.
Quite a number of scientists and philosophers that believe consciousness does indeed cause the collapse, focus their attention towards the implied wholeness mentioned by Bohr. David Bohm, a quantum physicist and philosopher, wrote that "all of this implies a thoroughgoing wholeness, in which mental and physical sides participate very closely in each other" (Bohm, 1990, p.284). Bohm also brings this notion of wholeness back to the experience of body and mind: "Likewise, intellect, emotion, and the whole state of the body are in a similar flux of fundamental participation. Thus, there is no real division between mind and matter, psyche and soma" (Bohm, 1990, p.284).
Finally a very interesting fact of the collapse of the wave function is that it is a nonlocal phenomenon, that is, the collapse of a wave function is not dependent on distance. As we will see, this violation of local realism leads credence to the theory that indeed the entire universe is nonlocal.
In opposition to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, Albert Einstein and some of his colleagues came up with an experiment that was designed to expose the incompleteness of quantum theory. The EPR experiment, named after Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, begins with two photons, which emerge from an electron and travel in opposite directions at almost the speed of light. This means that the distance between them increases at almost twice the speed of light. Quantum theory predicts that as soon as you measure an attribute of one photon, its partner will instantaneously manifest the same type of attribute, and due to the nature of the uncertainty principle, the complementary attribute will remain unknowable. As mentioned earlier, this is the essence of nonlocality: the violation and logical denial of local realism. Einstein assumed this to be impossible because that would mean that either information was traveling from one photon to the other faster than the speed of light (something that is impossible according to relativity theory), or there exists, as Einstein called it, some sort of "spooky action at a distance".
Bohr, adhering strictly to the Copenhagen interpretation, characterized Einstein's viewpoint as naïve. Bohr maintained that both particles were part of one quantum system, so that the collapse of the superposition of that system brought on by the measurement of one of the photon's attributes would mean the instantaneous collapse of the other photon's attributes. No information was needed from the other photon, because until the collapse of the wave function occurred, one cannot say that the photon actually existed at all. When the experiment was carried out many years later, it was found that Einstein was indeed wrong. The universe is either nonlocal or faster than light travel is possible. Either way, Einstein would most likely not have been happy with these results. It was the general consensus of the scientific community that the EPR experiment strongly supported only the former; the universe is indeed nonlocal.
Although nonlocality has become an integral part of quantum theory, it is really an ontological island to itself. Even though quantum theory "describes" this phenomenon, it neither "explains" how it arises nor how it fits with the rest of quantum mechanics. Because of this uncertainty, there is a general discomfort with the phenomena within the scientific community. As Henry Stapp puts it:
No metaphysics not involving faster-than-light propagation of influences has been proposed that can account for all of the predictions of quantum mechanics, except for the so-called many-worlds interpretation, which is objectionable on other grounds. Since quantum physicists are generally reluctant to accept the idea that there are faster-than-light influences, they are left with no metaphysics to promulgate. (cited in Nadeau & Kafatos, 1999, p.178)
In other words, there is no [acceptable] ontological ground on which the notion of nonlocality can stand.
And yet with this in mind, one might wonder why Stapp
refers to nonlocality as perhaps "the most profound discovery in all of
science" (cited in Nadeau & Kafatos, 1999, p.80). The reason is
simple: the implications of nonlocality are staggering. One can imagine the
whole of the universe as a quantum system with every particle of this system phase
entangled with every other particle. It has been very tempting for some
consciousness researchers to conclude that
(A) consciousness, being a member of the set which is the universe, has nonlocal
properties and that (B) out of these nonlocal properties arise the fundamental
nature of consciousness. In more than one quantum model of consciousness,
nonlocality has been invoked as a solution to the "binding problem"
(one of Chalmers' easy problems), which asks how various conscious events seem
to be integrated into a continuous "stream of consciousness".
