A Quantum Physicist Ponders Consciousness

The 1999 International Conference on Science and Consciousness held recently in Albuquerque, N.M., might be described in many ways, but "a droning bore" is not one of them. Physicists and psychologists, physicians and philosophers, astronauts and astronomers, even the odd biophysicist and evolutionary biologist, were among the more than 50 speakers who tackled the formidable challenge of linking objective and subjective reality. Although some of the talks were long on vibes and rather short on ideas, others were thought-provoking. One of the latter such presentations was by University of Oregon physics professor Amit Goswami, author of several books including the college textbook Quantum Mechanics (McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed., 1997). Following is a summation of Goswami's lucid primer on theories concerning the use of quantum physics in exploring the nature of consciousness. Quantum mechanics has given three gifts to the integration of science and consciousness: Discontinuity. Some movement cannot be measured by mechanics. For example, an electron's quantum leap from one orbit to the next is discontinuous. It cannot be modeled or predicted, nor can it be perceived during the leap. Only the distance from start to finish can be measured and the speed gauged, which is faster than the speed of light. Nonlocality. The theory of relativity says that matter moving in space and time cannot go faster than the speed of light. Thus, the leaping electron must not be moving in space-time. Astoundingly, this must mean the electron is transported from one locality to another without transfer of information, without a signal. Downward causation. The composition of matter from elementary particles that build upon each other to create energy (upward causation) cannot sufficiently explain nature. In downward causation, quantum objects are virtual "waves of possibility" that collapse into actual events upon measurement. It can be said that an electron is such a wave until measured, upon which it collapses into an actual particle. The question, then, is what collapses a wave of possibility into an actual event? Goswami's answer: consciousness. Quantum nonlocality says that once materials interact, they become coordinated, and once coordinated, they remain that way even when separate. Metaphorically, when either of two correlated beings touches a cactus, the other feels the prick. But quantum nonlocality only exists when two objects are correlated, a relationship that ends as soon as they interact with another object. Only consciousness can keep the correlation intact, as in human nonlocal interactions. "Consciousness simultaneously collapses similar states of actuality in two locally separated brains," as Goswami puts it. And the cactus prick is felt by both beings. There are processes in nature with no subject/object split, which means there is no awareness of an event, and therefore, no quantum event occurs. In those situations, the brain itself becomes a wave of possibility. So, which came first, the awareness or the collapse? Happily, the very circularity of this chicken-and-egg problem also solves the problem of self-reference, or our own self-awareness. That's because there is a difference between the object that was collapsed and the brain that was collapsed. The difference is that the observer identifies with the brain, and this identity becomes the subject/object split, or the controlling consciousness looking at itself separately from itself. The result of these tangled, hierarchical measurements is self-reference. But if the observer abides in his or her own awareness, the objects aren't outside the observer. Why, then, can we all share the observation? Because for massive objects, the waves of possibility are sluggish. Yet the large object does move, imperceptibly, and so the great quantum law, the Uncertainty Principle, still applies. Indeed, all of modern science can be accommodated by these ideas, including Darwinism and genetics. For example, genetic mutations can be seen as quantum possibilities that accumulate without collapse (this is the stage of unconscious processing), until a pattern leading to a definite trait reveals itself. When the macroscopic trait is realized, consciousness suddenly collapses the possibility into actuality. Thus, only at the big end of evolution is consciousness required. But why entertain such a theory? Because experiments can verify or disprove it, Goswami says, and because it represents a new paradigm that moves science forward by avoiding the "God trap" promoted by mind/body duality. "Newtonian science is not wrong," he stresses, "it's just incomplete."

A Quantum Physicist Ponders Consciousness

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of