Quantum mechanics and subjective experience.
Evgeny M. IVANOV
Department of Philosophy, Saratov State University
Astrahanskaja 83, Saratov 410071,
RUSSIA.
E-mail: ivanovem@info.sgu.ru.
KEYWORDS: subjective experience, quantum theory, mind-body problem, consciousness.
ABSTRACT: There is a deep analogy between quantum reality and subjective experience.
Such subjective properties as wholeness, temporal nonlocality, actual-potential structure of
subjective being, qualia, individuality have an analogues in quantum world.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
L subject of the paper is a search for analogy between properties of human
subjectivity and quantum reality. Hypothesis of a consciousness quantum nature
is widely discussed now (Walker (1970), Bohm (1983), Penrose (1989), Stapp (1993), Globus
(1996), Hameroff & Penrose (1996), Sarfatti (1996)). We can select two main directions of
discussion.
Some authors try to explain consciousness with the help of quantum physics.
Others, on the contrary, try to explain the subatomic world by introducing
consciousness (of observer) directly into the basis of the physical theory.
In this work we shall consider the quantum basis of consciousness and, thus,
this work can be related to the first direction.
However, as we shall see hereafter, the correct discussion of the question of
subjectivity and physical reality connection assumes the use of subjective experience
as the basis for an explanation of a quantum reality, but not the opposite.
The early attempts to explain consciousness on the basis of the quantum theory
often have two drawbacks. As a rule, there is no philosophical substantiation of
the possibility of physical and subjective collation and, besides, the authors
try to explain complex, high level forms of consciousness directly from the
first quantum theory principles. But even the man (to say nothing about the
quantum particle) is not always capable of thinking, perceiving, remembering,
understanding the environment keeping what we name "internal world" or
"subjectivity" (for example, in dream, at pathology of a brain etc.). If there is
an analogy between fundamental quantum properties of matter and subjective
sphere, it relates only to most general, formal, invariant to a level of
complexity human subjectivity properties. (Though, certainly, it is necessary
also to show that having achieved the certain organization level the quantum
systems will be able, in principle, to implement complex mental functions).
The term "subjectivity" will be used further as a generic notion for designation
of any phenomena of the internal world, irrespective of their complexity level.
From this point of view the consciousness should be considered as only one of
the subjective organization forms, described by such attributes as reflectivity,
usage of high-level abstractions, self-regulation, social-dependence of
subjective contents and the ways of mind functioning. But unconscious subjective
contents, having no listed attributes of consciousness also exist.
In this light, we see that it is reasonable firstly to search for the analogy
between quantum and subjective, instead of quantum and consciousness, that means
to take the subjective phenomenon into account, abstracting from specific human
content (i.e. informational and functional aspects of subjectivity, depending
evidently on external organization and can not be directly correlated with
fundamental physical properties).
The relations between "formal" (invariant) properties of human subjectivity and
fundamental physical objects properties are the main problem of this paper.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.DOUBLE-ASPECT SOLUTION OF MIND-BODY PROBLEM
First of all, let us consider philosophical basis of the very possibility of
physical reality and subjective experience collation. As I understand it, the double-aspect
theory can serve as such base. This theory was suggested in initial form in the second
half of 19th century by G.T. Fechner.
In compressed form the main idea of the double-aspect theory may by expressed as
follows. It is confirmed, that subjectivity and at least some part of the brain is
one and the same thing. It is supposed that only subjectivity is an authentic
reality, that exists "in itself", while matter - is only the "image" or
"projection" of some other (not my) subjectivity. What exists in itself as
subjective experience, appears as the matter (stuff) in external observer's subjectivity.
The double-aspect theory is essentially distinct from the so-called functional
theories of mental, according to which the consciousness and subjective experience are an
internal aspect of "emergent" (high-level) function of a brain, but not a brain
itself. This theory is also distinct from "eliminative" theories, which deny
real existence of subjectivity as relatively closed in itself "internal world".
The fact, that having opened skull we do not find out in brain the "internal
model" of the environment, which is directly given to us in our subjective
experience, is explained in double-aspect theory by representative character of
sensual perception. It is supposed, that the sensory images are absolutely not
similar to the objects, as these objects exist "in itself", but between an image
and an object there is a relation which is close to isomorphism (one-to-one
structural correspondence). The latter guarantees adequacy of sensual perception
of the external world and ensures the possibility to act successfully in the
external world on the basis of a sensual image qualitatively distinct from this
world.
According to this point of view, a brain, as I see it, is not identical to a
real brain, as it exists "in itself" and, therefore, it is quite admitted to
assume, that some part of a brain is really my subjectivity as it exists in
itself.
For example, if at this moment I see a room, my brain is, partly, (in itself)
this room and not an unattractive sort of jelly that the surgeon would see, if
he had opened my skull at this moment. Our sensual perception deforms a reality
so hardly, that the brain existing in itself as a visible room, can be seen from
outside as some sort of jelly. However, as this deformation has regular
character, we can adapt to it, and it does not prevent us to act adequately in
the external world.
This deformation concerns also spatial (and perhaps temporal) parameters of
external reality, otherwise we should have to admit existence of the exact (or
reduced) geometrical models of external objects in brain.
In initial variant (for example at Fechner) double-aspect approach was a variant
of the panpsychism. But we can avoid panpsychism if we assume, that the matter
beyond a brain, considered from its internal side, is similar to human
subjectivity only from the point of view of its formal properties, but is not
similar by contents or function. It means, that the matter outside brain has
neither thinking, nor perception or memory, at least in some highly advanced
form (as we do not always think, perceive, remember, but that does not deprive
us of subjectivity). There is no necessity to attribute human mental property to
some material objects beyond brain, even if they possess their internal world
similar to our internal world by their formal properties.
It is possible to assume, that the specific mental properties of human
subjectivity are not immanent properties, but are only emergent effect of its
external organization, induced by other brain structures, which are localized
beyond "my" subjective world.
The double-aspect theory is usually opposed to the functionalism. According to
functionalism consciousness is a high-level function of brain. From this point
of view consciousness corresponds not to a brain matter, but to what the brain
"makes". The high-level character of consciousness function means that the
consciousness corresponds to the function of the whole brain, but is not the
function of its separate elements. The latter has no any mental properties or
subjectivity.
I consider, that the explanation of consciousness as a high-level function of
brain contains "arguing in a circle". On the one hand, subjectivity is explained
as a systemic property of matter, but on the other hand, the partition of the
world into a set of separate systems is carried out according to the
understanding of functional applicability of these systems, that supposes
understanding of such functional meaning of these systems that is specific for
the human being. Thus, it presupposes the existence of such mental phenomenon,
as (human) meaning, which in this case belongs to external objects and does not
depend on our consciousness.
Let's return to the double-aspect theory. The main problems of this theory
appear in an effort of its concretization, when we really try to present
physical matter as external manifestation of subjectivity. If matter (in its own
existence) is something like our subjectivity, then though it must not possess
consciousness or thinking, in a general event (since we are not always conscious
or thinking), at least it must possess such essential "formal" characteristics
of subjective experience, as wholeness, temporary depth (non-locality), qualitative
heterogeneity and specific dual "actual-potential" being form which we find in
our own subjectivity. Exactly these four particularities of subjectivity are the
main obstacles in our attempts to consider subjective experience as "internal" of the
matter. The brain matter is presented as something actual, disintegrating into
separate, comparatively autonomous elements (atoms), local in time and
qualitatively homogeneous.
However, all this is correct only in case, if we take the conceptions of
classical physics as the basis. Situation greatly changes if we take into
account understanding of matter which quantum mechanics gives. Here we find a
deep analogy of physical reality and subjective experience.
Before the investigation of this analogy, we must study in more detail above
mentioned main formal characteristics of subjectivity.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. STRUCTURE AND MAIN PROPERTIES OF SUBJECTIVITY.
2.1. "Actual" and "potential" subjective phenomena
The subjective phenomena may be separated into three groups. The first group is
"actual" (sensual) subjective phenomena. The second group is volition and
emotions. And the third group is the meanings.
The actual phenomena are sensations, sensual images and mental images or
representations (memories, fantasies imaginations). The sensations and sensual
images are obvious, qualitatively certain, located more or less precisely in
subjective space and time contents of subjective experience. Mental images may not
have any part of qualities and not have exact spatial and temporal localization. The
actual phenomena can be described as a temporal "stream" of subjective events.