Although the first correlation between quantum mechanics and consciousness was made just after the inception of quantum theory, the first quantum model of consciousness was not proposed until 1970. It was then that Evan Harris Walker proposed a model of synaptic activity based on a feature of quantum theory entitled quantum tunneling. This phenomenon occurs when electrons or photons, having encountered a "classically" impenetrable barrier, appear to tunnel through the barrier and appear on the other side. This phenomenon can be explained by using the uncertainty principle, which in this case states that the change in energy of a system multiplied by the change in duration of time is always greater than or equal to Planck's constant. Consequently even though the particle does not normally have the energy necessary to cross the barrier, if the interval of time is small enough, the particle can borrow the necessary energy and thus magically appear on the other side.
In Walker's model, electrons from one neuron tunnel across the synaptic gap (an energy barrier) to the excited synapse of another neuron. According to Walker, a whole network of tunneling electrons is created by the jumping of electrons to various distant synapses via "tuned stepping-stone molecules" (Herbert, 1993, p.259). This network of tunneling electrons comprise a "second nervous system", which is responsible for conscious thought. Unconscious processing is carried out by the conventional nervous system.
Walker attempted to show how this quantum tunneling network could be responsible for solving the binding problem as well as transitions between waking and sleeping. Although Walker's theory was unable to stand up to experimental data, it was a good theory in that it was a testable theory. Lacking testability is one of the frequent criticisms leveled against most quantum models of consciousness.
Still another feature of quantum theory that has been offered as a solution to the binding problem is Bose-Einstein condensation. As we mentioned earlier, under ordinary circumstances individual particles have a corresponding wave function that describes the probability of their position, momentum, etc. In rare circumstances, the wave functions of multiple particles merge so that they not only act as one, but for all intents and purposes, they become one. These merged wave functions are called Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC's), after Satyandra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein, who both independently predicted the phenomenon. BEC's can involve a great number of particles, creating merged objects that can be easily observed on the macroscopic level. Lasers, superconductors, and superfluids are all examples of BEC's.
At first it was thought that BEC's were confined to areas similar to those above, but in 1968 Herbert Frohlich of Liverpool University in England showed that BEC's exist in living tissue at body temperature (most BEC's exist only at very low temperatures). This phenomenon, known as a "Frohlich's pumped system", is simply a "system of vibrating, electrically charged molecules (dipoles -- positive at one end and negative at the other) into which energy is pumped" (Marshall & Zohar, 1990, p.85). As these vibrations increase, the biomolecules start to vibrate in unison and eventually coalesce into a BEC.
Ian Marshall has been one of the most vocal proponents of a quantum model of consciousness based on Frohlich's pumped systems in the brain. In the book The Quantum Self, Ian Marshall and collaborator Danah Zohar propose that "the same Bose-Einstein condensation among neuron constituents is what distinguishes the conscious from the unconscious…[and is] the physical basis for consciousness" (Marshall & Zohar, 1990, p.85).
Various parts of the brain becoming one in a BEC is a very tempting solution to the binding problem, and yet Marshall and Zohar's model remains very vague. Similar to Walker's quantum tunneling model, Marshall and Zohar propose that the brain is composed of "two interacting systems: the coherent Bose-Einstein condensate associated with consciousness, and the computerlike system of individual neurons" (1990, p.90). This model of the brain as a combination conscious quantum system and unconscious classical computer is alluring at first, but is ultimately too simplistic. This may very well be one of the quantum models of consciousness that led Mari Jibu and Kunio Yasue to make the following statement:
Due to the simplistic applications of quantum mechanics to the investigation of brain functioning and consciousness, several physicists… sounded an alarm against the incorporation of any quantum theoretical idea into both brain and life sciences. As a result, many brain scientists have developed a false idea that all the quantum theoretical approaches… are equally nonsensical… Indeed, they believe that classical physics might be the proper realm of both brain and life sciences. (1995, pp.193,194)
As a caveat, Jibu and Yasue point out that classical approaches fare no better than simplistic quantum models. They also draw attention to the fact that certain quantum models may be "up to the task". According to Jibu and Yasue theirs is such a model.
