Reality and Consciousness

Preface

The nature of reality and consciousness is a mystery which has puzzled mankind for many thousands of years. The search to understand this most fundamental of all questions will continue to excite, entertain and intrigue the human race as long as it exists.

                Modern science has produced ideas which may result in the modification of our basic philosophies.  Scientists have discovered the universe is very strange; to describe it in a coherent, consistent manner, it is necessary to consider ideas which appear bizarre.

                We take some traditional ideas as being so obvious we are unwilling or unable to consider thoughts at variance with these sure, things.  To get deeper insights into the nature of reality and consciousness, one must contemplate seemingly absurd ideas and consider that some of our most deeply held beliefs may be incorrect.  By considering such unusual thoughts we may gain some new understanding; at worst we will have risked some time and effort.

                Many view science as the study of the real, world out there, making no attempt to explain mental events. The prevailing image among laymen is of a clockwork universe - one cog pushing another in an orderly and predictable manner.  Many biologists think nature works in a mechanical predictable manner to produce the functions of the human body, including events occurring in the brain.

                In thousands of years of philosophizing, no theory has successfully described how consciousness could develop from matter.  The traditional approach starts with the real, concrete, outside world of matter and attempts to derive from it the phenomenon of consciousness as emerging from complex physical, processes.  The historical lack of success suggests it may be more productive to begin with a different point of view.

The alternate approach is to start with sensations as primary and to try to explain why this dream world, hypothesis is consistent with correlations in our experience which make it appear as if the outside world really exists.

                Before and soon after birth, we become dimly aware of sensations - touch, warmth, sight and sound.  We see configurations which, combined with touch and other sensations, convince us of the reality and permanence of an outside world.  Soon we become so accustomed to this idea we cannot conceive of any alternative.

                As we grow older we learn that events in our brain, a particularly complex piece of matter in the assumed outside, world, are related to the sensations of which we are aware.  This mysterious connection is taken as a matter of course by most people.  The remarkable fact that events in our brain produce sensations we perceive, yet similar events occurring in other brains do not, is taken as a matter of course. 

                In this book I consider what we might be aware of if other brains were attached to ours through many complicated neural connections.  I also consider the effects ideas learned from modern physics and neuro-physiology have on our thoughts about reality and consciousness.  This will include the possibility that objects moving around in space and time are not the underlying reality but merely superficial appearances of it, much as the two bright lights at night on the highway are not the underlying reality of the three-dimensional solid but invisible truck approaching us.  We discuss what science says about reality and we speculate how conscious experience fits into the picture.

                Furthermore, we contemplate the possibility that matter moving around in space and time is the same as the conscious sensation of the matter, much as the objects in a dream are inseparable from the sensation of observing those objects.

                If conscious experience is the same as external material, reality, then there may be some structural parallels between them.  Imagine an early civilization unaware that the world is round.  They send explorers westward toward the setting sun.  The explorers return, describing in some detail a land they have discovered.  Later they hear about other explorers who traveled eastward, towards the rising sun.  These explorers also discovered a new land and their description of it, although from a different perspective, appears somewhat similar to the descriptions of the land found to the west.  Is it only a coincidence or does it suggest the two lands are the same?  Because the two lands are in opposite directions, many members of the society consider it preposterous even to consider the possibility that they might be the same.

                I suggest some similar structure between the behavior of external things, and conscious phenomena. The reader can judge whether these so-called similarities are strained and artificial or significant.

Modern physical theories are quite good at correlating and predicting the results of scientific experiments and observations.  Perhaps most impressive in this respect is relativistic quantum theory.  Some physical quantities are correctly predicted to great precision  The magnetic moment of the electron, in particular has been predicted to be, in the appropriate units, 2.0023193048; the experimental value to the same precision is also 2.0023193048!

Some post-modern, philosophers believe the choice of a theory to describe nature is largely a matter of cultural and philosophical preference or consensus and thus there are no universal criteria for selecting one theory over the other.  These philosophers consider the choice of a scientific theory like a choice of a political morality or a desirable life style for which there are no objective tests to their validity. 

