sophiaserpentia: (Default)
For a while now i've been toying around from time to time with the idea that mind is a field. Under this view, mind is given the respect it is due as a phenomenon in its own right, but without a metaphysical dualism of the sort with which mind/body theories typically wrestle.

Some implications of this are interesting. Fields have properties like resonance, and theoretically extend over the whole universe. Noön particles would be quantum-interlinked just like other particles. So our individual minds, thoughts, feelings, are not as isolatedly individual as we seem to experience them. While noöns may be concentrated inside living brains, they wouldn't be found only there.

If noöns exist, why haven't we seen them? I think they possess a rather unique place in nature, in that they serve as an explication factor which draws spacetime reality into being from the melange of the holomovement. Trying to observe one directly would be difficult for the same reason it is hard to pinpoint the exact nature of first-person experience. Noöns are, in my hypothesis, what acts on quantum fields to produce what we perceive as the "quantum wave collapse." In other words, what defines "reality" as distinct from the fullness of existence is the influence of a noönic field. So to look at a noön would be analogous to looking at a mirror; you don't see an image, but only a reflection of what is around. Seeing anything at all *is* the process of seeing a noön.

(It sounds like i am proposing a duality here between explicated and otherwise, but i do not imagine a universe where explicit matter is free from influence by that which remains enfolded. If you said this sounds like a hidden-variable-invoking Bohmian interpretation, you'd be right. Heck, noöns themselves are a hidden variable.)

There is a lot that might be explained by the supposition that each mind extends over all of spacetime. It might partly explain, for example, instant attraction or repulsion. Have you ever met someone and felt like you recognized them immediately? Perhaps there is a strong resonance between your noönic fields. If however you meet someone whose noönic field is dissonant with your own, you might be inclined to dislike them, and you'd likely be right: that person would think and act in ways very different from you.

Many different aspects of collective human behavior might be explained this way, from mob consciousness to the intuitive appeal of ideas like Jung's collective unconscious, or Teilhard de Chardin's noosphere as the endpoint of human evolution.

It also allows for the possibility of noönic solitons or persistences. I could write a whole entry on what that means, persistent noönic waves floating around free of brains to shape them, affecting thought, feeling, and perhaps even matter. Some memes might be noönic solitons -- as might memories or experiences some people attribute to "reincarnation." Perhaps instincts and patterns of human behavior i referred to recently as "human nature" are noönic solitons as well.

There are interesting implications regarding will and causation, too. Jeffrey Schwartz proposed a notion he called "mental force" to explain the observable change in brain structure which can result from focused meditation. That the brain is capable of self-reprogramming is fascinating and opens a wide range of potential for human improvement. But this result also gives us hard evidence that consciousness is something real. (Contrast the views of Daniel Dennett and other eliminative-materialists who claim that consciousness and self are pure memetic illusion, on the basis of the observation that there is no place within the brain where consciousness resides.)

I've come to think that being abusive, hateful, and intolerant is evidence of having a weak will in the face of external influence. A person who displays these traits is less of an individuated person; they are blown about and easily carried along by external currents. In my opinion, the work of individuation, of learning to focus one's will by way of discipline (meditation, contemplative prayer, martial arts, esoterica, and other kinds of discipline) is inseparable from the work of cultivating a better human society.
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
In previous posts i have written about the idea that mind is a field, by which i mean "a non-material region of influence." That influence, as in any field, takes the form of force imposed on particles within that field.

Let's back up a step. Either there is something special moving waves and particles in our brains in correlation to thought and action, or there is nothing doing so. The latter idea is a corollary of reductive determinism. The problem with this is that it cannot account for the perception of what it is like to be you.

Daniel Dennett gave it a really good shot in his book Consciousness Explained, which "explains" consciousness as a constantly-revised sensory first-person narrative. His account is fascinating, but my feeling was that it ultimately falls short of its lofty goal.

Dennett's objection to the idea of the "cartesian theater" rests primarily in the failure of brain science to locate a single place in the brain through which all perceptions and thoughts are filtered. He admits that the idea of first-person perception is strongly compelling, but insists it is a memeplex, a complex and powerful fiction produced by the brain. He can't really answer why the brain would do this. Susan Blackmore, in The Meme Machine, attempts to address this problem in Dennett's formulation, suggesting that the "I" evolved as a mechanism to create a more meme-friendly environment within the brain.