Quantum brain dynamics, proposed by Jibu and Yasu in the mid-nineteen-nineties is based upon work in quantum field theory done by the late Dr. Hiroomi Umezawa. Quantum field theory (QFT) is an extension of quantum theory in which particles, instead of being viewed as discrete entities, are characterized as excitations of an underlying field. Umezawa, along with Iaian Stuart and Yasushi Takashi, proposed the existence of a specialized quantum field extending thoughout various brain cells. This field came to be known as the cortical field, the quanta of which are now referred to as corticons.
Building on the work of Umezawa and his colleagues, Jibu and Yasue use a variant of QFT to investigate "macroscopic thermal dynamical phenomena" occurring in the brain (Jibu & Yasue, 1995, p.163). They refer to this variant of QFT as quantum brain dynamics (QBD). In QBD, Jibu and Yasue focus their attention not on the biomolecules of the brain but instead on the water molecules within the brain.
According to Jibu and Yasue, the nature of water, perhaps because of its abundance on Earth as well as in living things, has been overlooked and oversimplified. The researchers draw attention to the powerful covalent and hydrogen bonding of water molecules in the brain. The strength of these bonds is such that Jibu and Yasue characterize collections of water molecules as one megamolecule. Correspondingly "each unit configuration H2O, which used to be regarded as a water molecule composed of an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, can no longer be identified with a water molecule but simply a fundamental unit of atoms strongly bonded to each other" (Jibu & Yasue, 1995, p.157). They go on to only half-jokingly write, "the totality of water on the planet Earth could be considered one huge water molecule" (1995, p.157).
In Jibu and Yasue's model, the electric dipoles of various H2O units align themselves with one another in a BEC, and may even cause the dipole alignment of various biomolecules within the brain. An interesting hypothesis is that biomolecules within the brain arrange themselves to align to the various dipole-to-dipole structures in the water megamolecules. Consequently water, instead of the brain's biomolecular cell structure, is responsible for initiating "the structural configuration essential to living matter" (Jibu & Yasue, 1995, p.158).
Jibu and Yasue venture even further, daringly proposing that "perhaps life is nothing more than the unity of water as a single molecule in living matter" (1995, p.158). Similarly they propose that consciousness may arise from the interaction between corticons and Nambu-Goldstone bosons (specialized exchange bosons) within the water's "electron dipole field [Umezawa's cortical field]" (Jibu & Yasue, 1995, p.161). Being such a recently proposed theory, I am unaware of any criticisms of their work. Although I find their QBD model of consciousness intriguing, only further experimental results will be able to indicate its future potential.
So far none of the quantum models of consciousness discussed in this paper have addressed Chalmers' hard problem of consciousness. Even Yasue admits that QBD only addresses the easy problems of consciousness (Yasue, 1999, p.323). According to Yasue one theory does suggest a direction for tackling the "hard problem", Roger Penrose's theory of spin networks. Penrose's approach to the hard problem is summarized here:
Indeed he [Penrose] proposed a new space-time framework of fundamental physics called "spin networks" in which not only conventional physical and geometric objects but also protoconscious objects such as qualia can be implemented as underlying mathematical objects. In a sense, he developed a universal mathematical framework simultaneously representing the materialistic world of physical reality and the Platonic world of mathematical reality. (Yasue, 1999, p.323)
A recent criticism of spin networks theory however is that currently it can only be applied to 3 dimensions, not the 4 dimensions of our spacetime universe. It has been suggested that it is for this reason that Penrose has for the moment, abandoned this theory in lieu of another model of prespace, twistor theory (Baez, 1997).
Regardless of the prespace model favored by Penrose, his goal remains to unite consciousness (in the form of protoconsciousness) and matter. Squarely on top of this prespace structure (although perhaps not firmly) is a quantum model of consciousness developed with the anesthesiologist and neurophysiologist Dr. Stuart Hameroff. In their paper, "Conscious Events as Orchestrated Space-Time Selections", Hameroff and Penrose postulate that it is possible for a quantum superposition within the brain to self-collapse (decohere), and that this self-collapse (referred to as an objective reduction or OR) can then orchestrate itself with other such events in the brain. These orchestrated objective reductions (Orch OR's) might then correlate to states of consciousness. Thus, instead of a conscious observer causing a quantum wave collapse, it is rather the self-collapsing wave itself that might serve as the basis of consciousness.