Meanings are given as tacit, uncertain, non-actual, non-spatial, timeless and
non-qualitative content of our subjectivity. The specificity of meaning is that it
simultaneously exists and not exists, is given and is not given to the subject,
is experienced and not experienced. We can not assert that meanings do not exist
at all, but we can not identify them with some certain content of our
experience. The meanings can not be identified neither with sensations, sensual
or mental images, nor with relations between actual sensations or images. The
meanings alongst desires, intentions or values are "supersensible" or "ideal"
contents of our consciousness.
Though the meanings do not show themselves in a certain form at the moment of
their experience, we can, if necessary, display some meaning (for example the
meaning of the word) in a sequence of mental images or use other words, also
having meaning, retrospectively.
If we investigate these displays, we can conclude, that the meaning occurs when
any actual experience comes into correlation with some part of our past
experience. However actually, in the obvious form this correlation or displaying
of meaning at the moment of its experience is not realized. Subjectively we
experience the meanings, for example meanings of the word, directly, not using
some images, fantasies or verbal descriptions.
We consider it to be possible to interpret nature of meaning using Aristotelian
categories "potential" and "actual" (or "possible" and "real"). If sensations,
images are actual, real contents of subjectivity, the meanings that subjectivity
contain as "pure potency" devoid an actual existence. Thus, the meanings are the
special potential form of being.
The potential being can be considered as something intermediate between actual
existence and nonexistence (existent nonexistence). It is the nonbeing, that
exists inside of being, nonbeing "pregnant" with being, containing being in
itself as a possibility.
The meaning as we have described it above, may be also described as some sort of
"existing nonexistence" - it simultaneously is present and is not present, is
experienced and is not experienced. For this reason we can explain the form of
being of meanings as ontologically available being of potency.
Every potency is a possibility of transition from one (available) actual being
to the other (possible) being (that can be transformed into actual form in
future) . Thus, the meanings exist as a set of possibilities of transition from
available sensual or mental experiences to possible ones.
From this point of view, the experience of some actual subjective element's
meaning is the experience of possibility of appearance of other (connected with
this actual element) actual experiences as well as experience of possibility of
other possibilities, as these other experiences also can have a meaning.
We have defined earlier that the meaning of some actual subjective element can
be understood as a result of collation of this element to the past experience.
The direct experience of meaning is, thus, an experience of a very possibility
of such collation, that is experience of a possibility of "scanning" some
fragments of past experience and comparison of the given actual element and
these fragments.
The experience of meaning of the word, from this point of view, is an experience
of the possibility to display this meaning in the sequence of mental images, in
other words, also possessing meanings and so on. The meaning of the world also
includes experience of possibility of behaviour acts which become possible in
connection with the given word. Thus, it is possible to say that the meaning of
a word is (partly) a set of potentially possible reactions on this word or a sat
of potentially possible directions of the given word usage.
It is clear, that the potential form of access to the past experience gives a
huge advantage to the consciousness, because the potential access to the
information, against actual access, allows "virtually" to look over through
unlimited information files for short time. Due to this the consciousness has
ability to parallel "virtual" processing of huge information contents and this
ability explains surprising efficiency of human mentality.
Above we have noted that the meaning is the experience of a very possibility of
other experiences and as these other experiences also have a meaning, it's the
experience of possibility of other possibilities. It means, that each concrete
meaning receives the defined contents through the relations to all other
meanings. But these other meanings also receive the certain contents through the
relations to the third meanings and so on. Thus, the meaning finds its
non-sensual definiteness inside the network or "field" of other meanings
(semantic field). This semantic field is a system of all interconnected meanings
and this system can be understood as human's cumulative knowledge about itself
and about the external world.
As the meaning exists as something certain only inside an integral semantic
field, the changes of meanings cannot be considered as a "stream" of isolated
meanings in which one collection of meanings replaces the other. The meaning's
dynamics can be considered only as modification of semantic field as a whole.
However, the meaning's dynamics, nevertheless, can be presented in certain
relation as consecutive replacement of different "semantic states". Indeed the
meanings can differ from each other at definite moments of time by their
readiness to actualization. Some meanings can be actualized at once, without any
additional conditions. These meanings form a "current semantic state". Other
meanings require the additional conditions for actualization. They form a
"semantic background". These "background meanings" can become a current semantic
state when some certain conditions will be executed.
Let's emphasize that we directly experience not only "surface" (current)
semantic state, but also all "deep" background semantic "layers". All contents
of semantic field as a whole are given to us every moment. Otherwise "surface"
meanings would lose their certain content.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Wholeness
We have established that our subjectivity contains two ontologically different
components in itself - actual and potential. Thus, we can define the form of
subjective being as "actual-potential".
Other important quality of subjectivity is wholeness. Our subjective sphere is not
a mechanical sum of independent parts or isolated areas. Just the opposite, it
exists as "integrated unity" in which it is only conditionally possible to
select some parts or divisions.
The wholeness of a sensual component of subjective experience can be described as
"Gestalt" properties of sensual images. The sensations, sensual qualities are
experienced not isolated from each other, but on the contrary, they create a special
whole form (image) in which sensations are experienced with relations between them.
The sensual images also exist not isolated from each other, but form a
integrated polymodal phenomenal "field of actual sensual experiences"
(so-called, perceptive field).
In semantic sphere we have a higher form of wholeness, than in sensual sphere.
It is partly explained by absence in semantic sphere of sensual space and time,
which in sensual sphere divide being into separate elements. The single meaning
is no more than abstraction. Only holistic semantic field is a unique authentic
reality. Each meaning receives the definiteness inside this field only through
the relations with all other meanings or, figuratively speaking, through the
"place" that it occupies in semantic field. Meanings penetrate each other and
mutually cause one another. (All is present in all, but, as Proclus said, in
everyone in a specific manner). Each meaning contains in itself or of
necessity supposes system of meanings as a whole.
Wholeness exists not only inside sensual and semantic spheres separately, but
these two ontologically different components of subjectivity also form "integrated
unity". The unity of sensual perception and meanings manifest itself
empirically, as direct meaningfulness of sensual images. As a rule, the meanings
are present in the images initially and directly. We find out ourselves inside
some semantic situation at once. Only in specific extreme conditions (presence
of interference, etc.), a perception partly splitting into pure sense datum and
meanings, secondary joined to it, is possible.
On the other hand, the meanings cannot exist "in itself", but only as meanings
of some sensual phenomena. Such close connection of sensual phenomena and
meanings follows from the given above explanation of meanings as "pure
potencies". As potency is a possibility of transition from one actual element to
another, the meanings can be defined as the "communications" between various
sensual phenomena, which are localized in different temporal layers of
subjective being.
It is possible to explain a unity of sensual phenomena and meanings in a
different way.
Let's notice that the actual experiences and meanings are essentially two
various forms of knowledge or information. The meaning is the information that
exists as "pure knowledge", deprived of some qualitative, spatial and temporal
form of its representation. The sensual experience is the information having the
form that sensual qualities, subjective space and time are constitute. The
content of the information does not depend on this form, because the same
information can be represented in various sensual forms. From this point of view
sensual images are meanings embodied in sensual form, and as meanings they are
integrated in a homogeneous semantic field.
If meanings are pure information, and sensual images are information having
qualitative, spatial and temporal form, mental images (memories, fantasies) are
something intermediate between meanings and sensual images. Mental images are
information only partially embodied in sensual (qualitative, spatial and
temporal) form.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Self
The most common form of unity and interrelation of sensations, sensual images,
mental images and meanings manifest itself as the belonging to unitary "self" or
"subject". From this point of view self is the factor providing unity of
subjective sphere. To explain the nature of self is the same as to explain, what
connects different single experiences in unitary whole, particularly, that
creates a supertemporal wholeness of sequential in time sensual states of our
consciousness.
Two different theories of a self nature exist (and accordingly two ways of
understanding nature of the factor creating unity of consciousness). According
to one of them ("transcendent" theory), self is something, that exists outside
consciousness, but by some not clear way it unites various sensual and
supersensible phenomena and, thus, creates wholeness of consciousness. Here, the
unity of consciousness is a result of "belonging" of various subjective
phenomena to this "transcendent" self. In this case self is a "pure look", in
front of which all various content of our internal life is displayed. As
"transcendent" self is not present directly in our internal mental life, it
displays itself only indirectly, as a condition making possible our knowledge by
creating a unity of our mental life.
However, some difficulties arise when we admit, that self is outside subjective
sphere. As self is only abstract "bearer" of subjective phenomena, totally
distinct from these phenomena, this self is absolutely uncognizable. I can know
that my self exist, but I can't know what is my self and how I am capable to
know about existence of my self. Let's note that absence of direct experience of
own self makes impossible to indicate any criteria of self-identity in time. As
self has no any observable properties, the replacement of "I" /"non-I" is
non-observable in principle, i.e. the loss of self-identity do not lead to any
observable consequences. Thus, the given theory comes to a conclusion, that the
existence of self and its identity in time can be only a subject of irrational
belief and can not be either proved or justified.
