Abstract. Two fundamental issues raised by Lothar Schäfer are considered: (1) the question of a suitable paradigm within which the findings of quantum physics can be optimally interpreted and (2) the question of the assessment of the presence and importance of mind and consciousness in the universe. In regard to the former, I contend that the ideal of science is to interpret its findings in an optimally consistent and minimally speculative framework. In this context Schäfer's assertion that certain findings in quantum physics (those that relate to virtual states) indicate the presence of mind at the quantum level implies a dualistic and hence unnecessarily speculative assumption. In regard to the assessment of mind and consciousness, a consistent and parsimonious paradigm suggests that mind and consciousness are not part of a chain of events consisting of an admixture of physical and mental events but that physical events form a single, coherent set of events, and mental events another set, with the two sets related, as Teilhard (and a number of other philosophers, including White head) affirmed, as the “within” and the “without” (or the “mental pole” and the “physical pole”) of one and the same fundamental reality. This panpsychist as contrasted with Schäfer's dualist paradigm provides a single self‐consistent framework for the interpretation of quantum (and all natural) events while recognizing the presence of mind in the universe as the least speculative realist implication of our immediate experience of consciousness.
Abstract. Two fundamental issues raised by Lothar Schäfer are considered: (1) the question of a suitable paradigm within which the findings of quantum physics can be optimally interpreted and (2) the question of the assessment of the presence and importance of mind and consciousness in the universe. In regard to the former, I contend that the ideal of science is to interpret its findings in an optimally consistent and minimally speculative framework. In this context Schäfer's assertion that certain findings in quantum physics (those that relate to virtual states) indicate the presence of mind at the quantum level implies a dualistic and hence unnecessarily speculative assumption. In regard to the assessment of mind and consciousness, a consistent and parsimonious paradigm suggests that mind and consciousness are not part of a chain of events consisting of an admixture of physical and mental events but that physical events form a single, coherent set of events, and mental events another set, with the two sets related, as Teilhard (and a number of other philosophers, including White head) affirmed, as the “within” and the “without” (or the “mental pole” and the “physical pole”) of one and the same fundamental reality. This panpsychist as contrasted with Schäfer's dualist paradigm provides a single self‐consistent framework for the interpretation of quantum (and all natural) events while recognizing the presence of mind in the universe as the least speculative realist implication of our immediate experience of consciousness.
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.
Contemporary physics finds itself pondering questions about mind and consciousness, an uncomfortable area for theorists. But historically, key figures at the founding of quantum theory assumed that reality was composed of two parts, mind and matter, which interacted with each other according to some new laws that they specified. This departure from the prior (classical-physicalist) assumption that mind was a mere side effect of brain activity was such a startling proposal that it basically split physics in two, with one camp insisting that mind will ultimately be explained via physical processes in the brain and the other camp embracing mind as innate in creation and the key to understanding reality in its completeness. Henry Stapp made important contributions toward a coherent explanation by advocating John von Neumann’s orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics. von Neumann postulated that at its basis, quantum mechanics requires both a psychological and physical component. He was left, however, with a dualist view in which the psychological and physical aspects of QM remained unresolved. In this article, the relevant issues are laid out with the aim of finding a nondual explanation that allows mind and matter to exist as features of the same universal consciousness, in the hope that the critical insights of Planck, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, von Neumann, and Stapp will be recognized and valued, with the aim of an expanded physics that goes beyond physicalist dogma.
Western philosophy and science have a strongly dualistic tradition regarding the mental and physical aspects of reality, which makes it difficult to understand their possible causal relations. In recent debates in cognitive neuroscience it has been common to claim on the basis of neural experiments that conscious experiences are causally inefficacious. At the same time there is much evidence that consciousness does play an important role in guiding behavior. The author explores whether a new way of understanding the causal role of mental states and consciousness could be provided by the ontological interpretation of the quantum theory (Bohm and Hiley, Phys. Rep. 144:323–348, 1987; Bohm and Hiley, The undivided universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory. Routledge: London, 1993). This interpretation radically changes our notion of matter by suggesting that a new type of active information plays a causal role at the quantum level of reality. The author thus considers to what extent the alleged causal powers of consciousness involve information, and then moves on to consider whether information in (conscious) mental states can be connected to the information at the level of quantum physics. In this way he sketches how quantum theory might help to throw light upon one of the grand challenges facing the social sciences and the humanities, namely the question of whether consciousness plays any genuine causal role in the physical world.