Specifically when a microtubilin, which is one of the brain's cytoskeletal proteins, is caught in a quantum superposition involving its location, the two most divergent locations will each have a specific gravimetric effect on space-time. Although current mainstream physics holds that the effects of gravity, which is the weakest of the four forces, are too negligible to affect sub-atomic interactions, Hameroff and Penrose propose that there is a critical threshold between varying space-time gravimetric forces, which when reached, forces a collapse and a choice between space-time locations. Whole sets of microtubilins can exist in a superposed state and then collapse together in an Orch OR.
When referring to the Orch OR, Hameroff and Penrose postulate that "…the outcome states are 'non-computable'; that is they cannot be determined algorithmically from… the beginning of the quantum computation" (Shear, 1995, p.189). Non-computability means that the outcome cannot be arrived at by a linear Turing machine, the most well known of which is the contemporary computer. Consequently Penrose proposes that artificial life using standard electronic computing is not possible. Just recently however, there has been much progress in quantum computing using biomolecular interactions. Therefore using Hameroff and Penrose's model, one could theorize that a hybrid computer (a classical computer which also uses some type of biomolecular interface, a biomatrix filter if you will) could eventually become conscious.
Another intriguing aspect of Hameroff and Penrose's Orch OR model is that it is a "time-irreversible process" (Shear, p.187). Interestingly enough, while time is practically superfluous in quantum theory, time-irreversibility is a hallmark characteristic of living systems. In fact, according to Ilya Prigogine, only in living systems does time become apparent (Clare, 1992). This would imply that the process of Orch OR, which includes the choice between various space-time geometries is the choice of a living system.
Although Hameroff and Penrose's model has many interesting and potential features, its connections to a pre-space model which will address the hard problem is either vague or simply not known to this researcher. This connection is obviously alluded to in Hameroff and Penrose's use of the word choice to describe the OR. Although curious, I am not clear as to how this notion of choice translates into a type of proto-consciousness.
Both the non-computability and time-irreversibility characteristics of the model are intriguing possibilities that seem rich with potential avenues of thought. To this researcher at least, it seems logical that consciousness should somehow transcend the level of spacetime as we know it. Both characteristics seem transcendent in this way.
With the advent of quantum computing clearly on the horizon, I am unclear as to how quantum computation will affect Penrose's claim regarding artificial life. As alluded to earlier, it seems that advances in biomolecular mechanics might make it possible to at least conceive of true artificial intelligence. Of course, with the incorporation of living cells, the whole notion of "artificial" becomes vague.
Regarding the time-irreversibility feature of their model, it is my opinion that some type of correlation with consciousness might be made around the notion of a breaking of symmetries. In my opinion, consciousness and time are intrinsically bound in ways that we do not currently understand, and so a breaking of symmetries near the Big Bang might pertain to the existence of both of these attributes. Whatever the case may be, in my opinion Penrose is heading in the right direction: uniting consciousness and its supposed material counterpart in some type of pre-space topology.
Throughout this paper we have discussed many features of quantum theory that might be applicable to a science of consciousness. We have also discussed various quantum models of consciousness and how these models have exploited various quantum mechanical processes. Even though undoubtedly some of these theories will eventually be refuted, some may prove correct within a limited scope. It is my opinion that throughout the ages consciousness has probably developed several quantum mechanical processes, just as it has evolved several macroscopic processes. Just as various neural organs developed to handle various tasks, so too could various quantum mechanical processes have evolved to handle various levels of consciousness. Quantum mechanical processes could have then evolved in complexity just as other processes have evolved in the human body. Although far-sighted, it might be worthwhile to view quantum mechanical processes within the brain in this way. It may even be the case that simpler, more phenomenal aspects of consciousness might have evolved though pre-quantum mechanical processes.