According to another ("immanent") theory, self and the subjective sphere is just
the same. My self is my subjective sphere taken in aspect of its integrity,
self-existence, self-perception, self-experience, self-representation. My own
self is totality of all my own experiences. If I experience some image - it
means that I am this image. From this point of view we can have at least partial
(aware, reflective) knowledge about own self, because all knowledge about own
subjective phenomenon is, from this point of view, knowledge about own self.
We noticed above, that both considered components of subjectivity - sensual
phenomena and meanings can be considered as two different forms of knowledge (or
information) existence. The meanings are a "pure knowledge" and images are
knowledge having the sensual form. If self is identical to subjective sphere, it
may be identified with a total knowledge constituting our subjectivity. (Of
course, we have not complete awareness of this knowledge, it's a mainly
non-reflective or "non-conscious itself" knowledge). Since a "transcendent" self
is denied, this knowledge (identical to the self) is "knowledge which knows
itself" (in irreflective form, of course). It is a knowledge which is identical
to its subject and to "I" possessing this knowledge.
The "immanent" theory has obvious advantages, as I think, and I will follow it
further. In particular, this theory allows to solve a problem of temporal
self-identity. But at first we should investigate temporary properties of
subjectivity in general.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Temporal nonlocality
The holistic being of subjective phenomena possesses a defenite certain
"temporal depth". Our actual experiences exist not as infinitely thin "temporal
layer" of being, but as a holistic formation, located within extensive temporal
area, in which sequential in time sensations and images coexist in united
experience. This temporal area is the "extended present".
The temporary depth of our "subjective present" allows us to perceive the
environment in dynamics, to perceive movement directly and other changes in time
as a directly given experienced reality. For direct experiencing movement it is
necessary to grasp in the unitary experience the present, past and future of a
moving object. It is possible only if our subjective "now" is something
extended.
If temporal depth of actual (sensual) experience is relatively not big (no more
than some seconds), the meanings have much more area of temporal nonlocality or
even considered as possessing unlimited temporal nonlocality.
Empirically supertemporal nature of meanings shows itself as ability to grasp
meaning of events, temporal extension of which outstands far the limits of the
sensually experienced present. For example, I am capable of grasping the meaning
of a movie or a book as a whole in the unitary act of my consciousness
experience.
From the theoretical point of view supertemporality of meanings is a consequence
of the described above wholeness of a semantic field, which is not decomposed on
isolated semantic units. As any meaning exists only in a context of the whole
complete system of individual meanings, it is possible only conditionally to
speak about current experience of meaning. In each actual state of consciousness
all individual meanings are presented as a "semantic horizon" (semantic
background), though at each moment in the specific "semantic perspective". The
meanings do not replace one another arising and destroying, but only their
actualization readiness is changed depending on a current state of sensual
experiences.
Let's notice that the idea of supertemporal character of some deepest components
of a human soul is widely presented in various philosophical systems of the
past. According to the Plotinos doctrine, the fundamental components of our soul
are located "in Eternity" and identical to the World Mind. Kant also assumed the
existence of both temporal and supertemporal components of our subjective life.
According to Kant, the subject, as a "thing in itself", is located outside the
phenomenal world, only to which temporal form is applicable, as a priori form of
contemplation. According to A. Bergson, the human memory is direct access to the
past "through the time", instead of storage of traces of the past in the
present. The idea of supertemporal nature of our self was admitted widely in
Russian philosophy (L.M. Lopatin, N.O. Lossky, S.L. Frank).
The problem of temporal nonlocality of subjectivity is closely connected with a
problem of self-identity in time. Indeed, the unique method to be convinced that
my own self at present is the same as it was a year ago, is the direct moving to
the past for comparison of past and present self. Hence, if our intuitive belief
in identity of own self in time has any real basis, our subjectivity should have
ability of direct (through time) access to own past states, that is it has
unlimited temporal nonlocality. The "immanent" theory of self induces us to
search for a source of this nonlocality inside subjective sphere. It is
necessary to find out such non-local in time elements of our subjectivity that
would provide consecutive temporal states of our consciousness with real
comparability. As the sensations, images, volition, emotions are obviously
located in time, only meanings can have such unlimited temporal nonlocality. The
meanings in this case should be understood as the supertemporal relations
between the present, past and future sensual experiences. We must understand the
comparison of actual experience to the past experience, that is the mechanism of
meaning occurring, just as the direct access to the original past sensual states
of consciousness, that is a travel through time to the own subjective past,
instead of trivial comparison of actual experience with actual traces of the
past events. The meaning, from this point of view, is the past present in the
"now". The effect of comprehension is simply an effect of supertemporal unity of
the subjective sphere.
These supertemporal semantic communications connect ("stick together")
consecutive in time sensual states of consciousness and, thus, create what we
name "identity of our self in time". Both "actual" (in given moment of the time)
and temporal integrity of self is a semantic integrity - unity of meaning which
penetrates consecutive in time sensual states of consciousness.
From this point of view self is a subjective sphere considered in aspect of its
supertemporal unity. Our self does not correspond to the current present state
of consciousness, but it corresponds to the whole temporal sequence of such
states, connected by integral meaning. It's incorrect to speak about self as
about something existing "now" or to speak about the current state of self. Self
is beyond of "time stream", it is something "time-embracing" and it includes
subjective "now" only as an element.
Integral meaning connecting consecutive states of consciousness is possible to
define as the real "person". This means that self and person are the same.
Identification of self and real (empirical) person derives, however, the hard
problem. On the one hand, my self is something constant, identical in time, but,
on the other hand, as identical to the person, my self should be changed,
develop. The solving of this problem, as I believe, is an identification of self
with a certain "abstract idea". This means that my self is not only real,
empirical person, but also is all possible (virtual) persons, which should arise
on the basis of given self under various circumstances. Indeed, if I had not
written this article, I should have gone for a walk or read the book and it
would result in some change of my person. But the identity of my self,
apparently, will not be lost. Hence, the identity of self is compatible with
different (but not by everything) variations of the person. If we, taking it
into account, want to save understanding of self as quite certain information
contents, we must admit that all these allowable variations of the person are
initially included in structure of my self. They are located in my self in any
implicit form. Thus, we draw a conclusion, that self is identical not to the
empirical person, but to, probably infinite, stationary structure - to a "bunch"
of the "virtual persons". This "bunch of the virtual person" may be understood
as an abstract idea of a given concrete and indefinitely various in its possible
embodiments, spiritual individuality. Thus, our self exists mainly in the "world
of possibilities" (the world of potencies) and only a small part is present in
the actual, sensual, spatial and temporal world. For this reason we continue to
exist as a same person after coma, sleeping without dreams and other states of
subjective non-existence. In these states we have no any actual life, but we
continue to exist as a pure potency, as a pure spiritual entity capable to new
actualizations.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Qualia
One of the most important formal properties of subjective sphere is a
qualitative character of distinctions between sensual modalities and sensual
experiences inside modality. Let's note, that qualitativeness, (the qualitative
heterogeneity) is only a property of sensual experiences. The meanings are
deprived of qualia. The idea of "red" is not red and the idea of "cold" is not
cold, etc.. The volition and emotional phenomena also, I believe, are deprived
of qualia.
If the meanings are qualitativeless, they can differ from each other obviously
only quantitatively. Hence it is possible to conclude that the semantic
structures can be adequately described as mathematical structures and that
semantic universe (the world of "pure meanings") is the mathematical universe.
This hypothesis, as I believe, is confirmed by a successful computer modeling of
semantics.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. WILL AND EMOTIONS
Such phenomena as acts of will, desire, aspiration, intention, evaluations,
emotional experiences (such as fear, anger, love etc.), ethical and aesthetic
experiences, such mental states as confidence and other similar phenomena as
well as sensations, images and meanings are components of our subjective being.
What ontological status has these phenomena? How do they correspond with other
phenomena of subjective sphere? What is their specificity? It is clear, that
neither the volition, nor the emotional phenomena are identical to any
sensations or images, though they can be accompanied by any specific sensual
experiences. Even pain is not identical to pure pain sensation. It is known that
patients with disfunction of the frontal lobes can feel pain, but even strong
pain does not cause them anxiety or suffering. It is obvious, that something
supersensible joins to pure sensation of pain, when pain become an emotional
experience. The same is possible to assert concerning other emotions as well as
will phenomena. For example, intention can be accompanied with planned actions
image. However, these actions can be imagined without any real intention to
carry out them. Fear is not identical to specific sensations in legs, stomach
and other parts of a body. Thus, the emotions and volition (as well as
evaluations, confidence etc.) are the supersensible phenomena. Can we identify
them with meanings? Or can we assert that it is a pain meaning that joining to
sensation of pain makes it emotional experience?