If the "I" is an illusion, than so is the will, that is, the ability to carry out that which the "I" decides to do. Will is a separate problem from consciousness; and to say that consciousness is a memetic fiction doesn't address the question of why we have this compelling experience of being able to decide, "I want a cup of coffee," and then watching as your body goes through whatever movements are needed to bring about that cup of coffee. The best the reductionists can suggest is that we go back and revise our first-person narrative of half a second ago to convince ourselves that we thought, "I want a cup of coffee," only after our body is already going through the motions of getting that cup of coffee.

If we are robots parroting memetic programs, why would the ideas of consciousness and will have arisen at all -- they are not necessary -- and why do they feel so convincing? The answers given above are within the realm of possibility, but they also seem inelegant, convoluted, and ultimately unsatisfying explanations for what many of us experience as a fascinating and beautiful part of being alive.

Suppose that no "cartesian theater" exists within the brain because it is not needed -- that is, because the primary work of thought is not carried out by brain tissue. At first glance this might sound like suggesting that thought is supernatural... which it may be. But it is not necessary to leap from the lack of certain brain structures to the supernatural, when there are other natural ideas that haven't been explored yet -- such as my suggestion that mind is a field.

If mind is a field, then it is intensified by some kind of activity in the brain. Other fields (electric, magnetic, gravitational) are intensified by very simple properties of matter, so either mind is too and all things possess some measure of consciousness, or mind is intensified by something peculiar and complex -- perhaps complexity itself, or perhaps activity at the quantum level.

If mind is a field exerting influence on matter within the brain, then we would also have some explanation for scientific results suggesting that meditation and mindful focus can bring about deliberate or desired changes in brain structure.

But while the noönic field may be intensified by the brain, it is not necessarily confined to the brain -- which sounds "cranky," but would explain a lot. Carl Jung proposed the presence of a "collective unconscious" to explain certain persisting patterns in human thought and experience; and Teilhard de Chardin proposed the existence of a "noosphere" guiding human evolution.

This also ties into speculations i've made in the past about the techniques of esoterica as a way of honing the conscious mind and will in order to make a person more of an individual, more likely to move beyond an existence of memetic parroting. More on this and the idea of collective mind (and other implications) as i think them through...
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
My mind keeps coming back to the "Big Wow" Hypothesis put forward by Paola Zizzi. It follows from the "orchestrated objective reduction" quantum consciousness hypothesis put forward by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. Stated technically, the abstract of this idea is as follows:

...[D]uring inflation [the period just after the Big Bang when the spacetime continuum expanded rapidly], the universe can be described as a superposed state of quantum registers. The self-reduction of the superposed quantum state is consistent with the Penrose's Objective Reduction (OR) model. The quantum gravity threshold is reached at the end of inflation, and corresponds to a superposed state of 10^9 quantum registers. This is also the number of superposed tubulins-qubits in our brain, which undergo the Penrose-Hameroff's Orchestrated Objective Reduction, (Orch OR), leading to a conscious event. Then, an analogy naturally arises between the very early quantum computing universe, and our mind.


Paraphrased, it is proposed that (a) proto-consciousness is a natural quality of existence, (b) conscious awareness arises from self-orchestrating quantum events in the brain, and (c) the universe, during the period of inflation shortly after the Big Bang, experienced a moment of conscious awareness that is analogous to the conscious awareness that we as human beings experience.

There is a certain "neatness" in this. If there is any truth to this at all, what are the theological, cosmological, and anthropological (using the term in its theological sense) implications?

Addendum. It is suggested that the law of entropy may not necessarily apply on microcosmic scales. Evidence of this sort would seem to bolster the idea that conscious awareness and perhaps even volition have their roots in quantum-level an-entropy. Stuart Hameroff has proposed a testable hypothesis he has called "quantum vitalism" that suggests that life is a special kind of quantum superconduction. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Schwartz and Harry Stapp have proposed the concept of "mental force" to explain a way volition (or free will) may be reconciled with materialism.

crossposting to [livejournal.com profile] religiousdebate.

Quantum Qi?

Sep. 7th, 2003 05:06 pm
sophiaserpentia: (Default)
In this 1997 article, Stuart Hameroff describes a notion he calls "quantum vitalism," or the emerging idea that some form of "vitalic energy" or "qi" does exist and can be accounted for with quantum mechanics.

Read more... )

Profile

sophiaserpentia: (Default)
sophiaserpentia

December 2021

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 31 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 21st, 2025 12:51 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios