The aim of this paper is to construct an ontology to account consistently for both the objective and subjective worlds. First, I will determine the fundamental properties of consciousness from a first-person perspective and derive from them a subjective definition of consciousness. Second, I will infer from their existence at a macroscopic level some expectations about the empirical world and show that these expectations can be identified with quantum properties of matter. This will lead to the construction of an ontology and to a physical counterpart of the former subjective definition of consciousness, which accounts for the existence of a continuum between conscious and unconscious states. Finally, I will go beyond the common objections to quantum mind to propose a simple yet suitable model of mind which explains why consciousness arises specifically inside the nervous systems of living creatures.
The aim of this paper is to construct an ontology to account consistently for both the objective and subjective worlds. First, I will determine the fundamental properties of consciousness from a first-person perspective and derive from them a subjective definition of consciousness. Second, I will infer from their existence at a macroscopic level some expectations about the empirical world and show that these expectations can be identified with quantum properties of matter. This will lead to the construction of an ontology and to a physical counterpart of the former subjective definition of consciousness, which accounts for the existence of a continuum between conscious and unconscious states. Finally, I will go beyond the common objections to quantum mind to propose a simple yet suitable model of mind which explains why consciousness arises specifically inside the nervous systems of living creatures.
The aim of this paper is to construct an ontology to account consistently for both the objective and subjective worlds. First, I will determine the fundamental properties of consciousness from a first-person perspective and derive from them a subjective definition of consciousness. Second, I will infer from their existence at a macroscopic level some expectations about the empirical world and show that these expectations can be identified with quantum properties of matter. This will lead to the construction of an ontology and to a physical counterpart of the former subjective definition of consciousness, which accounts for the existence of a continuum between conscious and unconscious states. Finally, I will go beyond the common objections to quantum mind to propose a simple yet suitable model of mind which explains why consciousness arises specifically inside the nervous systems of living creatures.
Scientific investigation of the classic mind-body problem has failed to produce a viable theory. As McGinn puts it, We know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness, but we have, it seems, no understanding whatever of how this can be. I propose that the obstruction is commitment to a physicalist ontology: It is not possible to obtain consciousness from unconscious ingredients. I propose instead the ontology of conscious realism: Consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Matter, brains, and space-time are among the contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their existence. For a conscious realist the mind-body problem is to show precisely how conscious agents construct the macroscopic and microscopic physical world. I propose a mathematically rigorous account of conscious agents and their dynamics, and of their construction of the physical world. In particular, I propose that the physical world is a species-specific user interface, and that quantum physics represents properties of the stable dynamics of conscious agents. Symmetries of these stable dynamics are the source of the symmetries studied in quantum physics. I present a concrete dynamics for pairs of conscious agents that exhibits SL(2,C) symmetry, and from this obtain a physical representation of the dynamics in terms of relativistic spin half particles. This representation allows one to canonically associate a discrete patch of Minkowski space-time to each such pair of conscious agents, and suggests that, at the smallest scale, space-time is discrete. This suggestion comports well with current approaches to quantum gravity.
This paper proposes a new interpretation of quantum physics that encompasses the first-person and third-person perspective and provides a solution to the mind-body problem. First, a definition of phenomenal existence and a simple metaphysical model of mind are derived from the principles of irreducibility, distinction and persistence. Then it is shown that this process of existence can be associated, within physical representation, with the wave function collapse of quantum physics. A new interpretation of quantum physics, close to the relational interpretation, follows and the relational nature of our scientific knowledge is emphasised. Finally, in light of this interpretation, I analyse the differences between plain existence and consciousness and determine the physical condition for emergence of the latter. This view is confronted with neuroscientific models of consciousness.
Quantum theory is open to different interpretations, and this paper reviews some of the points of contention. The standard interpretation of quantum physics assumes that the quantum world is characterized by absolute indeterminism and that quantum systems exist objectively only when they are being measured or observed. David Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum theory rejects both these assumptions. Bohm's theory that quantum events are party determined by subtler forces operating at deeper levels of reality ties in with John Eccles ' theory that our minds exist outside the material world and interact with our brains at the quantum level. Paranormal phenomena indicate that our minds can communicate with other minds and affect distant physical systems by nonordinary means. Whether such phenomena can be adequately explained in terms of nonlocality and the quantum vacuum or whether they involve superphysical forces and states of matter as yet unknown to science is still an open question, and one which merits further experimental study.
Most interpretations of quantum theory fail to provide a fundamental, complete, self-consistent account of nature describing physical reality itself, as opposed to merely yielding predictions about results of experiments and observations. A paradigm providing a self-consistent foundation for quantum theory and a description of the reality it refers to, generalized to a worldview, is a Quantum Paradigm, where ‘paradigm' is defined as structure of experiential reality. We assert that the fundamental obstruction in the quest for a quantum paradigm is the assumption of objectivity. The subject-object distinction, drawn within experience, has within the natural sciences degenerated into a dichotomy-an absolute split into separate realms-with scientists adopting the classical paradigm where the object pole of experience ("objective reality") can be studied independently from the subject pole ("the experiencer"), with a presupposition that this procedure yields a fundamental description of nature. In fact, the subjective is often eliminated altogether as a fundamental category, and reduced to an epiphenomenon of objective processes. We claim this objectivity assumption precludes a full comprehension and a paradox-free formulation of quantum theory. By challenging this presupposition, i.e. leaving the question open, a coherent understanding of quantum nature falls naturally into place, providing appropriate foundation for quantum theory and an associated world-view. The resulting Quantum Paradigm is "realist" in the sense that it provides a description of what is actually happening: namely the arena of all happening is Mind or Consciousness-from which mind and matter, subject and object, individual and collective, and time and space co-dependently arise. The subject matter of quantum theory then becomes the fundamental mind-function of distinction ("measurement"), resulting in information and its statistical correlations. The message of quantum mechanics is surprising: the basic components of objects-the particles, electrons, quarks, etc.-cannot be thought of as ‘self-existent'. The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is ‘empirical reality', of experience."The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine."-James Jeans Anomalous phenomena such as ESP and psychokinesis, collective consciousness, and synchronicity that are considered impossible in the context of the classical paradigm, fit naturally in, and can in turn provide evidence for the Quantum Paradigm. Spirituality and science are shown to be complementary approaches referring to the same reality, Mind, while each discipline retains its integrity. The Quantum Paradigm can be intellectually comprehended, as well as embodied: one can live in quantum reality. A good metaphor for this is "life as a dream": with no "real" objects as distinguished from experienced objects. Experience is "empty" of self-nature in the Buddhist sense, with everything interconnected and co-dependently arising. Experiencing the world by "embodying the Quantum Paradigm" is transformative, healing, and an antidote to alienation resulting from embodying the classical paradigm. Embodying the Quantum Paradigm and living in the Oneness of all creation can help humanity-increasingly lost in the materialism and individualism reinforced by our embodiment of the classical paradigm-and restore intimate connection and harmony with Spirit, Nature and fellow humans; we need such a transformation to survive and thrive in our technological society.
Introduction We saw in Part I that in addition to explaining consciousness there is another hard problem for the modern scientific worldview – understanding what quantum physics is telling us about reality. And if anything this one is harder. In philosophy of mind there is at least consensus enough for an orthodox position to exist (materialism), and a widespread expectation that it will be vindicated by future neuroscience. By contrast, in philosophy of physics all sides understand that quantum theory is compatible with a variety of metaphysical interpretations, and have little hope that new empirical discoveries will settle the matter. But both problems are “hard” in the sense that, despite tremendous intellectual effort over many decades, no clear progress has been made toward solving them. The basic idea of quantum consciousness theory is that bringing the two problems into contact may be the key to solving both (though I will be addressing only the mind–body problem in what follows). That this could be a novel idea attests to the fact that their philosophical discussions have evolved quite separately. While philosophers of physics have long been interested in the role of consciousness in the measurement process, they have engaged little with the mind–body problem per se; and philosophers of mind have been almost unanimous in dismissing the suggestion that consciousness has anything interesting to do with quantum physics. Social scientists might echo such skepticism, wondering how adding the problem of interpreting quantum theory to the problem of consciousness will help them . Besides piling up jargon and arcane debates, in moving to the sub-atomic level we are now even farther removed from the human world, and seemingly poised to engage in the most vulgar reductionism. Yet, naïvely one might expect the two problems to be related, for two reasons. The first is the intriguing analogies mentioned in Chapter 1 between the mental and quantum domains.