In this paper we will address important considerations for the structure of a physical theory and the need and implications for the conscious observer and creator. Complementarity and reciprocity are dominate in the sttucture of the Quantum \'Vorld. It is clear that one's meaningful existence directly involves one's intent and acdon both mental and physical in consequence. Hence, it is vital ro undersrand what intemional will is, the manner in which it arises, as it relates to one's ethical responsibility the meaning of their life may also be considered in the context of intentional will and may be described and understOod. We investigate the role of conscious intention in the physical and mental world. In this paper, we examine the theoretical constructs of the properties of observational intention and their local and nonlocal effects on mind and matter. One begins by sensing a physical or psychic input and then becoming consciously aware of it as perceptions and thoughts which result in concepts developed for memories, reasoning and feelings. Then a thought and decision will be made and imention are carried into action in the physical and mental world. We proceed by investigating the role and action of the thought of intentional will and its role in quantum mechanics, its structure of the theoty and manner in which it appears ro demand a role for consciousness. In order to proceed with our investigation will present some of the basic tenants of quantum mechanics, the structure of the theoty and manner in which it appears ro demand a role for consciousness in quantum measurement and its non local intentional interaction. The quantum theory gives us two inescapable conclusions: J) we are intimaly linked ro the world as participatory observers, and 2) nonlocal remote connections and interactions are shown to be parr of our world process. Discoveries, and/or creations of new concepts in physics lead ro the observer/participant issue. Quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic microcosm, is a description that may imply that the observer has an impact on the observed, that rhe observer has an effect on what is observed. The relativity theory scems to imply that the state of the observer affecrs his interpretation of what he sees. In the context of quantum theoty and relativity, we may be able to shed light on the relationship of discovery as well as creation and irs validation of the properties of an external reality. In quantum physics, as well as in the structure of n-dimensional relativistic models, the implication for a fundamental remore connection of events is deeply implied by the structure of these models and their experimental test and we can use this property for our experimental models of the properties of consciousness. The structure of physical theoty, its very fabric, is pointing towards a world view that speaks of concepts which have been considered external to the body of science but yet may be implied by modern physical theoty itself.
I start from the fundamental principles of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, without probability, and interpret them using the notion of coexistence: a quantum state can be read, not uniquely, as a coexistence of other quantum states, which are pairwise orthogonal. In this formalism, I prove that a conscious observer is necessarily a physical object that can memorize local events by setting one of its parts in an exactly specified constant quantum state (hypotheses H1, H2 and H3). Then I define the probability of a future event as the proportion of initial observers, all identical, who will actually experience that event. It then becomes possible to establish the usual results of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, I detail the link between probabilities and relative frequencies. Additionally, I study the biological feasibility of this modelling of observer's mind. The second part of this paper completes the neuronal description of the mind functions, based on current neuroscientific knowledge. It provides a model that is compatible with the assumptions of the first part and consistent with our daily conscious experience. In particular, it develops a model of self-consciousness based on an explicit use of the random component of neuron behaviour; according to the first part, that random is in fact the coexistence of a multiplicity of possibilities. So, when the mind measures the random part of certain neurons in the brain, he goes himself within each of these possibilities. The mind has a decision-making component that is active in this situation, appearing then as the cause of the choice of this possibility among all the others. This models the self-consciousness which then ensures the unity of our conscious experience by equating this experience with ``what the ego is conscious about''. The conclusion details the points that remain to be developed.