We have defined meanings as "pure knowledge" (or information). Obviously to know
what pain is and to suffer from pain is not the same. It's not the same to love
and to know what love is, to fear and to know what fear is. Thus, if love, fear,
suffering, desire are meanings, they are highly specific meanings. They express
not only knowledge about any situation (the potencies that this situation has),
but also subject's attitudes to the situation. These attitudes can be identified
with subject's readiness to act in this situation in a certain way. A real will
act is realization of this readiness. Love, fear, desire, rage etc. are distinct
from "pure knowledge" by experience of certain potential readiness to act in
situations which correspond to these mental states in a specific way. This
readiness, however, may be delayed on an indefinite period until some
circumstance take place. Therefore, I can get a fright, i.e. to experience the
readiness to run away, but actually not to run. Some readiness to act may not be
realized at all if it is blocked by some other readiness.
The meanings, into which some readiness to act in a certain way is integrated,
may be named as "personal meanings". My personal meaning of a situation has to
change if I change my readiness to act in a specific way in this situation. But
impersonal, "objective" meaning of situations may include a big set of
alternative allowable behavioural directions. These possible behavioural lines
are important part of "objective" meaning of the situation. The "objective"
meaning becomes the "personal" one, when a person makes a choice of a certain
behavioural direction. The subject may be aware of this choice and may control
it and in this case we have volition. If this choice is not aware and controlled
by the person - we deal with emotion. Thus, the existence of volition and
emotions demands the reduction of "objective" behavioural potencies set to some
single potency. This reduction (or choice) is of great importance for a proper
understanding not only of will and emotions, but for understanding of
individuality nature.
The choice realize depends on our individuality (self), and, on the contrary, we
may say, that our individuality is nothing but the complete system of such
choices, related to endless set of all possible situations. Indeed, if you and I
have equal external and internal situations (equal states of external world and
our bodies) and, in spite of this, we make different choices, it is only our
self that may create this difference. If self and subjectivity are the same,
then our individuality must be determined wholly by specific actual and
potential content of our subjectivity. But this content depends on real and
potential choices that we make, or might make, or will be able to make. Infinite
set of choices potencies of a "behavioural line" in all of possible external and
internal situations are the authentic "source" of our self, that creates a
unique "bunch of virtual person".
Thus, will and emotions are the only "channel" through which our unique
individuality can display itself.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.CONSCIOUSNESS AND EXTERNAL WORLD
Now let's investigate relations between our internal world and external reality.
Firstly the subjectivity was described as something closed in itself, as a sphere
separated from the rest of the world. It is means that I have direct access only
to my own consciousness content, but I have not direct contacts with reality
beyond my consciousness. Moreover, the possibility of access to my consciousness
from outside is denied too. Is this view correct? As philosophical
investigations done during last two hundred years convincingly showed, this view
is not quite correct.
If our consciousness is quite separated from the other world not only "direct
grasping" of external things is impossible, but even any thought about reality
outside our internal being is impossible. Such question as: "does something
exist outside my consciousness?" could not even come into a head to anybody. But
this question comes and has been hotly discussed.
On the other hand, it is obvious, that my self is really separated in some kind
from the rest of the world. For example, my consciousness is separated from
other consciousness - I could not "feel" about what the other people are
thinking now, or what they are seeing or hearing. As our "private being" is not
illusion, but a real fact, we must take it into account.
The acceptable decision of "transcendent object's problem" was found as far back
as Antique philosophy (Plato, Neo-Platonism). In modern philosophy Hegel had the
same opinion. According to this decision the subjective sphere has the
multi-layer structure. Our consciousness is separated from the external world
only on sensual layer, but not separated on semantic layer. This means that we
perceive not the authentic being of external things, but only their subjective
representations (subjective images). On the contrary, our thinking is quite
objective - we think not "own subjective thoughts", but real, authentic things.
Our thinking is not representative and it may be defined as "direct grasping of
external, transsubjective reality". But this "external reality" is not physical,
spatial and temporal world, but it is supersensible world of potencies. This
world is real, but not actual. It has not got qualia or spatial and temporal
properties.
This supersensible transsubjective reality is sphere of "pure thinking" ("Noetic
world"). The elements of this reality are "pure objective meanings", which can
be defined as "objective potencies". This "Noetic world" is a potential
"background" of actual, spatial and temporal world. According to this point of
view, the idea of "transcendent reality" in our mind is identical to this
reality. Not we think about transcendent world, but this world "thinks itself"
in our mind. In this sphere we can possess the universal and apodictical
knowledge, because in this sphere thought and its subject are identical. We have
direct access to this reality in our "pure" mathematical and logical thinking.
(E.Husserl (1962) was one of those modern philosophers, who insisted on transsubjective
status of mathematical and logical entities (see also Popper (1972))).
According to this, a volition is such an element of our subjectivity, which
bridges individual actual (sensual) layer of subjective being with
transsubjective "Noetic world", because it is will, that makes the choice what
potencies (meanings) must be actualized (as a sensual events). Subjective
meanings are the same objective meanings, connected with volitional and
emotional "readiness to act in a certain way" in specific situations. Thus, will
(and emotions) is third (intermediate) layer of subjective being and our self
(individuality) comes into being exactly in this layer.
If this point of view is correct, we must admit that our subjective being is
rooted into transsubjective "Noetic world" and we must take this into account,
when we try to solve the mind-body problem.
------_________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.QUANTUM AND SUBJECTIVE WHOLENESS
Let's return to the analogy of quantum reality and subjective experience. First of all,
we should note that this analogy follows already from the very basis of the double-aspect
theory. Indeed, the double-aspect theory defines subjectivity as "thing-in- itself
", i.e. as a "substratum" of matter or its authentic being, beyond which there
is no other reality, visibility or external manifestation of which would be our
subjective sphere. Hence, if we want to find out physical analogues of the
basic properties of subjective sphere, we should concentrate at the most
fundamental level of matter description, i.e. at such level, "beyond" which
there is no any "deeper", more fundamental reality.
Quantum physics and quantum mechanics just pretend to such status of fundamental
description of matter. It is supposed, that classical physics gives us only
"rough", not exact description of reality, and, thus, it cannot be correlated
with subjectivity directly.
However, can we be sure, that quantum theory really gives us "final", exact and
exhaustive picture of reality? I believe that we have important proofs that here
we really reach such a final description. First of all, the failures of numerous
attempts to give fuller and more exact description of physical reality using
"hidden variables" can be such an argument. "Hidden variables " are such latent
"mechanisms", which, as it is believed, could explain the observable quantum
behaviour, from the point of view of "deeper" level of reality.
As J. von Neumann showed, the impossibility of "hidden variables" introduction
into quantum theory has a character of basic principle. It is impossible to
introduce any "deeper" determinants of quantum behaviour into quantum mechanics
without destroying its mathematical structure and without conflicting with the
observable facts. Recent researches, connected with Bell-inequalities
verification, have confirmed this point of view by excluding, at least,
existence of so-called "local" "hidden variables".
It is clear that the impossibility of "hidden variables" introduction does not
prove "final" character of the quantum description, because there is an
opportunity of the quantum theory replacement by any other theory, based wholly
on different principles. However, if we assume that the "final" theory is
created, obviously, it, should exclude an opportunity of introduction of any
sort of "hidden variables". The quantum mechanics has such property.
It is possible naturally to explain many strange peculiarities of quantum
mechanics (absence of "quantum jumps " "mechanisms", spontaneous of quantum
objects behaviour and other) supposing the "final" character of quantum
description, otherwise we have not any explanation of this peculiarities.
However, the "final" character of quantum description does not mean its absolute
completeness. As we shall see further, the quantum mechanics is not complete, in
some sense, because reality is not exhausted by that " layer of being", which
the quantum mechanics directly describes. "Finality" in such case means only
that, at first, the "gaps", which exist in the quantum description, cannot be
filled, or their filling requires outstanding the limits of applicability of
purely quantitative, mathematical methods of the reality description. This means
that the quantum mechanics is neither complete, nor is "the theory of
everything" and it cannot be made complete with help of traditional ways. We
cannot hope, that by substitution for the Schrodinger's equation or its
analogues for more complex, for example, nonlinear, equation, we should receive
the best approximation of reality. Von Neumann's results show, that the layer,
which quantum mechanics directly describes, is described with maximum
completeness. It means that we must exclude any "hidden mechanisms " or any
"depth", "beyond" that reality which the mathematical formulas of quantum
mechanics directly represents.
