After having a very enlightening conversation with my good friend John,
I have had to come to terms with the rationalization and definition of some
of my ideas and concepts about myself and the world around me. In this conversation
we discussed God, and god, consciousness, reality, observation, DNA, physics,
cosmology, biology, eastern mysticism, hallucinogenic drugs, the theory
of everything, quantum mechanics, and UFOs. I have been an amateur scholar
of life and the universe now for several years and had come to some conclusions
I have based on several things I've read and seen, but John showed me I
did not have clear explanations for these beliefs. I intend for this essay
to change that.
I will try to persuade you with a very convincing argument backed by scholarly
papers and cutting edge theoretical sciences that:
1) the entirety
of the concept of "consciousness" cannot be fully explained
by the current physical sciences paradigm.
2) "information"
can exist without perception and can influence the shape and actions of
physical phenomenon.
3) the phenomenon
of "consciousness" preceded the phenomenon of physicality.
4) given
the above four conclusions the entirety of all "Information"
(including all possible outcomes of all universes/multi-verses everywhere)
could be plausibly and probably stored non-locally/non-physically, and
that this "Information" was and is intrinsically tied to at
least one "consciousness" and that that "Consciousness"
preceded all physical reality.
So, let's
get started!
The entirety of the concept of "consciousness"
cannot be fully explained by the current physical sciences paradigm.
To really
get into this one, which is the crux of the next three, it is important
to start by defining consciousness.
Dictionary.com
says it's: "the
mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and
volition".
Wikipedia has a slightly longer explanation: "Consciousness
is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such
as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability
to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. It
is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience,
and cognitive science."
But consciousness has many more meanings and definitions than this, and
those meanings can be different depending on one's cultural background.
What I propose isn't a redefining of consciousness, at least not any further
than Decartes' "I think therefore I am", but that consciousness
cannot be reduced solely to physical phenomenon; That there is
more than just what happens in the brain that causes the phenomenon of
consciousness. In the mind sciences, and especially neuroscience, scientists
are hard at work trying to reduce all the states of consciousness and
the mind to specific electro-biochemical processes that can be named and
identified. I will try to show that not only has science been unable to
find a physical part of the brain that is responsible for the phenomenon
we commonly call "consciousness" (e.g. making decisions, preferences,
opinions, innovation, imagination, judgment, etc.) but that most mind
scientists are most likely thinking about the whole thing wrong (pardon
the pun).
First, let's watch an important video taken from the "What the Bleep
do We Know" movie. In this 5 minute clip, a very excited superhero
explains how the conscious act of observing a quantum experiment changes
the outcome of the results, showing that consciousness has an intrinsic
connection and a direct correlation with physical phenomenon outside of
the brain, but without direct physical contact! In other words, if the
phenomenon of consciousness is only limited to the physical interactions
inside of the brain, how can it play an inseparable role in the outcome
of a physical experiment (in this case with electrons) that is conducted
outside and separate from the brain? If after watching this clip you are
not completely baffled, then you did not understand it at all!
The fact
that the "conscious observer" cannot be separated from the
quantum experiment is only one of the bizarre properties of quantum
mechanics. One of the major contributors to the science of quantum mechanics,
Erwin Schrodinger, created a thought experiment, commonly referred to
as Schrodinger's
Cat, to show how rediculous this may seem. The thought experiment
goes something like this: A poisonous capsule is set to release it's
deadly contents should a specific quantum event take place. We know
that the event has a probability of exactly a 50% chance of occurring
or not occurring over the course of an hour, thus giving us a 50/50
chance that the poison will be released. We put this apparatus along
with a living cat into a box and close the lid. Common sense would tell
us that either the quantum event took place or it didn't, and that the
cat is either dead or alive, and that when we open the box we will discover
the true state of the cat. However, according to the Copenhagen
Interpretation of quantum mechanics, an unobserved subatomic particle
can be both a wave and a particle at the same time, and is said to be
in a state of flux. It isn't until the subatomic particle is actually
observed that the "wave
function is collapsed", thus causing the subatomic particle
to stop behaving like a wave and to start behaving like a particle.
Since the apparatus is connected to a quantum event that has a wave
function, and since the fate of the cat is directly connected to the
state of the quantum event, the cat is also said to be in a state of
flux, where it is both dead and alive at the same time, and that the
act of opening the box and observing the cat collapses the wave function,
determining at this moment whether the cat is dead or alive.
So quantum
mechanics shows us that although consciousness is intrinsically linked
to matter, it can interact with matter through what seems to be non-physical
means.
Harald Atmanspacher
wrote an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy about the
quantum correlations to consciousness and had this to say:
"One important
aspect of all discussions about the relation between mind and matter
is the distinction between descriptive and explanatory approaches. For
instance, correlation is a descriptive term with empirical relevance,
while causation is an explanatory term associated with theoretical attempts
to understand correlations. Causation implies correlations between cause
and effect, but this does not always apply the other way around: correlations
between two systems can result from a common cause in their history
rather than from a direct causal interaction.
"In the
fundamental sciences, one typically speaks of causal relations in terms
of interactions. In physics, for instance, there are four fundamental
kinds of interactions (electromagnetic, weak, strong, gravitational) which
serve to explain the correlations that are observed in physical systems.
As regards the mind-matter problem, the situation is more difficult. Far
from a theoretical understanding in this field, the existing body of knowledge
essentially consists of empirical correlations between material and mental
states. These correlations are descriptive, not explanatory; they are
not causally conditioned. It is (for some purposes) interesting to know
that particular brain areas are activated during particular mental activities;
but this does, of course, not explain why they are. Thus, it
would be premature to talk about mind-matter interactions in the sense
of causal relations. For the sake of terminological clarity, the neutral
notion of relations between mind and matter will be used in this article."
[Italics theirs.]
In essence, the line "this does... not explain why they
[brain activities] are [activated]" shows that science is still ignorant
of the actual underlying "physical mechanism of consciousness".
But if you still don't believe me, look it up!
And over at Princeton we have the Global
Consciousness Project, which is currently using random number generation
in connection with major global events to see if there is a correlation
between "mass consciousness" and physical phenomenon. The project
has been running random numbers and looking for statistically improbable
number generations that are timed with global events for close to 20 years
and can be quoted from the "theories
and speculations" section of their website as saying:
"After
all the caveats, however, we can say that the evidence for an effect of
consciousness on REGs [Random
Event Generators] is strong. We are driven by that evidence to infer
that something like a "consciousness field" exists, and that
intentions or emotional states which structure the field are conveyed
as information that is absorbed into the distribution of output
values of labile physical systems."