For example, to quote Richard Rorty: In the view that I am recommending, we might, in an imaginary age in which consensus in these areas was almost complete, view morality, physics, and psychology as equally objective.(1)   Or in discussing the possibility of a unique truth, he asks why it should be different for the referents of the solution to a moral dilemma or the Good Life for Man, or what the world is really made of?(2)                In another remark Rorty, referring to the philosopher and historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, says In particular, Kuhn questioned whether philosophy of science could construct an algorithm for choice among scientific theories.(3) 

An algorithm for choosing a unique theory, among competing successful scientific theories may not be available, but it is easy to choose a criterion for rejecting a theory.  If it makes even one prediction which is contradicted by careful observation or experiment, the theory must be rejected. 

It is a matter of historical fact that experimenters from various geographical areas, cultures and belief systems do eventually agree on what the experimental facts are.  If, using these facts, all but one theory are rejected, it does not mean that the remaining theory must be correct, but at least it is our best bet for the present.  If no theories remain after comparison with observation, then scientists must work hard to attempt to find a theory which will satisfy all the experimental facts.

Compare again the theory of the flat earth with the theory of the spherical earth.  Any skeptical philosopher can contrast the consequences of these theories.  Travelers starting at one location can set off in an arbitrary direction, continue in that direction and return to their original demarcation point; one can see the curved shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse and finally, one can see photographs of a round earth from artificial satellites in many locations in outer space. This should suggest even to these philosophers that the round earth is preferable to the flat earth theory, independently of culture and belief system.

The quantum theory is an extremely successful theory as its precise predictions have been confirmed and none of its many predictions have been contradicted by observation and experiment.  No other theory has been invented which passes all of the experimental tests; the quantum theory has no competition at the present time.  However the interpretation of the theory is another matter. 

Some physicists have given up on the possibility of finding a coherent interpretation of the quantum theory and concentrate on further development of the theory itself without worrying about its philosophical meaning.  Others accept a many worlds, interpretation which is extremely radical and which I and others believe has serious problems.(4)  Yet other scientists believe that quantum theory is closely related to the nature of consciousness.(5, 6)  I am in this camp and expand on the idea in this book.

Let us return to the round earth theory which must be preferred to the flat earth theory.  Suppose we are two-dimensional creatures on the earth who cannot conceive of a third dimension.  We have an elegant, though strange coordinate system, called the spherical, coordinate system which elegantly describes distances and locations on the surface of the planet.

We have a successful theory but, being two-dimensional creatures with limited imaginations, we do not have an interpretation for this theory.  From our experiments we have great confidence in the theory but we are baffled in our attempts to understand how it can be so.  This is analogous to the problem of interpreting the quantum theory.

I begin the book with a discussion of the mind-body problem and continue with the special and general theories of relativity, emphasizing the very distinct views of the universe held by differently moving observers.  After developing a history of the universe and the development of life and consciousness according to the traditional materialistic concepts, I begin to build the case for a mentalistic point of view.  After considering structure and information processing with examples from genetics and computers, I discuss signal processing in the brain. 

In order to make progress in one field it is sometimes advantageous to use developments from another.  For example the field of archaeology has benefited from dating techniques developed by physicists involving radioactive nuclei and the field of biology has benefited from the fields of chemistry and physics.  Although physics is often thought to be the most fundamental of sciences, I believe its interpretation may benefit from a study of neuro-physiology.  To this end this book describes some results of brain science including split brains and compound brains with some speculation of what happens to the mind(s) associated with these brains.  The issue of identity is crucial in these discussions.  Under what circumstances is there only one mind present and when are there more than one?  And when are two minds identical?  We compare this with similar questions for particles.

