Can panpsychism be explained by QED and quantum consciousness?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by mayagaia, Jun 30, 2006.

  1. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Mayagaia: It is possible that you are merely naive instead of being clever at obfuscation and the use of fallacious arguments? In hope of the former, I will attempt to explain my attitude toward your posts.

    To start, your post title has the classic format of a common fallacious argument, which suggested to me that you have some desire to convince people of the validity of panpsychism. Consider the difference in wording of the following two questions.
    • Can pansychism be explained by QED and quantum consciousness?

    • Can QED provide a reason for accepting panpschism?
    The first question implies that panpschism is a verified but unexplained phenomenon (analogous to gravity prior to Isaac Newton), and asks if its mechanism can be explained by QED. The second question does not imply that panpsychism is a verified phenomenon. I hope you understand the different semantic slant of those two questions.

    Furthermore, quantum consciousness (used in your title) is a speculative concept belonging more to philosophy than physics. The way it is used in the first question implies that it is a verified theory of physics as well accepted as QED by mainstream physicists, when it is actually similar to or a variant of panpschism. Due to its being closely associated with panpschism, this looks like a sublte attempt to provide panpschism with legitimacy as accepte science by implying that quantum consicousness is somehow associated with quantum theory.

    In my mind, this thread starts out looking like an attempt to pass off pseudo science or speculative philosophy as established phenomenon, using a well known fallacious argument and a semantic trick (the use of the term quantum consciousness).

    Your last post includes the following.
    To put the above objection to my view of your answers in context: My questions 1 & 2 were the following.
    • What are the measurable effects of consciousness? If I ask one of my friends if he has consciousness, he will answer affirmatively. That is the only measurable effect of which I am aware, and it seems somewhat subjective.
    • Does a highly intelligent person have more of it than a moron? Does a moron have more of it than a more severely retarded person?
    Your reply was the following.
    • Questions 1.2: Actually For an answer about the effects we need a definition and if you think my previous posts was long you'll understand why I can't fit even the links to the body of concepts attempting to provide one for that ultimate enigma into this thread- but here's just one compendium for over 2K references
    The URL leads to a list of articles/books which would probably take several weeks to read.

    Your last post implies that you actually offered opinions relating to questions 1 & 2. If you think the above is an opinion or a suggestion of an answer, you are very naive. Actually, the above reinforces my opinion that you are clever at obfuscation and the use of misdirection and fallacious arguments.

    It amuses time that you are trying to advocate a theory relating to consciousness and claim that it would require reading 2K references to provide a definition of consciousness. If this is actually the case, rather than a copout or an attempt to obfuscate, then the concept being discussed should be the subject matter of a one or two semester college course rather than a topic for an Internet discussion forum.

    The more of your posts that I read, the more I believe that you are either intellectually very naive or very clever at obfuscation.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. mayagaia Registered Senior Member

    I'm still hoping someone can advance this discussion beyond conspiracy theories regarding the phrasing of the thread's question, gratuitous characterizations of posts as obfuscations and bullshit, and a tautological insistance that evidence be produced that consciousness can be exactly defined and proved measurable before it can be the subject of scientific inquiry


    The notion that a concept must be measurable before it qualifies for scientific debate would eliminate many at the forefront of theoretical physics. Both classical and quantum physics are alive with debates whose core concept involves some feature that has never been measured or in some cases never even been detected.

    "Neutrinos, once in thermal equilibrium, were supposedly freed from their bonds to other particles about two seconds after the Big Bang. Since then they should have been roaming undisturbed through intergalactic space, some 200 of them in every cubic centimeter of our Universe, altogether a billion of them for every single atom. Their presence is noted indirectly in the Universe's expansion. However, though they are presumably by far the most numerous type of material particle in existence, not a single one of those primordial neutrinos has ever been detected. And yet those neutrinos must be there. If they are not, our whole picture of the early Universe will have to be totally reconfigured...They must be everywhere around us, even though we still cannot prove it." Gino Segre,

    An even closer anology to the issue of measurability as prerequsite for scientific inquiry into consciousness can be found in the study of cosmology where horizons of knowledge arise depending on whether open or closed models have been adopted. Due to the limits of photons to provide coherent images it has been impossible to trace, measure or confirm the origin of the universe prior to a redshift of z=1000 or 100k years after the Big-Bang. Do you then characterize all the massive body of theoretics concerning this early period as pixie dust or bullshit?
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2006
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Mayagaia: Perhaps I am the only one besides you posting to this thread because others who have some knowledge of quantum theory have neither the time nor the patience to deal with a thread which does not really belong in the Physics and Mathematics Forum.

    Even though you show many of the characteristics of a charlatan with an agenda, I believe you are in some sense sincere. You seem to be naive about the nature of physics and mathematics rather than deliberately attempting to obfuscate.

    Perhaps you can better understand if I provide some examples of advances in the frontiers of physics.
    • Prior to Isaac Newton, the force of gravity was an observable and measurable phenomenon, but there was no mathematical or other usable set of laws associated with it. Prior to Newton, the best anybody did was find a simple formula for an object rolling down an inclined plane or falling vertically. It was very reasonable to ask questions such as “Can the tendency of an object to fall be explained by . . .
    • The sun & the stars were observable objects long before anybody had the foggiest idea of what they were. Some very intelligent person asked “Can we determine what the sun & stars are made of by analyzing the light coming from them?” The answer to this question was yes, although some considered the composition of stars and the sun to be forever beyond the limits of human knowledge.
    • A few hundred years ago, lightening was an observable but mysterious phenomenon. Asking if it could be explained via application of the science of that time, was a very valid and interesting question.
    • Some time in the 19th century, it became known that the sun had been generating energy at a prodigious rate for several million years (We now know it has been doing so for about 4.6 billion years). The mass of the sun was known at that time. All energy producing mechanisms known at that time would exhaust the fuel in thousands of years. Long before e = mc<sup>2</sup> and other developments of 20th century physics, brilliant men asked how this could be and attempted to explain in terms of the known laws of physics.
    • Long before any knowledge of atomic structure and valence electrons, a vast number of chemical compounds and their properties were known. Brilliant men wondered if some explanation could be obtained by analyzing the weight of the known constituents of various compounds. This led to a primitive notion of the mechanisms of modern chemistry.
    As indicated by the above examples, science starts with an observable phenomenon and/or some known verifiable facts. It then attempts to find unifying principles, equations, explanations, better descriptions, et cetera.

    Panpsychism lacks any observable phenomenon. It is not associated with any verifiable facts. There is just no reason to believe that inanimate objects have consciousness. Until you can justify a belief in the existence of consciousness in an inanimate object, it is silly to ask about mechanisms explaining it.