[Italics are mine.]
Once again this is an example of consciousness reaching out beyond the
physical confines of the brain, acting in a non-physical manner to create
observable affects in physical systems.
An interesting paper titled "A Course In Consciousness", written
by Stanley Sobottka, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of
Virginia comes out and blatantly states this:
"As we have seen in Sections 6.4 and 6.5, if it is consciousness
that collapses the wavefunction (or that materializes a branch [as in
the many-worlds theory, more on that later]), then consciousness must
be nonphysical. If it is a nonlocal [more about non-locality later] universal
consciousness, we are faced with some other far-reaching conclusions.
What two individual observers see is determined by universal consciousness,
not by any kind of individual consciousness that might exist. This applies
to all of our sensory perceptions without exception. Since everything
we perceive is determined by universal consciousness, it makes no sense
to say that there is a material world independent of consciousness. Thus
the dualism of mind and matter is excluded."
"Information" can exist without perception
and can influence the shape and actions of observed physical phenomenon.
Next, I will argue that there is a certain type of information that is
essentially non-physical (not encoded on anything physical), does not
require an observer to exist, and that this unknown and unperceived "information"
can affect observable physical phenomenon, despite our lack of being able
to "read" or "decode" this "information".
I will use a popular philosophical riddle to illustrate this.
If
a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around, does it make a sound?
I'm going to try to show, in a slightly indirect way, that the answer
to this question is yes, but not in the way that you might think (once
again, sorry for the pun). Again, I will start by trying to define "information",
and how it will relate to this riddle.
An article titled "Semantic Conceptions of Information" can
be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that gives a rather
in depth explanation of "information":
"Information
is notoriously a polymorphic phenomenon and a polysemantic concept so,
as an explicandum, it can be associated with several explanations, depending
on the level of abstraction adopted and the cluster of requirements and
desiderata orientating a theory. The reader may wish to keep this in mind
while reading this entry, where some schematic simplifications and interpretative
decisions will be inevitable. Claude E. Shannon, for one, was very cautious:
“The word ‘information’ has been given different meanings
by various writers in the general field of information
theory. It is likely that at least a number of these will prove sufficiently
useful in certain applications to deserve further study and permanent
recognition. It is hardly to be expected that a single concept of information
would satisfactorily account for the numerous possible applications of
this general field. (italics added)” (Shannon [1993], p. 180). Thus,
following Shannon, Weaver [1949] supported a tripartite analysis of information
in terms of (1) technical problems concerning the quantification of information
and dealt with by Shannon's theory; (2) semantic problems relating to
meaning and truth; and (3) what he called “influential” problems
concerning the impact and effectiveness of information on human behavior,
which he thought had to play an equally important role. And these are
only two early examples of the problems raised by any analysis of information."
Wikipedia's article on the Philosophy of Information also has this to
say:
"According to Floridi, four kinds of mutually compatible phenomena
are commonly referred to as "information":
* Information
about something (e.g. a train timetable)
* Information as something (e.g. DNA, or fingerprints)
* Information for something (e.g. algorithms or instructions)
* Information in something (e.g. a pattern or a constraint).
"Information is the result of processing, manipulating and organizing
data in a way that adds to the knowledge of the receiver. In other words,
it is the context in which data is taken. [In this definition of information
a conscious observer is required to perceive and interpret it otherwise
it is referred to as data, but this is just a semantic differentiation
and does not exclude the notion of "data" existing
without perception.]
"Information
as a concept bears a diversity of meanings, from everyday usage to technical
settings. Generally speaking, the concept of information is closely related
to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form,
instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception,
and representation." [Bold is mine, explained later.]
First off, one might
start by pointing out that only one of Floridi's phenomenon, information
as something, requires that information actually be a tangible thing.
And of course, if you take the time to read the previously mentioned Wikipedia
article on the Philosophy
of Information you will quickly realize that there is no concrete
definition of the term or meaning of "information" (notice the
redundancy?). For the sake of this discussion I will try to be specific
about the type of information I am referring to by using Floridi's and
Shannon's definitions, but it's how information is related to perception
that I'm most keenly interested in.
But let me back up a minute and return to our riddle. The question is,
does the phenomenon of sound actually occur if there is not an observer
to witness it? The riddle begs us to consider that since we have not perceived
the sound (or light or the electromagnetic force that triggers our sense
of "touch", or in other words, information as something),
that the tree itself and its subsequent action of falling (information
about something) does not exist. In Wikipedia's
article on this riddle it says this:
"The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces,
involves the existence of the tree (and its sound) outside of human perception.
If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could its
existence occur? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence
avoids all knowing?"
More important
to this discussion though would be Floridi's information for
something, or especially his "Environmental Information" or
otherwise referred to as "natural data". In an article titled
simply "Information" written for the Encyclopedia of Science,
Technology and Ethics, he states:
"...It is important
to recall that environmental information may require or involve no semantics
at all. It may consist of correlated data understood as mere differences
or affording constraints. Plants (e.g. a sunflower), animals (e.g. an
amoeba), and mechanisms (e.g. a photocell) are certainly capable of making
practical use of environmental information even in the absence of any
(semantic processing of) meaningful data." [Italics are
Floridi's.]
A little later in this article Floridi also points this out:
"...Likewise, in
Silver Blaze, Sherlock Holmes solves the case by noting something
that has escaped everybody else, the unusual silence of the dog. Clearly,
silence may be very informative. This is a peculiarity of information:
it's absence may also be informative."
So,
in rephrasing the riddle we might ask instead, "if a tree falls in
the forest, and no one is around, but a picture is taken, does
it make a sound?" We might even envisage sending in a mechanical
robot to retrieve the camera from the location that we have never been
to or witnessed first hand so that we may perceive the picture of the
tree in the action of falling, but does this mean we have perceived the
actual tree and that it thusly made a sound? Does this sound familiar?
It should because it's exactly what scientists have been doing with the
NASA Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers for several years now. Obviously
the information had to exist before (more on the concept of time later)
the conscious perception of it or one might say that we are merely creating
Mars with our minds. And if that's true why can't we create other planets,
right here in our own solar system, with our minds?
So far we have looked at philosophy to help us understand information,
but let's return to quantum mechanics to see what it has to say. One theory
we can look at is called Active Information Theory. F.
David Peat is a physicist who wrote a very good laymen's introduction
to Active Information Theory:
"[David]
Bohm's 1952 Hidden Variable papers proposed an alternative approach
to quantum theory in which the electron is a real particle guided by a
new kind of force, the quantum potential. While at first sight Bohm's
theory appears somewhat "classical" - electrons have real paths
- the quantum potential is entirely novel. Unlike all other potentials
in physics its effects do not depend upon the strength or "size"
of the potential but only on its form. It is for this
reason that distant objects can exert a strong influence on the motion
of an electron.
"In the
double slit experiment, a paradigm-shifting experiment of quantum theory,
the effects of the slits are be [sic] experienced by electrons located
many centimeters away. This is very difficult to explain in conventional
terms but follows quite naturally once a quantum potential has been introduced.
Indeed, it is this quantum potential that is responsible for all the novel
effects exhibited by quantum theory. The form of the quantum potential
is extremely complex and reflects the entire physical set-up of a quantum
measurement. The complexity of its form is also what gives rise to the
apparently random processes of the quantum world, such as the disintegration
of a radio-active nucleus, or the dual wave-particle nature of the electron.
"Bohm's
approach to his own theory became more subtle over the years and he soon
began to speak of not only of the form of the quantum potential and also
of the "information" it contains. The action of the quantum
potential is not to push or pull the electron along its path. Rather,
Bohm likened it to a radar signal that guides a ship approaching a harbor.
The information within the radar signal acts, via a computer or automated
steering device, to change the direction of the ship. Information itself
does not push the ship, rather it "in-forms" the gross energy
of the engines.
"Information
therefore allows a distinction to be made between what could be called
raw or "un-formed" energy and a more subtle energy, an activity
that can be identified with information. This information acts on raw
energy to give it form.
"Later
versions of Bohm's theory pictured the electron not so much as a real
physical particle but as a process, a wave continually collapsing inward
to a localized region and then expanding outward. This process is guided
by a super-quantum potential. An activity of information is responsible
for the existence [of] quantum particles and quantum events.
"In discussing
the quantum measurement problem Bohm, and his coworkers, further developed
the notion of "Active Information". Take the double slit experiment,
as an example. In Bohm's theory an electron has the potentiality to take
a multiplicity of paths that pass through either one of the two slits.
In actuality, an electron takes only a single path. Bohm suggested that
the quantum potential contains information about the experimental set-up.
This information is potentially active, but once the electron has "chosen",
and begun to move along a particular path the information about alternative
paths becomes inactive.
"For
reasons of space this is an oversimplification of Bohm's approach, but
the essential idea should be clear. Information, in this case about the
context of an experimental set-up, is carried, in some sort of active
form, at the quantum level. This information acts directly on matter,
(eg via the form it imposes on the "unformed"). Information
is being used in an objective way. It is not something that depends on
the point of view of a human observer."
In the following
video David Bohm gives an interview in which he talks a little bit about
the notion of "perception".
So,
the "information" that Active Information Theory seems to point
to is similar to Floridi's "information for something"; in this
case the behavior of a subatomic particle. But when we usually think of
information we think of its carrier too. But what is the medium that information
is conveyed to the subatomic particle? If I think of the information pertaining
to a simple conversation I can imagine the sound waves being carried by
the air to a persons ears. But when we talk about Bohm's information, it
is different because there is not an easy conception of its carrier. It
seems to be located outside of perception and in no need of a traditional
carrier since there is no need of a conscious observer to receive it. It's
also as if the subatomic particles themselves "know" things about
their environment, including whether they are being watched or not. Perhaps
Floridi would have called this information that forms something or
information in no thing.
Now it's time to talk about non-locality, arguably the strangest of quantum
behavior, and perhaps the hardest to grasp. To understand non-locality it
is helpful to first explain quantum entanglement. Wikipedia has an article
on quantum entanglement that starts like this:
"Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the
quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference
to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated."
If that didn't make complete
sense, that's OK, I have this video clip from What the Bleep Do We Know
where our special superhero helps us to understand it a little better.
After
watching that you should really be baffled now! One point I'd like to add
concerning the Bose-Einstein Condensates (for
more about the BEC watch this video lecture from MIT) is a slightly
better analogy regarding the conceptualization of one particle appearing
in multiple places simultaneously. Remember that according to quantum mechanics
all particles exhibit wave properties, and we can think of these
wave properties as being akin to the sound waves produced by a guitar. When
the bosons are cooled down enough that the atoms form one coherent wave
function (the BEC), that wave function behaves as one particle. But because
the wave function is so large it can be detected as a single particle spread
out and in different locations. Put another way, it would be similar to
playing a single note on a guitar but hearing it come from several different
speakers. It's the same wave function from a single source but it is heard
from several different locations. Only, in the case of the BEC, there are
no physical "cables" connecting the apparently "separate"
detections of the single wave function. The idea of one particle appearing
in two or more separate locations, or of two or more particles instantaneously
affecting each other over large distances is what is meant by the term "non-locality".
Now that we have an initial understanding of non-locality, let's give another
of David Bohm's theories a look; that of the Implicate Order and Explicate
Order. David Bohm, in his book "Wholeness
and the Implicate Order", described these orders as such:
"In the enfolded
[or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors
determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different
elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements
is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with
those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms
derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in
what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order,
which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality
of all the implicate orders."
A
very interesting article I found at a website called simply www.nonlocal.com
uses this analogy to help explain the implicate order:
"For example, a deck of playing cards might be arranged so that it
appears to be randomly shuffled until one is shown or notices a pattern
to the cards. This hidden order could be called implicate with respect to
those who are unaware of the pattern arranged by the dealer, and 'explicate'
to those who make use of the pattern.
"What if, like quantum theory, you were congenitally unable to make
out any patterns (in arrangements of playing cards) except that of a pure
unshuffled deck? (...then you would use the word "random" for
any configuration of cards which is sufficiently mixed-up looking.)
"...but
typically, of course, biological systems are attuned to implicately threaded
information: rather than hearing sounds or noticing smells precisely in
order of the physical magnitude of the sense data, organisms react to
nuances of the environment which relate to their special interests. In
the implicate sea of sound, smell, and light, the signature patterns of
predator and prey, of family and beloved, are prioritized."
Another example
of the implicate order from nonlocal.com goes like this:
"An excellent example
of the implicate order can be seen in a phenomenon known as the "plasma
wave echo." The experiment proceeds as follows. An external source
antenna is placed in a plasma (ionized gas) and a large electric field
pulse is imposed. The pulse creates a plasma wave oscillation that rapidly
damps away. A short time t later another pulse is applied, creating another
wave oscillation that damps away. Immediately after this damping the plasma
is back to a normal unperturbed state. There is no measurement technique
presently available that could detect any residual disturbance of the
plasma. However, phase information on the two pulses is contained in the
microscopic velocity distribution of the particles. This information is
a property of the whole plasma and is truly an enfolded order. At a time
2t this information becomes unfolded as the plasma generates its own pulse
from the phase information contained within it. This pulse is the plasma's
echo to the first two external pulses. A review of echos similar to this
is given in Roy W. Gould, "Cyclotron Echo Phenomena," American
Journal of Physics 37 (1969): 585-97."
Bohm himself went on to say:
"This
order is not to be understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement
of objects (e.g., in rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g.
in a series). Rather, a total order is contained in some implicit sense,
in each region of space and time. Now the word 'implicit' is based on
the verb 'to implicate'. This means 'to fold inward' (as multiplication
means 'folding many times'). So we may be led to explore the notion that
in some sense each region contains a total structure 'enfolded' within
it."
And here's
a short clip of David Bohm talking a little bit about the implicate order:
So, we can
see that David Bohm et. al. are beginning to define a type of non-local
"information" that influences the form and behavior of all subatomic
particles, and thusly all matter, and that this information is stored
in what they call the implicate order. Since it is non-local it has direct
and instantaneous influence "in forming" matter, and serves
as the underlying set of instructions or as Bohm originally put forth
in the 1950's "hidden variables".
It is important here to mention a theory proposed by Hugh
Everett called the Many
Worlds Theory that was an interpretation about the many paths the
electrons could take through the two slit quantum experiment. If you remember
from the first video, the superhero explains that quantum math shows that
the electron simultaneously goes through both slits, one or the other
slit, or neither, and that all outcomes are true. To reconcile this math
Hugh proposed that for every quantum event the entire universe "branches"
into all possible outcomes (literally an entire new physical universe
is made non-locally), and that "you", the observer exists in
all universes but that since each universe is non-local from the others
"you" only have the sense of existing in only one of the possible
branches. Stanley
Sobottka from University of Virginia puts the Many Worlds Theory like
this:
"It is easy to
see that the number of branches rapidly proliferates as the observations
continue. In addition, most observations on most types of systems will
result in not just two branches, but many more, as many as are allowed
by Schrödinger’s equation. In fact, the number of branches
at each observation is usually infinite. Also, like orthodox theory, many-worlds
theory is nonlocal because all parts of an entire branch (world) are materialized
simultaneously.
"While
the many-worlds interpretation is very economical in terms of the number
of concepts required in the theory, it is grossly extravagant in terms
of the complexity of the world it describes. Furthermore, the existence
of the other branches is intrinsically unverifiable--they are hypothesized
merely to preserve the mathematics of quantum theory. It is these features
that most physicists find hard to accept."
So, now we have looked
at both philosophy and physics, but are there any other examples of scientists
and scholars taking a turn to the non-physical? In fact there is. Rupert
Sheldrake, a biochemist with a Ph. D from the University of Cambridge
proposed a theory called Morphogenetic Resonance or otherwise referred
to as Morphogenetic Fields. But before we dive into this theory, it is
important to understand the current theory of morphogenesis
and embryogenesis.
You might remember from biology class in high school that embryogenesis
is the process through which cell differentiation occurs as a newly conceived
zygote grows to become an embryo and later a fully formed human. To put
cell differentiation and embryogenesis into a larger context see what
the Morphogenesis and Regenerative Medicine Institute at the University
of Virginia say about the process of morphogenesis:
"Morphogenesis is one of the major outstanding problems in the biological
sciences. It concerns the fundamental question of how biological form
and structure are generated. Morphogenesis encompasses a broad scope of
biological processes. It concerns adult as well as embryonic tissues,
and includes an understanding of the maintenance, degeneration, and regeneration
of tissues and organs as well as their formation. Morphogenesis also addresses
the problem of biological form at many levels, from the structure of individual
cells, through the formation of multicellular arrays and tissues, to the
higher order assembly of tissues into organs and whole organisms. While
related to the field of developmental biology with its traditional emphasis
on the control of gene expression and the acquisition of cell fates, morphogenesis
investigates how this regulation of cell fates contributes to the form
and structure of the organism and its component parts."
Now, you
might at first think that this, in so far, has little to do with non-local
information, because you are sure that DNA (a physical and obviously local
phenomenon, and a known form of the physical encoding of information)
is surely responsible for all the processes of embryogenesis, including
cell differentiation. But before you jump to any conclusions about DNA,
consider a quote from the article "DNA is not Destiny" written
in Discover magazine:
"Our DNA—specifically
the 25,000 genes identified by the Human Genome Project—is now widely
regarded as the instruction book for the human body. But genes themselves
need instructions for what to do, and where and when to do it. A human
liver cell contains the same DNA as a brain cell, yet somehow it knows
to code only those proteins needed for the functioning of the liver. Those
instructions are found not in the letters of the DNA itself but on it,
in an array of chemical markers and switches, known collectively as the
epigenome, that lie along the length of the double helix. These epigenetic
switches and markers in turn help switch on or off the expression of particular
genes. Think of the epigenome as a complex software code, capable of inducing
the DNA hardware to manufacture an impressive variety of proteins, cell
types, and individuals.
"The even greater surprise is the recent discovery that epigenetic
signals from the environment can be passed on from one generation to the
next, sometimes for several generations, without changing a single gene
sequence. It's well established, of course, that environmental effects
like radiation, which alter the genetic sequences in a sex cell's DNA,
can leave a mark on subsequent generations. Likewise, it's known that
the environment in a mother's womb can alter the development of a fetus.
What's eye-opening is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the epigenetic
changes wrought by one's diet, behavior, or surroundings can work their
way into the germ line and echo far into the future. Put simply, and as
bizarre as it may sound, what you eat or smoke today could affect the
health and behavior of your great-grandchildren."
At the very
end of the Wikipedia article on epigenetics you can find this passage:
"The
biologist C.H. Waddington is sometimes credited with coining the term
epigenetics in 1942, when he defined it as “the branch of biology
which studies the causal interactions between genes and their products
which bring the phenotype into being”. However
the term "epigenesis" has been used since the early eighteenth
century. (see also Pierre Louis Maupertuis)
"Epigenetic
inheritance is the transmission of information from a
cell or multicellular organism to its descendants without that
information being encoded in the nucleotide sequence of the gene."
[Bold is mine.]
Let me bring
attention to the bolded phrase "bring... into being" as it refers
to another theoretical process closely related to biology; emergence:
"In philosophy, systems theory and the sciences, emergence refers
to the way complex systems and patterns, such as those that form a hurricane,
arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Like intelligence
in the field of AI, or agents in distributed artificial intelligence,
emergence is central to the physics of complex systems and yet very controversial.
" '
Perhaps the most elaborate recent definition of emergence was provided
by Jeffrey Goldstein in the inaugural issue of Emergence.(Goldstein 1999)
To Goldstein, emergence refers to "the arising of novel and coherent
structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization
[Wikipedia
article on self-organization] in complex systems." The common
characteristics are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed
in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that
maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level"
(i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the
product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive"
- it can be perceived. For good measure, Goldstein throws in supervenience
-- downward causation.' (Corning 2002)"
Morphogenesis
is a term that also refers to the process of the origin of multicellular
organisms. The actual, physical mechanism responsible for the original
primordial, single-celled "amoeba" to collect and congregate
into groups or colonies and then later into fully developed, complex,
multicellular organisms, is still far from known. In it's role in the
Theory of Evolution, an article titled "Basins, Evolutionary Leaps,
and Morphogenesis" expands on some of the still unanswered questions
regarding the specific processes of morphogenesis and evolution:
"Were we to propose, as conventional evolutionary theory does, that
natural selection is the sole mechanism affecting evolutionary leaps,
we would be faced with awkward arguments about the details of how those
leaps take place. The fundamental awkwardness is that an enormous number
of irregular (some would say random) genetic variations would have to
occur thereby producing an enormous number of candidate beings against
whom natural selection would act, carving away all but the one (or those
few) that functionally solved whatever evolutionary puzzle was presented.
Lots of monkeys, lots of years typing irregularly on typewriters, and
we will get the manuscript of Hamlet. (Which Hamlet? Which folio? Which
published copy in modern type instead of the handwriting of the folio?
Which edition with which footnotes? And, after you choose one specific
Hamlet, what about all the others?) The permutational logic of generating
the vast numbers required for natural selection to design new forms dictates
against there being enough time to come up with the sudden shift to complex
new solutions that is witnessed in the fossil record. A second awkward
issue is the pervasiveness of certain solutions, e.g., bilateral symmetry,
and within bilateral symmetry all the ways of getting two eyes, and within
two eyes, all the different ways of getting depth perception. The third
awkwardness is the suddenness of shifts, at least in come cases. These
awkwardnesses are not impossibilities they are simply raw implausibilities.
We've only become used to them because the slow random walk of natural
selection has come to be an almost unconscious scientific tenet."
One of the ways that scientists are trying to study morphogenesis in evolution
is by the study of Myxobacteria,
a colony of single cell organisms that when starving for food, spontaneously
gather together to for one coherent, multicellular organism. In an article
published in the Journal of Microbiological Methods titled "Cell
behavior and cell–cell communication during fruiting body morphogenesis
in Myxococcus xanthus", Lars Jelsbak and Lotte Søgaard-Andersen
from the University of Southern Denmark wrote:
"Formation of spatial patterns of cells from a mass of initially
identical cells is a recurring theme in developmental biology. The dynamics
that direct pattern formation in biological systems often involve morphogenetic
cell movements. An example is fruiting body formation in the gliding bacterium
Myxococcus xanthus in which an unstructured population of identical cells
rearranges into an asymmetric, stable pattern of multicellular fruiting
bodies in response to starvation. Fruiting body formation depends on changes
in organized cell movements from swarming to aggregation. The aggregation
process is induced and orchestrated by the cell-surface associated 17
kDa C-signal protein. C-signal transmission depends on direct contact
between cells. Evidence suggests that C-signal transmission is geometrically
constrained to cell ends and that productive C-signal transmission only
occurs when cells engage in end-to-end contacts."
I recommend entering the keywords 'morphogenesis', 'embryogenesis', 'epigenetics'
and 'emergence' into Google to find hundreds of scientific publishings
on these topics if you'd like to explore the details further. What is
important for the sake of this article is their common idea of new patterns
or information arriving from what seems like no apparent physical source.
Sound familiar?
Now, back
to morphogenetic fields. Rupert Sheldrake suggested in the 1970's that
this non-physical information that seems to instruct the organization
of biologcal form into new and novel patterns may be held in a type of
field, simliar to an electric or magnetic field. And this idea is regaining
popularity, most likely due to the fact that science has produced no explanations
with the current theoretical background. In an article titled "Morphogenetics-part
I - theory of formative causation" written for the National Review
in June of 1985, D. Keith Mano explains:
"There are starquakes
going on in scientific thought. Each confident assumption held about our
mechanistic universe may have to be reblocked. The torque wrench for this
profound revolution is morphogenetics--the theory of formative causation.
No hypothesis spun off by Darwin, Freud, Newton, or Einstein will have
more momentous effect on human understanding. Formative causation has
been both elaborated and popularized by Professor Rupert Sheldrake, FRS,
a plant biologist from my British alma mater, Clare College, Cambridge.
Sheldrake, however, didn't originate it. Indeed, the theory of formative
causation has lain dormant, an intellectual Godzilla, in scientific conjecture
since 1920. Like plate tectonics (now given universal credence) it was
disregarded as preposterous. And for good reason. Once accepted, formative
causation would require that every district of materialist science be
rethought. And this, I suspect, is what will happen.