Thus, the quantum mechanics, as I believe, describes reality with utmost
completeness, but outside this description yet some irrational "the rest"
remains, which, however, it is impossible to consider as "mechanism" or as
"hidden essence " of quantum objects.
Here we can point out the first analogy of quantum and subjective reality - we find
out in both cases the absence of any "depth" or "mechanisms" which are beyond the
observable phenomena. (The basic methodological principle, to that W. Heisenberg
was guided, when he created "matrix mechanics ", was the requirement to exclude
all non-observable entities from the theory). Like processes in our
consciousness, the quantum processes proceed "spontaneously", i.e. without any
internal "mechanisms".
The idea of existence of a "fundamental" level of the description often is
rejected proceeding from a potency of creation of more fundamental description
of a reality by means of unlimited increasing of sensibility of measurements. By
means of sensibility increasing of measurements, we consecutively "open" more
and more deep "layers" of reality and only necessity of extremely large energy
use to consider small details of matter's structure can put an end to this
progress. It is important, that "opening" of new "layer" of reality, as a rule,
requires essential theory correction.
This circumstance results in the following paradox: on the one hand, we know
that our brain "actually" consists of quarks and leptons and, hence, if the
double-aspect theory is right, we must admit that when we describe our
consciousness experience we simultaneously describe authentic being of these
quarks and leptons. However, on the other hand, we know, that, for example,
quark's structure of matter may be displayed only in high-energy interactions,
which, obviously, are inaccessible to biological systems. Hence, when we
describe properties of our subjective phenomenon - we describe such properties
of brain's matter, which we, as being the biological systems, are not capable to
find out without complex physical devices.
It is possible to solve this paradox, if we take into account dependence of the
existence form of quantum objects on character of measurements. According to
classical (M. Bohrn's) interpretation of quantum state, a quantum object has not
any certain actual being out of measurement, and it exists in this case only as
set of "pure potencies", i.e. as possibilities of detection some certain
observable properties in appropriate measurement. We can not attribute to
quantum object certain (let's even unknown) spin, impulse or coordinate - until
appropriate measurement will be performed. The measurement not simply reveals
preexist characteristics of quantum object, but, on the contrary, it creates
them at the moment of measuring interaction.
Thus, the quark's properties of matter do not show themselves in our actual
experiences, because "measurements" inside brain are such, that do not reveal
these properties and, hence, according to the quantum mechanics ideology, we
must admit that these properties, until appropriate measurement is performed,
are not simply "latent" , but they have not any actual existence at all. They
exist only as "pure potencies" - until the measurement with energy-suitable
parameters will be carried out.
Taking into account this specific quantum principle of "nonexistence (or
existence only as "pure potency") of non-observable" (in particular, the
non-observable properties of quantum objects), it is possible also to explain
the subjective sphere wholeness. From the double-aspect theory follows
paradoxical character of "integrated unity " of subjectivity. Indeed, if physical
is only an "external manifestation" of subjective experience, and if subjectivity
has such form of unity, that it can not be represented as mechanical sum of any
independent parts, it is absolutely incomprehensible how the "grain" (atomic)
structure of the part of our brain, which corresponds to our subjective sphere,
arises. It is possible to explain the absence of matter-like "granularity" in
subjective sphere using conception of "quantum holism" or "individuality" (term
of N. Bohr) of quantum many-particle systems. According to this conception, the
complex (compound) quantum system (such as atom, the molecule and etc.) shows
itself as a unit in all cases, until it come into interaction with such
measuring apparatus that is capable to distinguish its separate elements and to
fix individual properties of these elements.
If such measurements are performed, the quantum many-particle object passes from
"integrated" state to a state "composed of parts" and these states can have
highly different properties. Thus, it is possible, to speak about some sort of
complementarity of the "system-like" and "unit-like" states of quantum objects.
If we accept the principle of " nonexistence of non-observable", we must also
admit that if "measurement" which is carried out inside a brain, is performed in
such a manner, that separate particles, which constitute ("in potentia") the
hypothetical material substratum of subjectivity, do not manifest themselves ("in
actu") as actually separated entities, these substratum (in itself) really does
not exist as "having any parts", but it exists as real wholeness. For this
reason we don't "feel" any atomic "granularity" in our actual subjective experience.
We can suppose that matter substratum of consciousness is a many-particle
quantum system. But if different particles are not observed as really separated
from each other objects, we can not affirm that these particles really exist as
individual, self-identical objects. Thus, "measurement" in a brain must be
performed in such a manner that, though it may reveal complex space-time or
energy structures of a hypothetical quantum substratum of subjective, it must
not identify the contribution of each individual particle to a result of this
"measurement".
Apparently, a sufficient condition of quantum wholeness "disintegration" is such
character of measurement with which an opportunity to identify each particle (or
any sub-set of particles) as separated, self-identical object, which may
interact with external world irrespectively of other particles, arise.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
6.QUANTUM ANALOGUE OF ACTUAL-POTENTIAL STRUCTURE OF SUBJECTIVITY
Sufficiently clear analogy is tracked between described above "actual-potential"
structure of subjectivity and "actual-potential" being of quantum objects. The
latter reveals itself in dualism of quantum states (which are interpreted as a
set of "pure potencies") and quantum observables (which are possible to
understand as actualized potencies).
As far as we have ascertained above the possibility to interpret meanings as
"pure potencies", it would be natural to compare semantic dimension of
subjectivity with quantum states before the measurement (or with non-observed part
of quantum system), while "actual" (sensual) subjective experiences are
naturally correlated with the results of process of actualization of quantum
states in measuring interactions.
Thus, duality of actual experience and meanings corresponds to duality of
quantum observables and quantum states. Quantum observables are congenial to
actual experiences (sensuality) as both exist in a form of "stream of events"
and have certain spatial and temporal properties.
From this point of view wave function (state-vector), as a representation of
quantum potencies, describes supersensible entities congenial to Plato's "ideas"
by its nature. (It describes not only potencies, but also their "readiness to
actualization"). Plato's "ideas" are, in essence, "pure knowledge" existing
without any material substratum. Quantum potencies, as I think, have the same
ontological status. These potencies are identical to our knowledge about quantum
object states. However, this knowledge exists not only in our mind, but also
beyond it, as "objective reality".
The main difference of our approach from traditional Platonism is that we don't
accept "naive" version of this theory, i.e. we don't consider such "ideas" like
Plato's "tableness", "chairness" or "horseness" as objective reality. But we
suppose objective existence of "non-naive" (hidden, non-anthropomorphic) "ideas"
which can be "grasped", as I think, only in scientific (mathematical) knowledge.
As we shall see further, these "ideas" can be identified with the senses of
mathematical formulas of contemporary physical theories.
The role of such "non-naive" "ideas" matches most quantum "waves of probability"
described by wave function. Indeed, "quantum waves" are really something
"supersensible" (it's impossible to "see" or directly register them), these
waves, as we shall see further, are not localized in space and time and they
appear only as theoretical constructions (i.e. they exist as "noumenal"
reality). Nevertheless, quantum waves are not only our mental constructions.
They exist in external world as something real, ontologically available.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. QUANTUM AND SUBJECTIVE TEMPORAL NON-LOCALITY
The important property of subjectivity is temporal non-locality of subjective
being. This property is often considered as the reason for refusal from any
comparisons of matter and subjective experience. Indeed, we may describe changing of
atomic states taking into account such time intervals as 10-23 sec. (for processes
inside atomic nucleus). On the contrary, in our sensual subjective experience
the minimal time interval, which we yet are able to "feel" directly - is about
10-1 sec. If subjective experience is "internal being" of matter, and if matter can have
real dynamics on time intervals, much less then these we are able to
distinguish, the question arises: why don't we "feel" micro-time dynamics of our
subjective states? If matter is only "external manifestation" of subjective
being, the micro-time dynamics of physical states of our brain (or such part of
brain that directly corresponds to subjectivity) can exist only as "projection" or
"manifestation" of micro-time dynamics of subjective states. But we don't
experience such dynamics. Thus, we should draw a conclusion that our
subjectivity and matter exist in different temporal scales and, thus, we can not
acknowledge matter should be considered as "external manifestation" of
subjectivity.
We can solve this paradox without refusing of double-aspect theory, taking into
account the above offered interpretation of actual subjective experiences as
observable part of some quantum system. If actual (sensual) experiences
correspond to results of measurements, the properties of these experiences
should correspond to some parameters of measurement procedure, i.e. these
properties should depend on what and with what preciseness quantum objects are
measured. Taking this into account, it is possible to draw a conclusion that if
we do not get any information about changing of quantum object states, we can
not assert that some real changing or "current of events" in this object takes
place.
We can get any information about changing of quantum state only if we perform
the measurement. Therefore, it would be natural to assume that if measurement is
not performed at all, the internal "current of time" (states dynamics) is
completely absent. If the measurement is carried out with period T, this period
determines such temporal interval, inside which all successive subjective events
are experienced simultaneously. Thus, this interval set the scale of subjective
"now". It means that an interval doesn't exist for a subject, if it is smaller
then T. In general, we may correspond to the scale of subjective "now" the
preciseness of time interval's measurements (resolution time), which are
performed in our brain. If our brain can not distinguish time intervals smaller
then T, we won't be able to any experience temporal intervals of such kind.
If preciseness of time intervals measurement in our brain is changed, the
temporal scale of our subjective experience should be changed too. Thus, this
model allows us to explain such subjective phenomenon as difference in scale of
subjective "now" in different sensual modalities or varying of subjective "time
current" speed (that occur in pathology).
Someone may object to me and note that quantum mechanics allows us to describe
changes of quantum states on infinitesimal time intervals without any reference
to measurements, since state-vector continuously depends on time variable.
If we accept, that wave function describes only "pure potencies", i.e.
probabilities to get some results of measurement in a certain moment of time, if
the measurement is really performed at this moment, we should also accept that
time dynamics of wave function is not a real process of changing of any actual
entities, but only redistribution of potencies, which have existence only
relative to measurement. This redistribution does not "occur" at certain moments
of time and it can not be localized in space and time continuums. As we shall
see further, time variable "t", on which wave function depends, describes not
the time that we directly experience in our consciousness as "stream of events",
but it describes non-temporal entity that philosophers name "Eternity" - fixed,
space-like, dispossessed of becoming, supersensible "prototype" of subjective
"flowing" time. "Eternity" is quasi-temporal modus of being in which meanings
dwell.
As some quantum experiments show (Costa de Beauregard (1977)), the "internal"
time of quantum objects (temporal extent between measurements) radically differs
from "external" time in which quantum object shows itself in observer's subjective
experience.
In particular, as experiments with "delayed choice" show us, quantum particles may
have "pre-cognition" concerning the character of a future measurement and change
its behaviour beforehand according to this "pre-cognition". We can explain these
results if we accept that there are no any actual "changing of states" in time
intervals between measurements. Non-observed quantum object has not any temporal
dynamics that we may imagine as irreversible replacement of each actual state by
the following one. Consecutive states coexist, "feel" each other and are capable
to influence each other both in direct and in the reverse temporal order. For
this quantum object there are not divisions of temporal extent on the past, the
present and the future. Only the extended the present exists, which embraces
everything taking place between measurements.
Thus, we may accept that unobservable quantum "processes" which take place
between preparation of initial quantum state and measurement have only imaginary
character. There is no any real movement, even of potencies, in this interval.
That actually takes place is direct supertemporal communication between
observable events connected with both the preparation of a initial state and the
measurement of a final state.
These conclusions confirm our thesis that meanings, being correlates of an
unobservable part of quantum system, exist as supertemporal communications
between the present, the past and the future subjective events (which correspond
to results of measurement). From this follows that it is possible to identify
human memory content with "quantum information" which quantum states can store
in potential form.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
8.QUANTUM DESCRIPTION AND QUALIA
One more subjective property which apparently distinguishes subjective being
from matter is a qualia. Let's emphasize, that only sensual phenomenon (such as
sensations, images) has qualia. Representations can be deprived of some part of
qualia. The meanings are utterly deprived of qualia. Above we connected the
distinctions between sensual experience and meanings with measurement.
Measurement "transform" supersensible meanings into sensual form connecting
"pure" information with sensual qualia and giving them certain spatial and
temporal properties.
Taking this into account, now we can give an answer to the question: why is
matter represented as something unqualitative ("pure extent", according to
Descartes) from the physical point of view, whereas in our subjective experience
matter (of brain), on the contrary, demonstrates diversity of modal specific
sensual qualia (according to double-aspect solution of mind-body problem).
In quantum case, unqualitativeness of matter manifests in that the basic
equation of quantum mechanics - Schrodinger equation, as well as its
relativistic analogs, comprises the minimum of qualitatively heterogeneous
parameters (spatial coordinates, time, the mass). The implementation of program
of reducing physics to geometry, can reduce these parameters only to special and
temporal coordinates. But even if it will not happen, it is obvious, that
physical "qualia" known now are not sufficient to explain all the spectrum of
sensual qualia.
Let's notice further, that the Schrodinger equation describes only state-vector
evolution and, therefore, it describes only evolution of "pure potencies", i.e.
according to our conception, in brain's case, it describes only semantic
component of our subjectivity, which is also unqualitative and can be
interpreted as "pure information" deprived of any sensual, spatial and temporal
properties. Only actual (sensual) components of subjective experience have qualia.
But these components we have connected with the process of measurement , which not
described by Schrodinger equation (as von Neumann has shown).
Thus, unqualitativeness of physical description is possible to explain
proceeding from the fact that physics can "grasp" only "supersensible"
(semantic, potential) components of being, and doesn't provide us with any
description on that unique process (actualization, measurement) which just
creates qualia and other forms of sensual representation of information.
According to this, it becomes clear why all attempts to create the mathematical
description of measurement in quantum mechanics were so unsuccessful. It is
impossible to do in principle - by virtue of qualitative, irreducible to pure
quantitative description nature of actualization and actual being. Hence, the
description of the world can not be completely mathematized, i.e. reduced to
some fundamental set of equations.
Next question arises: what are "physical correlates" of distinctions between
sensual modalities and sensual qualia inside sensual modalities. As we
correspond sensual experience to measurement, it is natural to suppose that
intermodal and intramodal qualitative distinctions depend on distinction in
methods of measurement implementation.
At least, it is clear, that a close connection between qualia and parameters of
measurement should exist: qualia should correspond to "classification states" of
measuring device (in our brain). (If qualia do not correspond to such
"classification states", it is obvious, that we could not just speak about
qualia - because any information about our subjective states can be accessible
for external observers only by means of measurements, which our brain performs
at quantum substratum of consciousness). We can suppose that qualia arise in our
brain when measurement gives information about distinctions between states of
this quantum substratum, but it can not give quantitative characteristic of
these distinctions. This means that qualitative character of experience
corresponds to the loss in the process of measurement information about
quantitative distinctions of quantum states of hypothetical physical substratum
of our consciousness. Indeed, if there are no quantitative distinctions, we
inevitably get qualitative distinctions. According to principle of "non-existing
of non-observable", if quantitative distinctions do not display themselves in
measurement, they don't exist at all (in actual being), but, nevertheless,
qualitative distinctions can exist.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. INDIVIDUALITY. "NOETIC" WORLD AND SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM
If we want to prolong analogy of physical world and subjective experience, an
interpretation of phenomenon of individuality the next step should be.
The world of subjective being is not a homogeneous unity. On the contrary it is
divided in to the separate units. Each of these units is a unique individuality (self).
What can correspond to our individuality in the physical world? On the surface - nothing.
We know that in classical mechanics there are not any criteria allowing us to
dismember the world into separated "objects" or "systems". The physical world
seems to be completely deprived of such quality as "individuality". Quantum
mechanics only aggravates this situation. According to quantum theory all the
same-sort particles are absolutely identical and if they cannot be distinguished
even from the point of view of their position in space, these particles lose any
individuality and self-identity.
Maybe we made an error having put into correspondence the physical world and
individual subjectivity? Above we have drawn a conclusion that our subjective
being is rooted in transsubjective reality ("Noetic" world). Maybe it's
necessary to identify the physical world with this transsubjective reality?
In order to find place of subjective and transsubjective reality it is necessary
to take into account not only quantum mechanics, but also theory of relativity.
Let's try to answer the question: what properties of objective reality
correspond to rather paradoxical statements of theory of relativity? The basic
postulates of special and general theory of relativity: persistence of light
speed, postulate of general covariance - result, as it is known, in the
conclusion that it is impossible to define basic geometrical, cinematic and
dynamic characteristics of physical objects irrespective of observer. It is
impossible to define such parameters as distance, length, speed, simultaneity of
events, mass, temporal intervals as identical for all observers in the Universe.