    In every post there is a suggestion that you believe in the basic concepts of panpsychism. Is this a faith based belief? I never try to change the view of those with a belief based on faith. If it is not a faith based belief, what is the basis for the belief?
  8. mayagaia Registered Senior Member


    Only mathematics claims certainty, science's "empirical evidence" only supports beliefs and all beliefs are faith based. Faith only defines what we find credible whether today's quantum theories, theological dogmas or transcendent insights. If your belief is physicalism then it's logical that your standards for credibility depends on "materialistic physical" evidence. You may find the notion that consciousness must intervene to collapse the wave function as incredible as the idea that the physical correlate of conscious mind might be boson condensation of tunneling photons manifesting quantum coherence throughout the entire brain. To be consistent, a physicalist might argue that the notion of consciousness is based on "blind faith" in that it lacks "any observable phenomenon [and] is not associated with any verifiable facts".

    Your opinion that this thread "does not really belong" in a Physics forum is obviously based on your belief that not only panpsychism but consciousness itself is not a suitable subject. But although physical science started with an early model of a universe of dumb matter in which humans or even life had no consequence in has evolved a quantum theory that acknowledges an observing consciousness is a critical component in the fabric of reality. Although "daily" physics is reluctant to get involved in consciousness, "frontier" physics is alive with projects incorporating it in theoretical and experimental research.

    Like most of us, you can believe in subjective evidence which you experience directly but deny credibility of subjective reports from outside. Some find meditation useful in inducing direct experience that broadens our acceptance of subjective experiences of this kind. As Benjamin Witchcote said: "If you say you've had a revelation...I must have a revelation too before I can believe you."
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2006
  9. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Mayagaia: You admit to knowing less than nothing about quantum theory, yet you talk about it.
    Few, if any, people with a good knowledge of quantum theory claim that an observing consciousness is a critical component in the fabric of reality. You misinterpret statements made in articles written for non-experts, most of whom are more knowledgeable than you and who would not misinterpret. There is a limit to how much an article on quantum theory can be dumbed down.

    My opinion about where panpschism & consciousness belong is based on the meaning of the terms. Your following remark implies that you think both are suitable for The mathematics & Physics Forum.
    I am beginning to think that English is your second or third language.

    Your implication that they are associated with Mathematics & Physics indicates either total ignorance of physics and mathematics or a lack of understanding of the English language (or perhaps both ignorance of physics/math and lack of linguistic skills).

    Neither panpsychism nor consciousness are suitable subjects for a Mathematics & Physics Forum. At best, panpsychism belongs in a philosophy forum, but I personally would assign it to one of the pseudo-science or occult forums. I would assign consciousness to The Human Science Forum, or possibly The Biology & Genetics forum, although some discussions of it might be considered a suitable topic for The Philosophy forum.

    Your attitude indicates to me the mind set of a religious fanatic. I am sorry that I was not more specific when I speculated about your having a faith based belief in panpsychism. I was referring to the faith of a very religious person rather than the faith of a mathematicians in the validity of various axioms (aka postulates, assumptions, in case you do not know the word axioms).
  10. mayagaia Registered Senior Member

    Since you've persisted in changing the subject of this thread to the question of whether consciousness has any place in a physics forum- the most obvious argument for the affirmative is that TOE (theories of fundamental interactions) threads are fully accepted. The complete epistemology of such concepts necessarily includes physical, biological and conscious action/forces and space/time. Naturally it is where the various disciplines interface that major creative theoretical challenges occur. The discomfort many in the "material" physics community feel in approaching this challenge is caused largely by lack of confidence in having a sufficient level of knowledge in adjacent fields to perceive isomorphism. This prompts a defensive closed-mindedness which can overwhelm the objectivity of legitimate skepticism.

    For open-minded skeptics, the following references provide a less psycho-etymological and more inspirational perspective that argue for a modern, inclusive physics.
    The Biological Frontier of Physics, Rob Phillips and Stephen R. Quake May 2006

    Problems at the interface between biology and physics offer unique opportunities for physicists to make quantitative contributions to biology. Equally important, they enrich the discipline of physics by challenging its practitioners to think in new ways. In a deep sense, the problem of the dynamics of macromolecules and their assemblies, of organelles, and of cells themselves strikes right to the heart of just how much physicists will be able to do with systems that are far from equilibrium. Erwin Schrödinger appreciated that understanding biology requires understanding nonequilibrium systems and enunciated that view in his classic 1944 essay What Is Life? (Cambridge U. Press, 1992). He called for a new theory of physics that is concerned with understanding the behavior of single molecules far from equilibrium.
    The Quantum Consciousness Frontier of Physics, Kunio Yasue

    There is a well known QFT concept called the Higgs mechanism, famous today for its principal role in the standard gauge field theory of elementary particles (Umezawa 1993). It tells us that for a quantum electric dipole field with geometric objects coupled with electromagnetic field (e.g., the case for quantum brain dynamics) Nambu-Goldstone bosons are all taken into the longitudinal mode of the electromagnetic field. It other words, Nambu-Goldstone bosons are transformed into quanta of electromagnetic field: photons. However these are very specialized photons in the sense that they have nonzero mass and do not propagate and remain nearby the geometric objects.

    In physics, such a nonpropagating photon of the electromagnetic field is called a tunneling photon or evanescent photon; we may therefore call photons surrounding the geometric objects of biomolecular architecture "biological tunneling photons." A standard calculation shows that the mass of this biological tunneling photon is about 10 electron-volts, which is far smaller than the mass of an electron (Del Giudice et al. 1983).

    Extremely smaller than the electron mass?! Remember that the critical temperature for boson condensation is inversely proportional to boson mass. Because of this, the critical temperature for boson condensation of biological tunneling photons of mass about 10 electron-volts turns out to be actually higher than body temperature (Jibu, Pribram and Yasue 1996).

    Memory retrieval in terms of Nambu-Goldstone bosons can emerge from the biomolecular architecture of geometric objects of the brain's quantum electric dipole field net. So modern quantum field theory indicates that boson condensation of biological tunneling photons can occur at body temperature. Thanks to Umezawa and Takahashi, as well as Miguel de Unamuno, it seems plausible that the physical correlate of conscious mind might be this boson condensation of tunneling photons manifesting quantum coherence throughout the entire brain.

    Until such time that proof is presented to answer the observer question in the Copenhagen Interpretation, it is axiomatic that consciousness is an issue relevant to physics. On the other hand, the monitors are free to determine what is or isn't appropriate for their particular forum.
  11. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Mayagaia: More bulls**t & obfuscation!! There used to be many more posters at Sciforums who were knowledgeable in the fields they discussed. Crackpots like you have driven a lot of them away.

    The citations you provided in your last post are not related to panpsychism. Some do not even make any reference to consciousness. Those that mention consciousness are referring to human consciousness. They neither imply nor explicitly suggest that inanimate objects have consciousness.

    Furthermore, I strongly suspect that you do not understand much (if any) of the concepts described in the citations you provide. It is obvious that you misinterpret quantum theory concepts, as indicated by your following remark.
    While articles for the layman might suggest otherwise, the Copenhagen interpretation does not claim that a conscious observer has any effect on quantum phenomena. I doubt that you have enough knowledge of quantum theory to discuss this or any other issue related to the subject.