"The theory then. Sheldrake has surmised that morphogenetic (form-creating)
fields exist. These are spatial and as real as any gravitational or electromagnetic
field. They might be called habit patterns of form. An M-field will both
order and shape matter--matter in crystal, cell, tissue, organ, whole
organism--through morphic resonance. At higher levels morphic resonance
can influence behavior and even collective thought. But this resonance
will transmit only from like form to like form (rat shape on rat, tree
shape on tree). Moreover (and here you must inhale intellectually) M-fields
function not just across space but through time as well. Each previous
M-field, therefore, is retained in the present. Thus a species' entire
formal history will be available to it at all times."
Wikipedia maintians
a more skeptical view of morphic and morphogenetic fields, but only to
say it is not accepted by mainstream science (yet!). Still, the definition
it gives of each is a rather good one and needs to be quoted here:
"Morphic fields are defined as the universal database for both organic
(living) and abstract (mental) forms, while morphogenetic fields are defined
by Sheldrake as the subset of morphic fields which influence, and are
influenced by living things (the term morphogenetic fields was already
in use in environmental biology in the 1920's, having been used in unrelated
research of three biologists - Hans Spemann, Alexander Gurwitsch and Paul
Weiss).
“ '
The term [morphic field] is more general in its meaning than morphogenetic
fields, and includes other kinds of organizing fields in addition to those
of morphogenesis; the organizing fields of animal and human behaviour,
of social and cultural systems, and of mental activity can all be regarded
as morphic fields which contain an inherent memory.' - Sheldrake, The
Presence of the Past (Chapter 6, page 112) "
The only other theory
for morphogenesis seriously considered recently is that of Isologous
Diversification which itself refers to "oscillations", an
obvious reference to wave properties and resonance. But let's see what
Rupert sheldrake himself has to say about morphic fields in this hour
long lecture:
In the lecture, Sheldrake talks a lot about the paranormal, which is not
hard to understand given the implication of the theory, and which I will
go into more eloboration later. But it shouldn't be surprising that a theory
like this could be use to explain a lot of otherwise unexplained phenomenon.
In fact, the theory explains so much that it is even being considered to
give a broader understanding to the elusive "form" of gravity.
Daniel
Sleator, Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University
helped publish an article titled "Quantum Gravity: String, Weave or
Morphogenetic Field?", in which it says:
"Finally,
an exciting proposal has been taking shape over the past few years in the
hands of an interdisciplinary collaboration of mathematicians, astrophysicists
and biologists: this is the theory of the morphogenetic field. Since the
mid-1980's evidence has been accumulating that this field, first conceptualized
by developmental biologists, is in fact closely linked to the quantum gravitational
field: (a) it pervades all space; (b) it interacts with all matter and energy,
irrespective of whether or not that matter/energy is magnetically charged;
and, most significantly, (c) it is what is known mathematically as a ``symmetric
second-rank tensor''. All three properties are characteristic of gravity;
and it was proven some years ago that the only self-consistent nonlinear
theory of a symmetric second-rank tensor field is, at least at low energies,
precisely Einstein's general relativity. Thus, if the evidence for (a),
(b) and (c) holds up, we can infer that the morphogenetic field is the quantum
counterpart of Einstein's gravitational field. Until recently this theory
has been ignored or even scorned by the high-energy-physics establishment,
who have traditionally resented the encroachment of biologists (not to mention
humanists) on their ``turf''. However, some theoretical physicists have
recently begun to give this theory a second look, and there are good prospects
for progress in the near future.
"It is still too soon to say whether string theory,
the space-time weave or morphogenetic fields will be confirmed in the
laboratory: the experiments are not easy to perform. But it is intriguing
that all three theories have similar conceptual characteristics: strong
nonlinearity, subjective space-time, inexorable flux, and a stress on
the topology of interconnectedness."
The idea has also,
understandably, been picked up by many "fringe" scientists to
help explain and connect various features of science, philosophy and spirituality.
Philosopher, writer and ethnobotanist Terrence
Mckenna, saw similarities between his Theory
of Novelty and Rupert Sheldrake's Theory of Morphic Resonance. They
even got together one afternoon to have an hour or so discussion on the
topic which you can watch in the next video.
Finally, I'd
like to talk about a theory that is quite controversial, not because of
it's intellectual and scientific standpoint, but because of religious
implications certain groups have attributed to it's meaning. Intelligent
Design, when I ask most my friends about it, is usually regarded as being
detestable and at best ignorant because of those who would want to associate
it with Creationism. Perhaps this may be due to the name of the theory
itself containing the word "intelligent", which might denote
a conscious intent behind the organization of information. But let's take
a look at what the proponents of Intelligent Design Theory have to say
themselves. From the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
an essay titled "Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information
and the Higher Taxonomic Categories", written by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer,
Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, explains
the main viewpoint as this:
"In the
last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned
the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological
novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107)
expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate
via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29)
argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce
large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996)
attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement
classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain
macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation:
“starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism's)
adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining
microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not
seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into
an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival
of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points
out, 'the origin of species--Darwin's problem--remains unsolved'“
(p. 361). Though Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to solve the problem
of the origin of form by proposing a greater role for developmental genetics
within an otherwise neo-Darwinian framework,1 numerous recent authors
have continued to raise questions about the adequacy of that framework
itself or about the problem of the origination of form generally (Webster
& Goodwin 1996; Shubin & Marshall 2000; Erwin 2000; Conway Morris
2000, 2003b; Carroll 2000; Wagner 2001; Becker & Lonnig 2001; Stadler
et al. 2001; Lonnig & Saedler 2002; Wagner & Stadler 2003; Valentine
2004:189-194).
"What
lies behind this skepticism? Is it warranted? Is a new and specifically
causal theory needed to explain the origination of biological form?
"This
review will address these questions. It will do so by analyzing the problem
of the origination of organismal form (and the corresponding emergence
of higher taxa) from a particular theoretical standpoint. Specifically,
it will treat the problem of the origination of the higher taxonomic groups
as a manifestation of a deeper problem, namely, the problem of the origin
of the information (whether genetic or epigenetic) that, as it will be
argued, is necessary to generate morphological novelty.
"In order
to perform this analysis, and to make it relevant and tractable to systematists
and paleontologists, this paper will examine a paradigmatic example of
the origin of biological form and information during the history of life:
the Cambrian explosion. During the Cambrian, many novel animal forms and
body plans (representing new phyla, subphyla and classes) arose in a geologically
brief period of time. The following information-based analysis of the
Cambrian explosion will support the claim of recent authors such as Muller
and Newman that the mechanism of selection and genetic mutation does not
constitute an adequate causal explanation of the origination of biological
form in the higher taxonomic groups. It will also suggest the need to
explore other possible causal factors for the origin of form and information
during the evolution of life and will examine some other possibilities
that have been proposed."