All these parameters depend on a observer's choice of reference system. In other
worlds, theory of relativity asserts that it's senseless to put a question: how
actually object is moving, what its true sizes are, what true distance is
between objects, what event actually had taken place earlier and what later. Thus,
the opportunity for creation of such spatial and temporal description
of the world, that is independent of reference system choice, is absolutely
excluded. The world is viewed as disintegrated into a set of equivalent spatial
and temporal "pictures" representing the Universe in different ways.
However, on the other hand, theory of relativity allows us to get invariant,
deprived of any references to observer's reference system, description of the
Universe. We can get such kind of "objective" description under condition of
refusing separated descriptions of spatial and temporal parameters of events.
Instead of it, we must use the space-time intervals as unified invariant
characteristic of relations between events. This interval is described
mathematically as a quadratic form of spatial and temporal coordinates of events
(in special theory of relativity) and it doesn't depend on the referent system
choice.
Using space-time intervals we can describe all events in the Universe as points
of unified 4-demensional continuum (so-called "Minkowski space").
So, there are two different methods of Universe description originated from the
theory of relativity. The first one is a "dynamic", spatial and temporal
description, which represents the world as a disintegrated set of equivalent,
but not identical "subjective" pictures. The second one is a "static"
description, which, on the contrary, allows us to consider the Universe from
unified, objective point of view - as integrated system of events, put in order
by space-time intervals.
My main idea is that these two descriptions are not two different forms of
representation of the same reality, but they are descriptions of two different
heterogeneous "layers" or "levels" of being. The first "level" (spatial and
temporal being) corresponds to the "actual" reality, which is given to us by
means of our sensual experience. The second "level" (space-time continuum)
corresponds to the transsubjective "ideal" (supersensible) reality, which we
have named "Noetic world".
What is the main distinction between "actual" (sensual) and "Noetic" levels of
being? We saw that on the level of "actual" being there is no unified
(independent on the choice of reference system) spatial and temporal
specification of events. From my point of view, it means, that on this "level"
of being there are no any "objective" or "common" for everybody space and time.
Space and time exist on this "level" only subjectively - as subjective spatial
and temporal experiences, and these experiences can differ for different
observers. According to this view, "actual" being is disintegrated into a set of
separated from each other "individuums", like Leibnitz's "monads". "Actual"
space and time exist only inside these "monads" (as "sensual" space and time)
and there are no any space and time beyond them.
On the contrary, in "Noetic world" there are no any "monads" or "individuums".
Only unified, transsubjective space-time continuum exists on this "level" of
being.
It is clear, that "noetic" space-time and "sensual" space and time are quite
different objects. It is so, because in "Noetic world" space and time are
closely connected, whereas "sensual" space is quite different from "sensual"
time. Moreover, "sensual" time has such fundamental property as "becoming". It
"flows" and, besides that, it is disintegrated into the present, the past and
the future (only the present time has perfect being). Whereas, "Noetic world"
has neither becoming, nor any difference between the present, the past and the
future. As "noetic" time can be "mixed" with space (as theory of relativity has
shown) it should be space-like entity, i.e. should exist as fixed, deprived of
becoming, quasi-spatial extent. Thus, "Noetic world" is, in essence, timeless
world. It exists not in time, but in "Eternity".
In spite of ontological heterogeneous character of "noetic" space-time and
"sensual" space and time, they are closely connected. (Otherwise, Mincowski's
geometry would not allow us to make any conclusions about "sensual" reality,
i.e. theory of relativity would not have any practical value).
In order to understand the mechanism of connection between "noetic" and
"sensual" worlds, it is necessary again to take into account the quantum theory.
The world which Mincowski's geometry directly describes, is, simultaneously, the
world which is described by mathematical formulas of quantum mechanics. Indeed,
more complete and exact description of physical reality is given to us by the
relativistic quantum theory. This theory unites the principles of quantum
mechanics and special relativity theory (there is no satisfactory synthesis of
quantum mechanics and general relativity theory). But it is possible to unite
these two theories without any contradictions, only if they describe the same
reality. Thus, "Noetic world" is not only "Minkowski space", but it is also the
world described by relativistic quantum theory. But quantum mechanics, in both
non-relativistic and relativistic cases, describes not actual events, but only
potencies of events, which may be "transformed" into actual events by means of
measurement. Measurement, already, does not belong to "Noetic world". In
particular, non-covariancy of state-vector collapse confirms it. Non-covariancy
of collapse shows us that actualization is the process that occurs outside of
"Minkowski space". This process occurs somewhere on a "joint" of "noetic" and
"sensual" being. According to this, we can understand "quantum jumps" as
transitions between two different "levels" of being.
Taking into account quantum mechanics, we can explain the nature of "Noetic
world" and the character of its connection with "sensual" being. "Noetic world"
is the world of "sensual" world's events potencies. From this point of view,
space-time continuum is united potency of "sensual" (subjective) space and time,
i.e. it is, in essence, nontemporal and nonspatial supersensible "law" ruling
the events in subjective space and time of each separated subject.
The connection of "noetic" and "sensual" is the connection between potential and
actual (supersensible law and phenomenon, subordinated to this law).
Taking into account that "Noetic world" manifests itself in personal subjective
being as a certain meaning (an idea of transcendent reality) it is also
possible to say that space-time continuum is a unified "idea" (logos) of sensual
space and time.
To illustrate ontologically heterogeneous character of "noetic" space-time and
"sensual" space and time we may use a "computer" metaphor. It is possible to
present "Noetic world" as computer program and "sensual" world as a set
of displays on which certain mobile objects are represented. Moving of
these objects in each display is controlled by that program. This moving takes
place in "internal" space and time of each display and this moving is controlled
by some combination of binary digits, which the program (common for all
displays) contains. It is obvious, that "binary digits" have a nature quite
different from visible moving on display. Analogously the "sensual" space and
time are quite different from "noetic" space-time continuum.
This "two-level" model of being helps us to understand why "scientific picture
of the world" differs so strongly from the world we directly perceive. When we
search the world we try to discover the main "laws" of nature. But these "laws"
are not the part of "sensual" being, that we can directly perceive. It is
necessary to search the "program" controling "streams of events" on "sensual"
being level. But this "program" is ontologically quite different from the
"sensual" reality. Therefore, "scientific picture of the world" can not be
isomorphic to "empirical world" - and this really takes place. As a result, we
must put into our theory additional postulates (such as reduction of wave
function postulate), if we want to use them in practice.
Now, we are quite ready to answer the question about a place of subjective and
transsubjective being in a physical picture of the world. We have seen, that
individuality (private being) as well as qualia arises only in connection with
measurement. Hence, if we deprived physical picture of the world of any
reference to measurements (state-vector collapse) we should received the
description of a trassubjective world. It should be the world, which we could
describe by single wave function, i.e. the world lacking of any separate
"actual" parts.
To pass from "noetic" transsubjective reality to "sensual" world, having
self-identical "individual" parts, it is necessary to take into account
measurements. Indeed, if quantum object is observed, it, obviously, receives
an individuality in this case - we can observe it as self-identical separated
object. Therefore, an individuality "is created" in the process of measurement.
If quantum potencies correspond to meanings (subjective meanings - if we take
into account the results of previous measurements, and transsubjective ones - in
the opposite case) and if quantum observiables correspond to sensual experience,
the very "mechanism" of state-vector collapse should correspond to volitional
and emotional sphere of subjective being. Our will is free so far as the
processes of transition from potential being to actual are not completely
controlled by external physical conditions, i.e. by virtue of existence of such
phenomenon as "quantum spontaneity". Thus, our unique individuality may be
defined as a set of "hidden reasons" determining character of behaviour of
quantum object in each particular case of an alternative choice between
different quantum histories. Unique character of our self (its "aseity")
manifests itself, according to our model, as such behaviour of quantum system,
that is impossible to characterize with the help of some certain rules or
general norms, except the probabilistic norms. Probabilistic character of
information about future behaviour of quantum objects coud be explained by this
approach.
Does it mean that we come back to the concept of "hidden variables", which we
had earlier rejected? It doesn't mean that. Usually, the theories with "hidden
variables" are considered as an alternative of the standard quantum mechanical
description. It's supposed, that standard quantum mechanics gives us only
surface, phenomenological description of physical processes, that can be
understood more adequately only if we take into account "hidden variables". I
think, there are no reasons to doubt about completeness and, moreover, "final"
character of the quantum mechanical description. From this point of view,
quantum mechanics gives final, complete and exhaustive description of the
"layer of being" corresponds to transsubjective "noetic" reality. It is not
complete only in the sense, that this "noetic being layer" - is not the whole
being. There are other "layers of being", which can not be described by
mathematical formulas of quantum mechanics. Thus, "hidden reasons", which have
arisen as correlate to our unique self, are not such entities helping to us get
new interpretation of quantum mechanics. They are introduced in addition to
quantum mechanics for the purpose of explaining real behaviour of quantum
objects, which has no an adequate and complete explanation in standard quantum
theory.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
10. ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
In previous paragraphs we have constructed a general model of being following
from both analysis of human subjectivity and searching analogy of physical reality and
subjective experience. In this model being is represented as "many-layer" structure
including in addition to spatial and temporal, qualitatively certain "actual"
level of being (on this level being is disintegrated into a set of separated
from each other individuums, which have own internal or private existence), as
well as the "Noetic world" - transsubjective being, deprived of sensual space,
time and qualia.