    BTW: In one of your posts you admit to knowing little or nothing about quantum theory. Strange that you try to back up your views by reference to concepts you do not understand.

    If you think that panpschism belongs in a mathematics and physics forum, it is obvious that you do not have a clue about the subject matter of mathematics & physics.

    What is your objection to discussing this subject in the philosophy forum? Frankly, I think that it belongs in some pseudo science or occult forum, but would not argue against it being in a philosophy forum.

    Putting aside the unsuitability of panpsychism for this forum, I am still waiting for you to provide some reason for considering panpsychism to be more than speculation. Many posts ago, I pointed out that physics deals with observable phenomena. Panpsychism is not an observable phenomenon.

    I have some sympathy for your attitude toward various TOE’s. You are correct that they there is little or no experimental evidence supporting them. However, they are attempts to explain known observable phenomena.

    As per several of my previous posts: Panpschism is not an observable phenomenon. It is both silly and illogical to try to find an explanation for phenomena not known to exist. Even the UFO crackpots are able to provide anecdotal evidence. Even those claiming to have been abducted & experimented on by extraterrestrials are claiming to be discussing an observable (to them) phenomenon. Do you claim to have observed consciousness in some inanimate object? Does anybody make such a claim? Even astrology (which I consider to be nonsense) deals with observable phenomena. In case you do not know anything about astrology, the observable phenomena it relates to are astronomical objects and human traits like personality, intelligence, & social interactions.
  12. mayagaia Registered Senior Member


    The two examples, of many I could give, about the unobserved field neutrinos and the Big-Bang, proves the fallacy in your notion that physics is only concerned with the kind of "observable phenomena [and] verifiable evidence" you described in your simplistic dissertation with its atavistic analogies. If your assertion was true, the statistical evidence regarding various psi phenomena would qualify them as legitimate physical concepts to a greater degree than the two examples I gave.

    You imply that all the theoretics and research presently exploring a synthesis between the physical and biological/mind sciences is bs and pixie dust. It is not necessary that I completely understand all the physics involved for my citations to make their own point that research in biophotonics and microtubule quantum superposition is already deeply entangled in particle interaction, viz. the domain of physics.

    My thread was an invitation for a forum discussion of the possibility that QED theory might extend implications of proto-conscious information occurring at the quantum level which might interact with proto-conscious quanta populating space to constitute a conscious universal matrix. The theoretics concerning exquisite quantum interaction at the level of microtubules which yield coherent consciousness suggests that inevitably more exotic processes will be discovered implicating the even more mysterious intricacies of field space.

    It's fairly clear that after over 400 thread views that no suggestions are forthcoming, however I appreciate the forum moderators admitting the topic into their forum. My thanks also to Dinosaur who, despite the often acerbic tone of his comments at least enabled some side issues to be discussed.
  13. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Mayagaia: A long time ago there were individuals who developed wonderful abilities at what was then called double talk. The following looks like an example.
    I bow to a master of bafflement with bulls**t!

    Now I realize that you are being humorous. The masters of double talk would admire the above sentence. The use of technobabble seeming to be coherent, but actually saying nothing intelligible.
  14. quantummotion Registered Member

    Pansychism may have a quantum basis. Please visit the website for a detailed discussion.
    Consciousness is the most familiar phenomenon. There are two distinct processes relating to the phenomenon: one is the objective matter process such as the neural process in the brain, the other is the concomitant subjective conscious experience. The relationship between matter and consciousness presents a well-known hard problem for science (cf. Chalmers 1996). It retriggers the debate about the long-standing dilemma of panpsychism versus emergentism recently (cf. Seager 1999, 2001). Panpsychism asserts that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the world that exists throughout the universe. Emergentism asserts that consciousness appears as an emerging result of the complex matter process. It is generally accepted that an essential separation of matter and consciousness will preclude any real integration of consciousness with the present scientific picture of the physical world, and panpsychism and emergentism are the two main positions that can complete the integration. Then we must decide whether consciousness emerges from mere matter or whether consciousness is a fundamental property of matter...
  15. Holoverse Registered Member

    This is pretty interesting....
    Might shed some light...

    Sorry pictures are missing.....
    I wasnt able to post a link, since this is my first
    Here it is...cut up
    w w w . q u a n tumconsciousness . o r g/consciousconnection.h t m

    "Mind That Abides: Panpsychism in the New Millennium" (D. Skrbina, ed.) Benjamins Pub,
    forthcoming 2008

    Can conscious experience—feelings, phenomenal qualia, our ‘inner life’—be accommodated within present-day science?

    Those who believe it can (e.g. proponents of physicalism, reductionism, materialism, functionalism, computationalism) see conscious experience as an emergent property of complex computation in networks of brain neurons. In these approaches consciousness is viewed as a higher order effect emerging from lower level, non-conscious entities.

    Others believe consciousness cannot be accommodated within present day or future science. Cartesian dualists see consciousness and physical matter as separate and irreconcilable. A modern version of dualism is ‘mysterianism,’ or cognitive closure, which suggests that consciousness exists within science but cannot be understood by conscious beings, and we should stop worrying about it.

    A third set of philosophical positions ascribes to consciousness (or its precursors) ontological status as a foundational component of reality. These positions (e.g. panpsychism, pan-experientialism, idealism) relate consciousness to irreducible (‘funda-mental’) components of reality, something akin to mass, spin or charge. These views take consciousness to be present in low level entities, in which—on some readings—they inherently contain a phenomenal nature or subjective experience (qualia). Consciousness or its ‘proto-conscious’ precursors are thus somehow built into the structure of the universe—a view that we might label pan-protopsychism.

    Most of these views are monist in nature, in that they take reality to be, ultimately, a single entity or substance. At issue, then, are two key points: (1) the essential characteristic(s) of this monist substance, and (2) how it gives rise to apparently diverse entities like ‘mind’ and ‘matter.’ If the one reality is essentially mind-like, then we have a form of idealism—which may or may not entail panpsychism. If it is essentially physical or material, physicalism obtains.

    Alternatively, the one reality can be seen as something other than mind or matter, in which case we have a form of neutral monism; Spinoza, James, and Russell are typically cited as holding this view. A contemporary form of neutral monism—one defended in this paper—defines the one reality in terms of quantum spacetime geometry, i.e. as a consequence of the fine-grained structure of the universe. Figure 1 summarizes the situation.


    Figure 1. Left: Neutral monism, in schematic form. Right: Neutral monism in the context of modern physics. Quantum spacetime geometry is the neutral reality, and Penrose OR is the psycho-physical bridge.

    The 20th century rise of computation and cognitive science cast consciousness—mind, the mental—as a computational processing of discrete (e.g. digitized) information. Regarding ‘the physical,’ advances in string theory, quantum field theory, quantum geometry and other approaches attempt to account for the fine structure of the physical world differently, but are all based on discrete quantized units of information. Wheeler (1994), Smolin (2001), Lloyd (2008) and others have suggested in various ways that information is fundamental to the nature of reality, and that in some sense the universe is composed of interactive information processing—that the universe is, in essence, a computer.

    Applying an information-based reality to neutral monism, Bateson (1970), Bohm (1986), Wheeler (1994) and Chalmers (1996) proposed dual-aspect panpsychist (or near-panpsychist) theories in which information has both a) psycho/experiential/mental, and b) physical/material aspects. But the question remains: How, specifically, are these two aspects related? What is the connection between them?

    This notion of a connection or bridge between mind and matter has been examined at least since the 1920s. Harvard philosopher Leonard Troland (1922) speculated about “psycho-physical bridging principles” as a way of unifying the two, and of putting mind on firm theoretical foundations. Chalmers later adopted this notion, combining it with an information-based ontology to arrive at a tentatively panpsychist theory of mind. But neither of these two men elaborated on the nature of this bridge, nor how it might function.

    We propose that a pathway to understanding consciousness might be found in identifying both sides of the bridge, and the nature of the connection, i.e. the bridge itself. We attempt to describe the psycho-physical bridge using the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR theory of consciousness. The underlying psycho/experiential/mental side that embeds proto-conscious experience is described in the physics of quantum geometry at the Planck scale, the most fundamental level of the universe. The physical/material side resides in the brain—specifically, in quantum electron dipole states mediating computations in microtubules and other biomolecular structures involved in consciousness. The connection between the two sides—the psycho-physical bridge—is a specific process called Penrose objective reduction (OR), a proposed threshold for quantum state reduction inherent in Planck scale quantum geometry. Pan-protopsychism thus becomes the most accurate picture of our universe.

    Orch OR describes how well-understood neuronal-level functions (e.g. axonal firings, synaptic transmissions, dendritic synchrony) ‘orchestrate’ quantum computations in microtubules within brain neuronal interiors. The quantum computations reduce to classical solutions by Penrose OR, connecting brain functions to Planck scale quantum geometry which may embed proto-conscious experiential qualities. Orch OR events are correlated with gamma synchrony EEG occurring roughly 40 times per second; conceptually, these may be seen as equivalent to Whitehead’s “occasions of experience.”

    * Discrete conscious moments and quantum state reductions

    Pan-experiential philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1929; 1933) viewed the universe as comprised not of things, but of events—in other words, as a process. Two centuries earlier, Leibniz (1714) had quantized reality, describing fundamental ‘monads’ as the ultimate entities of reality, but Whitehead transformed monads into “actual occasions” occurring in a “basic field of proto-conscious experience.” Whitehead’s occasions are spatio-temporal quanta, each endowed—usually on a very low level—with mentalistic characteristics like “experience, subjective immediacy, appetition.” In his view, highly organized collections (“societies”) of occasions permit primitive mentality to become intense, coherent and fully conscious.

    But Whitehead’s theory of mind is counterintuitive: Is consciousness indeed quantized, composed of discrete events? Trained Buddhist meditators describe distinct ‘flickerings’ in their experience of reality. Buddhist texts portray consciousness as “momentary collections of mental phenomena,” and as “distinct, unconnected and impermanent moments which perish as soon as they arise.” Our normal conscious experience seems continuous, but so does a motion picture—even though we know it to be composed of discrete frames. There is no doubt that we perceive motion pictures as continuous despite their actual ‘quantum’ structure. Perhaps consciousness is the same.

    Some Buddhist writings even quantify the frequency of conscious moments. For example the Sarvaastivaadins (von Rospatt 1995) describe 6,480,000 ‘moments’ in 24 hours (an average of one moment per 13.3 msec), and some Chinese Buddhists as one ‘thought’ per 20 msec. Others describe the duration of a conscious moment as “1/64th the snap of a finger.” All these are consistent with gamma synchrony.

    William James (1890) initially considered consciousness a sequence of ‘specious moments’ but later embraced the idea of a continuous ‘stream of consciousness.’ The ‘perceptual moment’ theory of Stroud described consciousness as discrete events, rather like sequential frames of a movie.1 Evidence in recent years suggests periodicities for perception and reaction times in the range of 20 to 50 milliseconds (gamma EEG waves; 30 to 90 Hz) and another in the range of hundreds of milliseconds (alpha and theta EEG waves; 3 to 7 Hz), the latter consistent with saccades and the visual gestalt (VanRullen and Thorpe 2001). Regarding visual consciousness, several author groups (Woolf and Hameroff 2001; van Rullen and Koch 2003) have suggested that integrated visual perceptions are a series of fast gamma waves (each corresponding to specific components of vision, e.g. shape, color, motion, meaning) riding on a slower, e.g. theta, wave. Similarly, Freeman (2006) has characterized theta wave steps with finer scale cortical dynamics as video-like frames of conscious content.

    Using visual consciousness as an example, if we equate the visual gestalt with a cinematic scene, consciousness may be considered sequences of scenes (~3 to 7 scenes per second), each composed of sequences of individual frames (~10 to 30 frames per scene, hence 40 or more frames per second). Gamma frequency frames could relate to Whitehead’s low-level mental occasions, and theta frequency scenes to his ‘intense, coherent and fully conscious’ occasions.

    If so, what are ‘occasions of experience’; what is the ‘basic field of proto-conscious experience’; and, how does the brain fit in? What underlying process correlates with synchronized gamma and theta frames and scenes? Abner Shimony (1993; 1997) recognized that Whitehead’s approach was potentially compatible with modern physics, specifically quantum theory, and suggested that quantum state reductions—actual physical events—could represent Whitehead’s “occasions.”

    * The quantum/classical divide

    The material reality we perceive is the physical side of the psycho-physical bridge. But upon inspection, physical reality appears to derive from a deeper, non-material quantum level. The everyday ‘classical’ world is composed of matter and energy following Newton’s laws of motion, Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism, and other predictable behaviors. At small scales, however, the bizarre laws of quantum mechanics reign.

    Atoms and sub-atomic quantum particles may exist in two or more states or places simultaneously, more like waves than particles, and existing as multiple coexisting possibilities known as quantum superposition, governed by a quantum wave function. But we don’t see multiple coexisting wave-like possibilities in our everyday, classical world. We see objects and particles as definite, classical material things in specific locations and states. Even when we measure atomic and sub-atomic systems they behave classically. The issue of why we don’t see quantum superpositions in our everyday classical world is known as the ‘measurement problem,’ which has led to various interpretations of quantum mechanics (discussed below).

    Another quantum property is ‘entanglement,’ or quantum coherence, in which components of a system become unified, governed by one common quantum wave function. If one member of an entangled system is measured or perturbed, other members are instantaneously affected, even over great distances.