And if that didn't
do it for ya, you can watch this video that explains the basic standpoint
of Intelligent Design.
Whether
or not you want to "believe" the "religious" implications
of the Intelligent Design argument, I feel it was worth mentioning here
because of the obvious commonality between it's major line of argument (that
there is an insufficient accounting of the novel "information"
that emerges during the process of morphogenesis) and that of the many other
theories in many other fields.
To conclude this section, I'd like to bring us back to the Global Consciousness
Project at Stanford mentioned in the first section of this essay. In the
Theory and Speculations section of the GCP's website, the page reads:
"If
we look at the evidence from studies of the far reaches of consciousness,
we are compelled to envision an equivalent to the fields that link physical
objects (EM fields). But now this conceptual framework needs to be applied
to the non-physical, to the experienced world of ideas, structures, relationships.
We need a well-defined equivalent to EM that can accomodate the interconnections
in a more subtle realm. We need something that integrates the effective
interactions of a field with the meaningful implications of directed interconnection.
I think we may have a starting framework in an extension of Bohm's efforts
to link the sensible world with the implicate order. The remaining step
is to take seriously the notion of active information and consider that
is is a field linking us universally to our world. We may call this an active
information field (AIF).
"Most simply put, I think consciousness is a source
of active information, and that the objects of attention for consciousness
can be sinks that attract and hence actualize the information. The qualities
of active information make the concept of an AIF richly supportive of
the otherwise unexplainable connections we see between mind and matter.
The AIF is non-local and thus has universal dimension and accessibility.
It is virtual, and is actualized by a need for the structure or formative
influence that comprises its nature. It is thus both the manifestation
and the generative source of a universal interconnectedness. Its nature
comprises both the creation and the application of form and meaning.
"In the following, Lian Groza offers some suggestions
that touch the same themes, but attempt to keep a strong link with familiar
physical models:
" 'Let's imagine that we have a fifth, non-physical
field (see Bohm's quantum potential, or Sheldrake's morphogenetic field)
and let's call it IF (information field). The information carried by it
is, as Bohm describes, encoded in the form of the wave rather than its
amplitude, hence it's independent of the field strength (distance independence).
" 'Now, let's imagine this IF as being related to
the EM field in the same way electricity and magnetism are mutually dependent:
in the same way a magnetic field is created by an electric current moving
inside a wire, an IF signal can be created by certain configurations (patterns)
of EM waves, and vice-versa (IF signals can perturb and modify the EM-coded
bioinformation of a target organism, producing a healing effect or, as
the case may be, being registered as EM thought patterns in a telepathy
experiment).
" 'Another intriguing possibility is that this hypothesized
EM/IF interplay may account for the target identification/specificity
that such phenomena display. If one views a target's identity as being
encoded by a unique EM signature, then a long-range IF signal might act
as a scanner/matched filter that would first need to "resonate"
with the target's EM signature before "delivering its message".(Of
course, this is all highly speculative and I haven't got a clue as to
what would constitute a unique EM signature for a person or location.)
" 'In this scenario, then, the practice of yogic
asanas, samadhi, etc. would serve to enhance one's ability to develop
and sustain the necessary EM signal to create a coherent (resonant?) IF
wave, while normal consciousness would be equivalent to a plurality of
weak, non-resonant, mutually destructive IF signals.'
"The empirical case is good, but theoretical modeling
remains weak and speculative. The best bets are quantum mechanical "entanglemant"
operating in a quasi-macroscopic realm, described nicely in Dean Radin's
recent book, The Entangled Mind, and "active information", a
conceptual structure in David Bohm's physics.
"My own "model" is that consciousness or
mind is the source or seat of a nonlocal, active information field. This
is not a standard, well defined physical construct, but as an operational
metaphor it helps to form useful questions for the empirical research.
Such fields interact, usually with random phase relationship and no detectable
product. When some or many consciousness (information) fields are driven
in common, or for whatever reason become coherent and resonant, they interact
in phase, and create a new, highly structured information field. The REG
has an informational aspect (entropy) and a completely undetermined future,
and I speculate, following Bohm, that it manifests a "need for information"
which allows or guides the actualization of the active information sourced
in human, group, or global consciousness."
The
phenomenon of "consciousness" preceded the phenomenon of physicality.
Boy,
I'll admit, this is going to be the hardest topic to dive into, mostly
because of the restricting linearity of semantic language and the bizarre
non-linear properties of time itself. It has long been a philosophical
as well as scientific endeavor to understand the full notions of time
and space. This was obviously one of Einstien's greatest passions and
his theories had no small impact on the way we look at the ordering and
chronology of the universe. Both the Theory
of Special Relativity and quantum mechanics have given us insights
to the strange properties of what we conceive of as time. To give you
an example of the nonlinearity of time, consider this video that explains
"simultaneity":
And yet another video explaining the "time dilation" according
to Special Relativity.
As
you can see, according to the theories of Relativity and Special Relativity,
it depends on one's perspective or "frame of reference" that the
specific chronology of events take place. In other words, it is where the
conscious observer is standing, and how fast they are going relative to
the observed event that determines the perceived duration of the event,
or the order the events took place. And of course, all of this depends on
one key concept: the speed of light. To understand this, consider how large
our universe is. The closest star to Earth, Proxima Centauri, is more than
4 light years away, meaning it would take light, at the constant speed of
approximately 185,000 miles per second, more than four years to travel from
that star to our eyes here on Earth. Since we need light to visually perceive
things, the light that we are seeing from Proxima Centauri now is what it
looked like more than four years ago. Immediately one can see how talking
about time and space in this sense can introduce paradoxes (unresolvable
problems). For instance, suppose we send an astronaut from Earth to Proxima
Centauri, but at a very high velocity, say twice the speed of light. Since
Proxima Centauri is about 4 light years away, it would take our astronaut
only two years to get there. However, since light cannot travel faster than
185,000 miles per second, the perception of our astronaut's journey would
still take the entire four years, and probably longer. You can imagine that
once he has arrived, it would be a surprise for our astronaut to look through
a telescope back towards Earth, and for two years after arriving, continue
to watch himself complete his journey. Of course this introduces the notion
of time travel which of course introduces another paradox. If the astronaut
has successfully completed time travel, in other words, after continually
watching his counterpart complete the journey, there are now two astronauts
at Proxima Centauri, then what's to stop our friend from going back in time
and killing his father before he was born? It's for this reason that most
scientists are confident that people cannot travel faster than light. Although,
there are some very interesting quantum experiments that seem to
break this rule.