Next I introduce some basic quantum theoretical concepts and compare them with mental phenomena.  After a short light-hearted diversion to help the reader become familiar with some of the issues, I return to a serious discussion of quantum paradoxes such as the puzzle involving Schroedinger's famous cat and the paradox invented by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.  Continuing with a discussion of particle interactions and the notorious anthropic principle, I then review the philosophical problems raised in order to get ready for the last chapter which is an attempt to resolve some of the quantum paradoxes with a mentalistic view of the world.

I postulate the existence of an unobservable meta-brain, using the metaphor of the dream to describe the world we observe.  The coherence and stability of the world is explained as a single dream of the whole meta-brain.  Our own awareness is the dream of a sub-circuit of that meta-brain which is loosely connected with the rest of the meta-brain.  The events occurring in the meta-brain, analogous to signals from one neuron to another in our own brains, constitute the non-local hidden variables which determine the events in our dream, world.  Here our discussions of split and compound brains are essential in describing individual minds as well as the overall coherence of our world view.

Chapter 1

Introduction

In trying to understand the nature of the universe and our own existence, philosophical points of view have varied between two basic extremes.  We call one view materialism, and the other mentalism.

Materialism and Determinism

In one extreme the world is made of a material substance and everything is explained in terms of its collisions and interactions in time and space.  The prevailing view among scientists of one hundred years ago, and of most non-scientists today, is of a universe like a great deterministic machine, each event predetermined by events which occurred previously.  If these previous events, the causes, produced a later event, the effect, then a repetition of precisely the same causes would invariably produce precisely the same effect.  If one knew everything about the conditions very early in the history of the universe, in principle one could predict the entire future of the universe.  In practice it would, of course, be far too complicated and difficult to do.  Along with this view, most scientists of one hundred years ago assumed that events were locally determined.  For example, even though the earth’s almost circular motion around the sun was due to the gravitational attraction of that distant body, the attraction was due to the local portion of the gravitational field produced by the sun. 

According to this viewpoint even the behavior of biological organisms could, in principle, be explained by complicated chemical and physical processes occurring in the cells and structures of the organisms.  There have been many successes in describing heredity and mutations in physical and chemical terms.  The development of animals including differentiation and growth from a single fertilized cell into a many celled creature with specialized cells and structures of different kinds- brain cells, skin cells, hair, toes, bones, etc.  Although not presently explained in detail, is thought by most biologists to be explainable through deterministic physical principles.

This deterministic principle might even extend to conscious and unconscious behavior of complex living creatures.  Such behavior is, in this point of view, determined by the pattern of nerve impulses in the brain, these impulses being determined by prior causes.  Those brain impulses are in part a result of signals coming from the sensory nerves, those signals coming partly from outside physical stimuli and partly from stimuli within the body.  The brain impulses are also influenced by the prior condition of the brain and the impulses previously traveling through it.  Even thoughts and sensations in principle could be explained in this way according to this materialistic point of view.

Just as a blow to my head would cause nerve impulses to travel to my brain causing the sensation of pain, so the sight and smell of a dish of chocolate ice cream would send impulses to my brain, producing, if preconditions in my brain were appropriate, a pattern of impulses producing the sensation of desire for the ice cream.  This pattern of impulses in my brain would produce other nerve impulses some of which might travel from my brain to my arm muscles and other muscles causing them to act in such a way as to make my arm pick up a spoon and to cause me to start eating the ice cream.  If my brain were preconditioned differently, corresponding to my having the fear of a gain of weight, the impulses to my arm and other muscles might be blocked so that I would not eat the ice cream.

Interesting experiments have been done on human subjects during brain surgery initiated for necessary medical reasons.  During this brain surgery the patient is conscious after the skull is opened and the brain is exposed.  The surgeon may apply gentle electrical stimulation to parts of the brain and either observe the effect or ask the patient what he or she felt.  Such stimulation can cause the patient to move his hand, to make a sound with his voice, to see a flash, to hear a sound or to experience in sharp detail a memory from the past.  No such stimulation has yet caused patients to experience a desire; however we do know that desires can be aroused from nervous stimulation due to sight, smell, sound or touch.(1)

The materialistic point of view, although postulating