    One example of entanglement is the famous ‘EPR pairs’ (after Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, who posed the problem as a thought experiment in the 1930s). Imagine two members of a quantum system (e.g. two electrons with complementary spin: if one is spin up, the other is spin down, and vice versa). If the paired electrons (both in superposition of both spin up and spin down) are separated by being sent along different wires, say to two different villages miles apart from each other, they each remain in superposition. However when one superpositioned electron is measured by a detector at its destination and reduces/collapses to a particular spin, (say spin up), its entangled twin miles away instantaneously reduces/collapses to the complement (spin down). The nonlocal effect has been verified with electron spin pairs, polarized photons and other quantum systems but remains unexplained.2 Entire clouds of millions of atoms have been entangled. Non-local entanglement—referred to as ‘quanglement’ by Penrose—remains a fundamental mystery.

    Another form of entanglement occurs in quantum coherent systems such as Bose-Einstein condensates in which a group of atoms or molecules surrender individual identity and are governed by a single quantum wave function. If one component is perturbed, all components ‘feel’ it and react accordingly.

    Quantum superpositions and entanglements have very practical consequences; they are used technologically in quantum information processors. Conventional classical computers represent digital information as ‘bits’ of either 1 or 0. In quantum computers information may be represented as quantum superpositions of both 1 and 0 (quantum bits, or ‘qubits’). While in superposition qubits interact with other entangled qubits, allowing computational interactions of enormous speed and near-infinite parallelism. During quantum computation, the superposed entangled system must be isolated from the environment to avoid decoherence—a loss or degradation of quantum properties. After the quantum computation has run, qubits are ‘measured,’ i.e. exposed to the classical environment, which causes an abrupt loss of superposition (state reduction/collapse), reducing qubit values to specific classical states (1 or 0) which constitute the solution. Measurement-induced reduction (like decoherence) introduces randomness in the choice of particular classical state outputs (the randomness is overcome by redundancy). Quantum cryptography and quantum teleportation also utilize quantum superposition and entanglement, and promise to revolutionize information processing.

    However, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. What does it actually mean for an object to be in two or more places or states simultaneously? How can nonlocal entanglement occur? What happens to isolated quantum superpositions?

    Experiments near the turn of the 20th century seemed to show that the multiple possibilities in quantum superpositions persisted until observed by a conscious human. This led prominent quantum theorists like Bohr, Heisenberg and Wigner to conclude that consciousness caused quantum state reduction, that consciousness ‘collapsed the wave function’ (this is the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, reflecting the Danish origin of Nils Bohr, its leading proponent). This pragmatic approach allowed quantum systems to be studied successfully, putting aside both consciousness and underlying reality.

    Modern interpretations consider any interaction of superposed systems with the classical environment to cause loss of superposition and to ‘decohere’ the quantum state to randomly chosen classical states. But again, the fate of isolated superpositions is unknown.

    Another approach is the ‘multiple worlds’ hypothesis which asserts that every superposition is a separation in the universe itself, and that each possibility evolves into its own universe.3 Hence there exist an infinite number of worlds co-existing in perpetual superposition.

    David Bohm (e.g. Bohm and Hiley 1993) proposed that the wavefunction contains active information which guides the movement of particles, and that consciousness was associated with active information. Both Bohm and the multiple worlds view avoid quantum state reduction, or collapse of the wave function. Henry Stapp’s view (Stapp 2004) identifies consciousness with collapse/reduction.

    Some theories propose an objective threshold for quantum state reduction, hence ‘objective reduction’ (OR). One such OR threshold was proposed by Ghirardi, Rimini and Webber, who suggested that spontaneous self-collapse occurs when a critical number of particles are in superpositioned. Subsequent experiments, however, have failed to confirm their threshold.

    The objective reduction (OR) of Roger Penrose is, at its base, similar to the multiple worlds view in which each superposition is a separation in the underlying fabric of the universe, expressed as quantum spacetime geometry. But according to Penrose the spacetime separations are unstable and will spontaneously self-collapse/reduce to single spacetime geometries at a specified objective threshold degree of separation. These OR events are quantum level processes—ripples—in the fundamental geometry of the universe. Penrose proposed that such objective reductions were essential to consciousness.

    So: What is the fundamental geometry of the universe?

    * The psycho/experiential side of the psycho-physical bridge: quantum spacetime geometry

    Atoms, atomic nuclei and electrons occupy only a small fraction of an atom’s volume—most of an atom is empty space. What is empty space?

    Democritus (circa 400 BCE) described empty space as a true void, whereas Aristotle saw a background "plenum" filled with substance. Maxwell's 19th-century "luminiferous ether" sided with Aristotle, but attempts to detect the ether failed. Furthermore, Einstein's special relativity suggested that there was no background pattern or structure at all. However, Einstein’s general relativity related mass to curvature in a geometric spacetime ‘metric,’ and swung the pendulum back to the view of an underlying pattern in 4-dimensional spacetime. Where, then, is the pattern? At what level of the universe could quantized information occur and interact?

    As we go down in scale from the size of atoms (10-8 centimeters), spacetime is smooth and featureless until eventually we find granularity at the incredibly small ‘Planck scale’ of space and time (10-33 centimeters , 10-43 seconds). The Planck scale is the basement level of reality—the ground floor, if you will.

    Figure 2. A spin network quantum mechanical description of the geometry of spacetime. Spin networks describe a spectrum of discrete, evolving Planck scale volumes and configurations (with permission from Smolin (Life of the Cosmos, Oxford University Press; 1997). Average length of each edge is the Planck length (10*-33 cm); numbers indicate quantum spin values along each edge.

    The best description of Planck scale geometry is through loop quantum gravity related to Penrose spin networks. (In comparison, string theory attempts to describe particles and energy through vibrating strings, but doesn’t include the background medium in which the strings vibrate.) Penrose portrayed the Planck scale as a dynamical web of spin networks.4

    Taking spin as an irreducible, fundamental entity, spin networks define spectra of discrete Planck scale volumes and configurations which dynamically evolve and define spacetime geometry. Smolin (2001) has described quantum spin networks as continually evolving, as being in some way alive. They may also qualify for Whitehead’s ‘basic field of protoconscious experience.’

    The amount of potential information in Planck scale spin networks is vast; each Planck scale volume, or ‘pixel of reality,’ may be shaped by a huge variety of combinations of ‘edge’ lengths, number of spins per edge, and nonlocal interactions. In addition to the enormous potential variety in each Planck scale pixel, their sheer number compared to our macroscopic scale is enormous—there are roughly 10107 Planck volumes or pixels in the volume of a human brain, far greater than the number of particles in the universe.

    Whether or not spin networks, twistor theory, loop quantum gravity or other approaches are correct, the fine structure of the universe is constructed of Planck scale quantum geometry whose configurations and dynamics lead to all matter and energy. Other avenues have suggested a holographic arrangement, so that Planck scale patterns and information may recur, fractal-like, at various larger scales.