To
get a better grasp on the actuality of time, consider this quote by Victor
J. Stenger in this article titled "Quantum Time Travel":
"None
of the laws of fundamental physics, classical or quantum, forbid travel
back in time. In fact they do not even distinguish backward from forward.
Time irreversibility is implied by the second
law of thermodynamics, but as Boltzmann showed over a century ago, this
is a statistical effect of the large amount of randomness present in the
many body systems that constitute macroscopic objects. Nothing prevents
a broken glass from reassembling by chance; it is just very unlikely.
"On
the quantum scale, however, reverse causality actually seems to be taking
place. Experimental results depend on future conditions as well as the
past. Indeed, many of the so-called paradoxes of quantum mechanics result
when people insist on interpreting quantum events in terms of the one-way
time of their common experience. When that restriction is relaxed, most
of the paradoxes disappear."
For a more in depth discussion of the meaning of "time", I highly
recommend reading the article titled simply "Time"
from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as it covers everything
I could possibly go over here. From here on out I will assume you have
read most of this article.
So, that's just it.
The paradoxes. The wave / particle duality paradox. The grandfather paradox.
And all these
paradoxes, what do they have to do with consciousness? What is it to say
what time is with no one to observe it? If all consciousness
were removed from the universe would there be any causality? If relativity
and quantum mechanics have no "arrow" of time, why does our
consciousness seem to? Although these topics and many like them are still
currently being debated in philosophical and scientific circles, I'd like
to propose an analogy that might help with this concept.
Take a computer for instance. A computer works because it has hardware;
physical, solid state electronics that are designed to process information;
and software; the physical encoding of information. The hardware can be
likened to the physical brain, and the software to the "environmental
information" available around us. Now, a computer is useless unless
it has software, and vise versa, software cannot be used unless it has
hardware to run on. When the computer was designed both these concepts
were born together, and compliment one another.
The difference with the analogy and it's application to reality is that
in reality environmental information does not require physical encoding
until it is observed or becomes useful to a biological or physical system.
Another difference between the computer analogy and common reality is
that of the usage of memory and processing. Whereas in the computer both
the RAM (memory) and processor are physical units, the brain acts as the
physical storage unit of data whereas consciousness is a non-local field
that acts as the processing unit. Depending on how the consciousness field
is "tuned" or "focused", it can be used to process
external "environmental information" or process internally stored
information in the brain.
Because the consciousness must access the brain to receive information,
whether stored as memory or as the immediate five sense data, and because
we can say that causality is a trait of physicality, consciousness can
only be aware of finite units of information given to it in a causal form
from the brain. This is a limitation of the physical body, not a limitation
of consciousness. A feature of consciousness that might best demonstrate
this is it's ability to conceive a whole new concept at once, as opposed
to a computer that must run a program step by step before seeing the whole
result. When an inventor conceives of a new invention the entire
idea is conceived, but then he must use his brain to convert the idea
into steps. However, when consciousness acts on the brain to receive either
external five-sense data or internal memory data it must receive it in
small discrete packets of information that are already seemingly ordered.
To further this analogy, the actual movement of environmental information
(or stored memory information) through the brain-filter and to the non-local,
consciousness-processing unit is time. In this sense, time is
the "potential" of the movement of information through consciousness;
the "energy" that allows that movement. It might also be likened
to the actual flow of electrons through a computer. Without this flow,
none of the processing could be done. Without consciousness, this potential
for movement would still be there, even if there was no actual movement.
There are probably a few other differences and similarities that we could
go through with this analogy, but the basic concept is there. However,
I think it is important not to take this too literally, as it is just
one way of looking at it. Essentially, the potential of the information
that forms something (e.g. "Active Information"), the potential
for the movement of that information (i.e. "time"), and the
potential for the ability to process that information, are all facets
of the same system called "the perception of physical reality",
and cannot be separated from each other and still function. However, just
like a computer that is turned off can have the potentially useable information
on the hard drive, the potentially usable processing unit to process that
information, and the potential movement of electrons through the system
to convey that information from the hard drive to the processor, until
it is turned on, there is no output or result (i.e. physical reality).
It is in this sense that I mean that consciousness (or at least the potential
to process information in a meaningful way), precedes physicality.
Besides, even in quantum mechanics it is demonstrated that since it is
consciousness that is collapsing the wave function, there must have been
at least the potential for consciousness that acted upon the initial state
of the universe in order to "collapse the primordial wave function"
that created the deterministic (particle like) physical reality we currently
perceive. But I suppose science is still working on that one...
Given the above four
conclusions the entirety of all "Information"
(including all possible outcomes of all universes/multi-verses everywhere)
could be plausibly and probably stored non-locally/non-physically, and
that this "Information" was and is intrinsically tied to at
least one "consciousness" and that that "Consciousness"
preceded all physical reality.
I'm really not going to try to answer this one directly because I think
you can see this is where science and spirituality meet. Instead I'll
simply leave you with some links to a few scholarly papers written by
professors and scientists on this subject. Keep in mind the obvious difficulty
of talking about this subject without referring to ones own personal beliefs,
but I believe that these papers give a good insight to the extent that
science is reaching out to the "spiritual", or "paranormal"
as a way to tackle this subject.
But first, consider some of these references contained within spiritual
texts to some of the concepts we've just gone over in this article:
In Sanskrit:
Shabda is the “Sound Current vibrating in all creation. It can
be heard by the inner ears.” Variously referred to as the Audible
Life Stream, Inner Sound, Sound Current or Word in English, the Shabd
is the esoteric essence of God which is available to all human beings.
"An Exploration of Core Power of Thought Concepts in Relation to
Theories Involving Quantum Mechanics" by Jeffery
A. Martin, California Institute of Integral Studies and Center for the
Study of Intent. http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2007/martin.htm
Share this page with your friends through a mirad of instant post choices including Facebook and Twitter.