If this evolution and exploitation model of quantum mechanical correlates of consciousness is correct, then it is conceivable that the most primary aspects of consciousness may have used (and might still be using) pre-quantum mechanical processes, processes which involve pre-space topology or hyperspatial topology (I mention both because I am unsure as to the difference if any between them). I would even go so far as to propose that most if not all quantum mechanical correlates of consciousness are non-essential correlates of consciousness (NECC's), correlates of consciousness that correspond only to the easy problem of consciousness. It is my belief that an essential correlate of consciousness (ECC), one that correlates to qualia, would reside in a pre-quantum topology mentioned above.
This model of an ECC and NECC's is not a simple rehashing of the hard problem however. In this model we have moved beyond the hard and easy problems to the ontological nature of the types of consciousness corresponding to each problem. In this model, for example, one could say that it is possible that an ECC correlates to qualia, while NECC's might serve only to augment and variegate the qualia already present. This is where the ontological nature of each correlate and its counterpart in consciousness comes into play. If the ECC is correlated to qualia and it is true that a unit of qualia is a unit of real energy, then qualia and the ECC might exist together in a complementary relationship as conjugate attributes, possibly even mediated by a constant such as Planck's constant. On the other hand, NECC's because they are only acting on qualia, do not correspond to the creation of any new energy units and so are ontologically dissimilar from the ECC. In fact there would probably be no need for a complementary relationship because these processes correlate only to states of qualia instead of qualia itself.
Whatever the case may be, it is evident that many of the concepts discussed in this paper represent rich areas of potential growth and application. Other areas of future consideration that have precipitated from this research include implications of temporal locality, active information and Orch OR, hyperspace and its relation to consciousness, spin networks and twistor theory and their relations to an ECC, the possible quantization of time, and the possible quantization of consciousness. Indeed quantum theory has a rich home in the new science of consciousness.
References
Baez, John. (1997) This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 110). Riverside, California: University of California at Riverside. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week110.html)
Bohm, D. (1990) A New Theory of the Relation of Mind and Matter. In the journal: Philosophical Psychology. Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Bohm, D., and Hiley, B.J. (1993) The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory. New York, New York: Routledge.
Casti, J.L. (2000) Paradigms Regained: A Further Exploration of the Mysteries of Modern Science. New York, New York: Morrow.
Clare, Anthony. (1992) Soul: Part 1, Soul of the Universe. Atlas Video, Inc.
Garrett, Bill. (2000) The Excellent Adventures of Renee Descartes. Orinda, California: John F. Kennedy University.
Goswami, Amit. (1993) The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. Jeremy P. Tarcher / Putnam, a member of Penguin Putnam Inc. New York, New York.
Greene, Brian. (1999). The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Herbert, Nick. (1993) Elemental Mind: Human Consciousness and the New Physics. New York, New York: Penguin Books USA Inc.
Jibu, Mari and Yasue, Kunio. (1995) Quantum Brain Dynamics and Consciousness: An Introduction. Advances in Consciousness Research, Volume 3. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lockwood, Michael. (1989) Mind, Brain and the Quantum: The Compound 'I'. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell Inc.
Marshall, I.N., and Zohar, Danah. (1997). Who's Afraid of Schrodinger's Cat? An A-to-Z Guide to All the New Science Ideas You Need to Keep Up with the New Thinking. (with contributions by F. David Peat) New York, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
Nadeau, R. and Kafatos, M. (1999). The Non-Local Universe: The New Physics and Matters of the Mind. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Pleasants, G. David. (2000) In a conversation with the head of the physics department at Calilfornia State University in Hayward, California.
Pylkkanen, Paavo. (1992) Mind, Matter and Active Information: The Relevance of David Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Theory to Cognitive Science. Helsinki, Finland. University of Helsinki (Academic Dissertation).
Shear, Jonathon. (1997) Explaining Consciousness: The 'Hard Problem'. 1997. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusettes.
Yasue, Kunio. (1999) Quantum Monadology. Chapter 27 of Towards a Science of Consciousness III: The Third Tuscon Discussions and Debates. Edited by Hameroff, S., Kaszniak, A., and Chalmers, D. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
David Pleasants
2317 Gloria St.
El Cerrito, CA 94530 U.S.A.
[email protected]
Copyright (c) G. David Pleasants III 2000