    If consciousness derives from fundamental, irreducible entities (e.g. ‘proto-conscious qualia’), they should be embedded in Planck scale geometry. Where else could they be embedded? Fundamental spacetime geometry is all there is! Quantum geometry is the prime candidate to contain proto-conscious experience. But a huge question remains: How could it connect to the brain to produce the richness of conscious experience?

    * Penrose OR—the conscious connection

    Penrose OR is a theoretical construct which addresses several issues. It is a proposed solution to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, explaining the fate of isolated quantum superpositions. It ties together quantum mechanics and general relativity, two branches of science which have been irreconcilable. And it offers an accounting of consciousness as a sequence of discrete events, each event being an objective reduction occurring in the brain.

    Penrose OR is in one way similar to Everett’s multiple worlds view, in which each superposition is a separation in underlying reality, i.e. with each and every superposition the universe bifurcates, or separates, with each possibility branching off to form a new universe, a new reality. Thus, according to this view, there exist an infinite number of parallel universes. For the Schrödinger’s cat story (i.e. assuming superposition of such a macroscopic object is possible), each time the box is opened the universe bifurcates into one universe with a live cat, and another universe with a dead cat. But how are we to envision the universe—the fabric of reality—separating from itself?

    For illustration we can ignore the details at the Planck scale and condense 4-dimensional spacetime into a 2-dimensional spacetime sheet: one spatial dimension and one time dimension (Figure 3, top). This spacetime is slightly curved, in accordance with Einstein's general theory of relativity, in a way which encodes the gravitational fields of all distributions of mass density. Each mass density—each object or particle—effects a spacetime curvature, albeit tiny for small objects.

    The idea of large objects causing large spacetime curvature is familiar. Einstein had predicted that the spacetime curvature of our sun would bend light from stars, distorting their position from our vantage point. Some 50 years after this prediction, Sir Arthur Eddington made the critical observations during a solar eclipse to prove Einstein’s hypothesis. However, the idea of small, quantum objects causing small spacetime curvatures was first put forth by Penrose.


    Figure 3. Four dimensional spacetime may be schematically represented by a two dimensional "spacetime sheet" with one dimension of space and one dimension of time. Mass is equivalent to curvature in spacetime, and the two spacetime curvatures (top) represent mass in two different locations or conformations respectively. At bottom, mass in quantum superposition (separated from itself) is simultaneous spacetime curvature in opposite directions, a separation, bubble or blister in spacetime geometry. At a critical degree of separation, the system becomes unstable and must select either one state or the other (from Penrose 1994: 338).

    Consequently we can view any mass in one location as spacetime curvature in a particular direction, and location of the mass in a different location as spacetime curvature in another direction. Therefore quantum superposition of a particle in two locations may be considered simultaneous curvatures in opposite directions (Penrose 1989; 1994). As in the multiple worlds view, the spacetime sheet separates into two opposing curvatures, resulting in a ‘bubble’ or ‘blister’ in underlying reality (Figure 3, bottom).

    Strictly speaking the separations cannot be considered to have any true ‘width,’ or ‘length,’ as spacetime defines its dimensions, rather than exists in dimensions. However, metaphorically we can consider that the distance between the separated spacetimes (width) is on the order of a Planck length (10-33 centimeters) whereas the length may be macroscopic, on the order of the mass separation distance, e.g. nanometers (10-8 centimeters) or larger, or the distance over which mass separation distance occurs (e.g. ~10 centimeters, as may occur in the brain). That such ‘narrow’ separations have significant consequences may seem surprising. However, an analogy may be drawn to earthquakes in which the earth separates only slightly, but over a great length or faultline, with significant consequences.

    In the multiple worlds view, each possible spacetime sheet—each side of the blister—evolves into a separate universe. In Penrose’s view these separations, bubbles, or blisters are, however, unstable; somewhat like soap bubbles, they will eventually reduce, or collapse, to one particular curvature or the other, with the reductions occurring virtually instantaneously—actual events producing definite classical reality from quantum possibilities. The instability is inherent in the properties of spacetime geometry (quantum gravity) and constitutes an objective threshold for an isolated quantum state reduction, hence ‘objective reduction.’5


    Figure 4. Penrose OR. Left: 2-dimensional space-time sheet in superposition. When time t becomes equal to h/E (NOW), OR occurs and (Right) one of the possible spacetime curvatures is selected as classical reality. Penrose proposed such OR moments incorporate conscious experience.

    This whole process has a direct bearing on the mind. Penrose proposed that objective reductions are conscious, and convey experiential qualities and conscious choice. Hameroff and Penrose (1996b) proposed this occurred due to pan-experiential qualities embedded in Planck scale geometry—that which we are calling pan-protopsychism. As actual events occurring in a medium which may be construed as a ‘basic field of proto-consicous experience,’ Penrose OR qualifies as Whiteheadian occasions (as suggested by Abner Shimony), and provide a psycho-physical bridge between pan-experiential quantum geometry and the brain. But where in the brain are OR events able to interface? What is the physical (brain) side of the psycho-physical bridge?

    * The biological side of the psycho-physical bridge—the Orch OR model

    A connection from the Planck scale to the brain—a psycho-physical bridge—implies influence scaling up from infinitesimally tiny lengths and energies to result in conscious perceptions and choices, and hence causal efficacy in the classical world. To bridge this daunting chasm of scale, a quantum lever or amplifier must exist in the brain which is sensitive to Planck scale influence, and able to control or regulate neuronal processes relevant to consciousness. If we assume consciousness emerged during evolution, such functional quantum effects in biomolecules must have preceded consciousness, and have played (and continue to play) some general role in biological systems. Yet technological quantum devices must be isolated to near absolute zero to prevent decoherence. How can quantum systems control high energy biomolecules? It appears that isolated quantum zones exist within biomolecules, forming extended quantum phases in living systems (Hameroff 2008).

    Proteins, lipids and nucleic acids based on carbon chemistry are the primary components of organelles and cells. They are described by various characteristics, one being solubility—a molecule’s ability to dissolve in a particular solvent. Water is the major solvent in biomolecular systems.

    Water is a polar molecule, with exposed electrical charges (positive on one end, negative on the other) allowing charge interactions with neighboring waters and charged molecules. Organic biomolecules generally have charged groups on their exterior surface which interact with and dissolve in water, and are referred to as ‘hydrophilic’ (water-loving).

    Another type of solvent, e.g. benzene, is non-polar, hence oil-like, or fatty. This type excludes water (oil and water do not mix), and is referred to as hydrophobic (water-fearing).6

    Organic biomolecules are generally ‘amphiphilic’, e.g. having both polar and non-polar regions. Exterior surfaces of biomolecules are polar, hydrophilic and water soluble. Within interiors of sufficiently large biomolecules are regions which are non-polar, hydrophobic and oil-soluble. Extended non-polar hydrophobic phases develop when biomolecules assemble and organize into structures and organelles. Lipid membranes contain an internal hydrophobic planar layer composed of non-polar groups in cholesterol and other lipids.7

    Proteins have internal non-polar ‘hydrophobic pockets’ composed of amino acid residues (including the electronic ring structures of amino acids tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine). These arrangements enable electron resonance effects in non-polar regions throughout biomolecules, organelles, cells and organisms. Most importantly, within this phase, quantum effects are shielded from decohering interactions with the polar environment.

    Step 010.png

    Figure 6. Left: Microtubule: a hollow cylinder of 25 nanometers diameter, consisting of tubulin proteins arranged in a skewed hexagonal lattice. Right top): Each tubulin molecule may switch between two (or more) conformations, coupled to quantum electron dipoles in a hydrophobic pocket. Right (bottom): Each tubulin can also exist in quantum superposition of both conformational states.

    As real-time engines of living systems, proteins provide movement, force and information processing. Protein ion channels, enzymes, receptors, cytoskeletal proteins all function by a process of conformation, or shape-changing. For many proteins, conformation is a delicate balance between countervailing chemical energies, such that quantum (London) forces in hydrophobic pockets are pivotal.

    These quantum forces are essential to consciousness, as evidenced by the action of anesthetic gas molecules. Anesthetic gas molecules selectively erase consciousness, sparing other brain activities. They bind by London forces in non-polar, hydrophobic pockets in a group of brain proteins (receptors, channels, components of cytoskeletal microtubules, etc.). Presumably, such subtle quantum actions prevent or inhibit the normally-occurring quantum forces required for consciousness.

    Hydrophobic pockets must be large enough for anesthetic gases to fit, thus during anesthesia quantum processes due to electron resonance in smaller non-polar regions continue, perhaps essential to non-conscious life functions. Cooperative resonance and entanglement among quantum forces in biomolecular assemblies have been proposed as an underlying mechanism of living systems (Hameroff 2008).8

    Among anesthetic-sensitive proteins, tubulin—the constituent protein of microtubules—is arrayed in geometric lattices particularly suited to computation.9 The Penrose-Hameroff model of ‘orchestrated objective reduction’ (Orch OR) proposes that neuronal processes potentially related to consciousness may be regulated by quantum computations occurring in cytoskeletal microtubules within the brain’s neurons. These processes are isolated and shielded from environmental decoherence by a variety of evolutionary adaptations (Hameroff and Penrose 1996a, 1996b; Hagan et al 2002).

    Step 011.png

    Figure 7. An Orch OR event. A. Microtubule classical computing (step 1) leads to emergence of quantum coherent superposition and quantum computing (steps 2*&3) in certain (gray) tubulins. In Step 3 superposition meets critical threshold related to quantum gravity for self-*collapse (Orch OR). A conscious event (Orch OR) occurs in the step 3 to 4 transition. Tubulin states in step 4 are non*computably chosen in the collapse, and evolve by classical computing to regulate neuronal function. B. Schematic graph of proposed quantum coherence (number of tubulins) emerging versus time in microtubules. Area under curve connects superposed mass energy E with collapse time T in accordance with E=h/t. E may be expressed as Nt, the number of tubulins whose mass separation (and separation of underlying spacetime) for time t will self *collapse. For T = 25 msec (e.g. 40 Hz oscillations), Nt = 2 x 1010 tubulins.

    An essential feature of the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model is that tubulins become quantum superpositions of alternative conformations, and function as qubits by interacting nonlocally (entangling) with other tubulin qubits so that microtubules act as quantum computers (Figure 6). Microtubules whose tubulins are in quantum superposition in a particular neuron may entangle with those in other neurons via quantum tunneling across window-like ‘gap junctions’ between neurons. Gap junction-defined groups of neurons mediate gamma synchrony EEG, the best measurable correlate of consciousness.

    Microtubules exist in all our cells, but only in the brain (presumably) are sufficiently large numbers of tubulins isolated from decoherence and entangled to reach threshold (by E=h/t) in reasonably short times, and thus to manifest consciousness.

    When enough entangled tubulins are superpositioned long enough to reach OR threshold (by E=h/t), a conscious event (Whiteheadian ‘occasion of experience’) occurs. The classical tubulin states chosen in the OR event proceed to regulate classical neural activities, e.g. trigger axonal action potentials, adjust synaptic strengths and rearrange the cytoskeleton, thus exerting causal efficacy, learning and memory.

    Step 012.png

    Figure 8. A sequence of OR conscious events occurring every 25 msec (consistent with brain activity at a frequency of 40 Hz). Pre-conscious quantum information reaches OR threshold (by E=h/T) resulting in an instantaneous conscious quantum state reduction "NOW" which may be equated to Whitehead “occasions of experience.”

    Gamma synchrony EEG correlating with consciousness is on the order of 25 milliseconds (1/40th second). For OR/Whitehead events in the brain to correspond with gamma-synchronized events we can use E=h/t and set t = 25 milliseconds (coherent 40 Hz). E is then equivalent to superposition/separation of approximately 2 x 1010 tubulins. Estimating for the percentage of tubulins per neuron involved in consciousness gives roughly 10,000 to 100,000 neurons involved in each gamma-synchronized OR/Whitehead/conscious event.10

    Thus Orch OR provides a possible connection between quantum spacetime geometry—a possible repository of proto-conscious experience—and brain processes regulating consciousness.

    * Consciousness in the universe

    Consistent with a general framework of neutral monism, a pan-protopsychist Orch OR places precursors of consciousness in Planck scale quantum geometry, the most basic level comprising the universe. Such precursors are presumably embedded in some way as discrete information states, along with other entities that give rise to the particles, energy, charge and/or spin of the classical world.

    For Orch OR to be logically consistent, any quantum state reduction occurring via Penrose OR as determined by E=h/t would comprise a moment of conscious experience—a quantum of consciousness, a Whiteheadian ‘occasion of experience’—regardless of whether it occurred in a brain, a biological system in general, or an inanimate object. Aside from biological brains, where else in nature might this occur? Is consciousness happening ‘here and there’ throughout the universe?

    It turns out that the conditions for E=h/t are rather stringent. E=h/t means that superpositions which persist long enough (avoiding decoherence) to reach a time threshold t will collapse to classical states with a moment of conscious experience. Because E and t are inversely related, larger superpositions (larger E) will reach threshold sooner, i.e. with shorter time t. Smaller superpositions (smaller E) will require longer times t. In all cases, environmental decoherence resulting in loss of quantum superposition must be avoided long enough to reach threshold t for consciousness. Decoherence may be avoided through shielding and screening isolation, active pumping (e.g. lasers), quantum error correction topologies and/or decoherence-free subspaces (Hagan et al 2002).

    A single electron in superposition has a very small E, and would require a very long t—about 10 million years—to reach threshold. If a superpositioned electron avoided decoherence for 10 million years, according to Orch OR it would have a moment of consciousness. E is also purported to relate to the intensity of the experience, so the electron’s moment of awareness would be extremely dull (analogous to a low energy, long wavelength photon). A large system in superposition (large E) would have a very brief t, and a high intensity experience (like a high energy, short wavelength photon). For example, superposition of a one kilogram rock avoiding decoherence would reach threshold for OR after only 10-12 seconds, and have a high intensity conscious moment. Does this imply a rock could be conscious, perhaps even more conscious (higher intensity) than we humans?

    Probably not. Rocks are composites of various types of atoms bound together by strong covalent bonds allowing little flexibility for influence by quantum processes. Electrons and other quantum-level particles comprising the structure of a rock are generally tied up in these chemical bonds, and mobile electrons within the rock have little or no influence on other components (unlike the situation in anesthetic-sensitive proteins whose conformation is leveraged or amplified by activities of electrons).

    Another consideration is what ‘superposition’ of a rock would actually mean. Would a rock be separated from itself as one object, or separated at the level of its constituent atoms or sub-atomic particles? Large scale superpositions are more readily obtained in crystal-like structures composed of geometric arrays of one type of atom or particle.

    Consider a particular type of rock made entirely of carbon atoms in a crystal-like structure of benzene-type rings with delocalizable electrons (‘graphene’)—otherwise known as diamonds. Indeed, quantum spin effects occur in diamonds at room temperature. However, only the mobile electrons within the diamond are in quantum superposition, as the carbon nuclei are held rigidly in the classical structure. Because of their low mass (small E), by E=h/t, electrons in superposition within a diamond (assuming they avoided decoherence caused by, e.g., light passing through it) would require a very long time to reach threshold for OR and a conscious moment—something like 1 year for 10 million superpositioned electrons.11

    On the other hand, Penrose observed that interiors of neutron stars may have huge quantum superpositions which would reach OR with very large E, brief t and high intensity.12 By Orch OR criteria such events would indeed be conscious. But because the conditions are presumably random, such conscious moments would lack cognitive information processing: OR without Orch. Similarly, OR conscious moments without cognition may be occurring in various crystal-like, large scale quantum materials throughout the universe.

    Astrophysicist Paola Zizzi has applied Penrose OR to the problem of inflation in the early universe. During the Big Bang, the universe expanded (inflated) rapidly—for about 10-33 seconds. But rapid inflation then stopped abruptly, and expansion has been slow ever since. Zizzi (2002) considered that during inflation the universe was in quantum superposition of multiple possible universes. Using E=h/t and setting E to the mass of the universe, Zizzi calculated that OR threshold would be met, surprisingly, at 10-33 seconds into the Big Bang, and conjectured that the end of inflation coincided with the universe undergoing a cosmic conscious moment (the ‘Big Wow’). She further suggested our individual consciousnesses are literal microcosms related to the initial cosmic conscious moment.

    It is argued, then, that pan-protopsychic qualities leading to conscious experience are woven into the quantum entanglements of the universe. This should be no less mysterious than electromagnetic fields emerging from Planck scale precursors of charge and spin. But is the Planck scale information random? Or is there a plan, rhyme or reason? Penrose proposed that non-computable information, including ‘Platonic’ values, might be encoded in Planck scale geometry. Could there be not only proto-conscious experience, but also wisdom and intelligence in the fine grain of reality?13

    * Conclusion

    Cognitive brain functions, including sensory processing and motor control of behavior, are often non-conscious—terms like ‘easy problems,’ ‘zombie modes,’ or ‘auto-pilot’ apply here. These non-conscious functions are explained by synaptic neurocomputation in axonal-dendritic networks, i.e. the brain’s neuronal firings and synaptic transmissions acting like ‘bit states’ and switches in computers. They are not really easy, but at least approachable through neurocomputation. Consciousness, however, does not naturally derive from neurocomputation—hence the ‘hard problem.’

    But consciousness and non-conscious cognition are not separable. At times, habitual auto-pilot modes become driven or accompanied by conscious experience. We often walk or drive while daydreaming, seemingly on auto-pilot with consciousness somewhere else. When novelty occurs we consciously perceive the scene and assume conscious control. So rather than a distinction between non-conscious auto-pilot modes on the one hand, and conscious experience on the other, the essential distinction is between non-conscious modes which at any given moment are, or are not, accompanied by some added fleeting feature which conveys conscious experience and choice. That feature, the neural correlate of consciousness (NCC), appears to involve spatio-temporal envelopes of gamma synchronized dendritic activity moving through input layers in the brain’s neurocomputational networks. Dendritic synchrony conveys a ‘conscious agent’ able to experience and control—tune into and take over—otherwise non-conscious neurocomputation.

    The conscious agent is Orch OR. It operates in microtubules within gamma-synchronized dendrites, generating e.g. 40 conscious moments per second. Each conscious moment, each occasion of experience, is, according to Penrose OR, an event or transition in spacetime geometry. Consciousness is a sequence of transitions, of ripples in fundamental spacetime geometry, connected to the brain through Orch OR. Pan-protopsychism thus provides the best general framework for understanding the mind-matter bridge, and hence the nature of reality.

    Thought it was relevant to this topic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    It is amusing to read the techno-babble in threads like this. I thought this thread died a wel deserved death a long time ago.

    Nobody understands the quantum world, which is weird & counterintuitive.

    Since nobody really understands it, a crackpot can claim that almost anything can be viewed as a reasonable theory supported by some aspect of quantum theory.

    Furthermore, the crackpot can provide citations alleged to suport his erroneous views. When tracked down the citations turn out to be one of the following.
    • Valid quotes of some expert which are so difficult to understand that one might think they are relevant to the crackpot's theory.

    • A commentary by some other crackpot relating to something said by a real expert.

    • A valid quote of some expert view so dumbed down for the layman that it can easily be misinterpreted. This is particularly applicable to dumbed down descriptions which overemphasize the importance of the observer.
    Be serious: Panpsychism claims that inanimate objects have consciousness. Does anybody really give credence to such a notion?

    As posted eariler by me: It is silly to atempt to describe a mechanism for some phenomena before you have reason to believe that the phenomena actually occurs.

    How would you view a thread entitled: "Can the magical effects resulting from the use of pixie dust be explained by QED & Quantum consciousness" ?

    Your first reaction should be: "What magical effects ? " Assuming you have a bit of knowledge of Quantum theory, your second reaction should be: "The proposer of this question knows zilch about quantum theory, which does not include a notion called quantum consciousness."

    The question relating to panpsychism is about as sensible as the similar question realting to pixie dust.
  17. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    None at all.
  18. mayagaia Registered Senior Member

    Change in the URL for mayagaia transcendent experience

    After June, 2009 the first-person account of Nirvikalpa Samadhi Cosmic Consciousness was relocated to

Share This Page