Essential problem arises here in connection with our previous assumption that it
is measurement that creates actualization and actual being. However, measurement
assumes existence of the subject-observer. Does it mean, that our explanation of
subjective experience via measurement is a sort of "arguing in a circle"? If we take von
Neumann's theory of measurement as a basis, in which important role of
observer's consciousness is really assumed, such "arguing in a circle" actually
takes place.
However, from philosophical point of view "arguing in a circle" is not a reason
for rejecting any conceptions. In our case, this sort of arguing points only to
substantionality of subjective being. Subjective being has, from my point of
view, "aseity", i.e. it is self-existent, self-created sort of being. From this
point of view, subjectivity cannot be explained without self-reference, i.e.
"arguing in a circle".
However, if subjectivity as we suppose, constitutes the basis for not only human
consciousness, but also is present (in unconscious form) in inanimate nature
(particularly, in a measuring apparatus), we can explain actualization without
reference to consciousness of observer. It is possible to assume, that
state-vector collapse occurs not in human subjectivity, but in a subjectivity of
measuring apparatus. If it's true, we can speak about "actualization" in all
cases, when an irreversible "flow" of information from one subjective sphere to
another takes place, irrespective of whether these subjective spheres are aware
of this information.
According to this, it is possible to assume that actualization takes place each
time when the quantum system interacts with a nonequilibrium environment in such
a way, that as a result "imprinting" of some information about a state of this
quantum system occurs. (This point of view is confirmed by the fact that
state-vector collapse takes place even if information about quantum object has
been taken, and then is lost, i.e. it not having reached human-observer
consciousness) .
As being in our ontological model is dual (consists of two diverse components -
actual and potential), our knowledge must be dual too. Our knowledge about
"actual" reality (i.e. "sensual" knowledge) has representative character. A
sensual image is not identical to its prototype (object) and sensual qualia do
not coincide with "objective" qualities. There is only the structural similarity
(isomorphism-like relations) between them.
Vice-versa, knowledge of noetic transsubjective reality has, apparently, a form
of direct identity of thought (idea) and its object. On the one hand, it is
possible, already, by virtue of the same ontological status of the "Noetic
world" and personal meanings. Both may be defined as "pure potencies" or as pure
knowledge, deprived of any form of representation. Isomorphism in this case
means absolute identity. On the other hand, by virtue of Leibnitz's principle of
indiscernible identity, that is exactly usable just in the "Noetic world" (as it
is deprived of space and time), if two entities are identical, they are not two
entities, but one entity, taken two times. Therefore, it is necessary to admit,
that we are not only capable of creating ideas, that are identical to (noetic)
objects, but noetic entities are capable of being presented directly in our
subjective sphere as subjective-transsubjective phenomena (i.e. these entities,
existing as subjective phenomena, exist as transsubjective phenomena
simultaneously). When I try to think over of noetic object, such as number,
function, etc., this object "enters" into me and "thinks itself" inside me,
remaining, simultaneously, an objective reality (i.e. it exists simultaneously
outside and inside me). It is the phenomenon that is called "intellectual
intuition", which Plotinos defined as "absolute knowledge, based on identity of
knowing mind and knowable object".
Thus, the conception of "absolute truth" revives here, and this absolute truth
is considered not only as something quite achievable, but it is supposed that
this "absolute truth" has been already achieved in modern physical knowledge.
Let's note, first of all, that accessibility of "absolute truth" demands with
necessity the correct theory to be unique and to describe some certain fragment
of reality. We can not speak about "absolute truth", if there are several
non-isomorphic, consistent theories which describe and explain all known facts
with equal success. In this case the choice of the "true" theory is possible
only as a result of agreement between scientists.
Let's emphasize the circumstance, that the non-isomorphic mathematical
descriptions of one and the same fragment of reality, compatible with all known
facts,apparently, can differ one from another only in description of
unobservable (hidden) mechanisms ruling the observable phenomena. However,
exactly the concept of hidden mechanisms was eliminated in modern physical
theories. The revolution in 20th century's physics was connected with
realization of idea of elimination of all non-observable entities from the
theory. So, relativity theory excluded from the theory such non-observable
entities, as absolute space and time, absolute simultaneity, absolute mass, etc.
It was shown, that these entities can not be returned back into physical
theories. It looked as though the being "resisted" to introduction of any hidden
reality.
Similarly, quantum mechanics excluded from the theory non-observable
coordinates, trajectories, impulses and other characteristics. Unique
"mechanism" that controls behaviour of quantum object is probability wave's
dynamics (dynamics of potencies). But we cannot consider potencies as something
"hidden". All potencies show themselves in actualization exhaustively. Thus,
basic principles of quantum mechanics and theory of relativity do not exclude an
opportunity of absolute identity of their mathematical formulas and objective
reality.
From this point of view the "correct theory" of electron and "real" electron are
the same, i.e. electron is a "correct" theory of electron that exists both
outside and inside of our minds. The question: "what is "behind" the
mathematical formulas of physics?" has an answer: "nothing". Being and thinking
on this level of being are identical. Thus, we may eliminate large part of
paradoxes of relativity theory and quantum mechanics - since these paradoxes
arise when we put the question: " what is "behind" mathematics?"
It is also clear why physical theories are deprived of any "picture-like"
representations. Being in physical theories, is a "noetic" one and it has not
any sensual definiteness and, hence, it cannot be represented as picture-like
image in principle. So, we can draw a conclusion that the principle of
accessibility of "absolute truth" can serve as heuristic methodological
principle which can help to search correct the "final" physical picture of the
world. We can conclude that "final" theory ( "Theory of Everything") should
systematically exclude any "hidden" reality, "hidden mechanisms" or "implicit"
order". It should also exclude an opportunity of infinite growth of our
knowledge (for example, by excluding an opportunity to perform more and more
exact measurements). It should be logically noncompletable and exclude
opportunity of any "visual representations" of physical entities. Such
properties, as I think, contemporary physical theories already have (partly).
It is possible to explain many mysterious properties of physical objects by
assuming a "final" character of knowledge that these theories contain. Any
"final" descriptions of reality, if they have a status of "absolute truth",
should a priori have such peculiarities, which take place in a case of quantum
mechanics and relativity theory.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
The main distinction of our approach to the "quantum foundations of
consciousness" from other similar theories is its "monistic" character. Quantum
models of consciousness offered by such authors as D. Bohm, H. P. Stapp, R.
Penrose, E.H. Walker and many other similar models are founded on dualistic
ontological basis. These authors try to use quantum theory for proving the idea,
that consciousness is a necessary component of physical reality, another
component of which is a non-animated matter. The idea prevails, that
consciousness comes into material world only through "quantum jumps" between
different quantum histories (i.e. it corresponds to state-vector collapses).
For example, according Stapp (1993, 1996), the inner or mental aspects of
mind/brain system correlate with actual events (quantum jumps between high-level
(macroscopic or classical) branches of brain quantum state), and material aspect
of mind/brain system correlate with the "objective tendencies" (quantum
potencies), i.e. consciousness corresponds to quantum events, and matter (of
brain) corresponds to quantum states. Thus, only actual being has dual
mental-material structure. ("The physical and mental events can be regarded as
two aspects of the same event-like reality" (Stapp (1996)).Potential being has not any
mental property. According to this theory, we may conclude that single function
of consciousness is a free choice between different high-level brain quantum
states that may correspond to different states of mind or to different behaviour
directions.
The main lack of this theory is its "mystical" character. It requires goes
beyond standard scientific methods for searching of consciousness. Indeed, we
have no scientific methods for explanation of "quantum jumps" and, if the latter
corresponds to consciousness, we have not any explanation of conscious functions
too. (According to Penrose (1993) , consciousness corresponds to quantum
noncomputable dynamics in human brain. That means that we can not use methods of
computer science for searching of function of our consciousness).
According to our approach, matter, as something quite different from subjectivity,
is completely eliminated. There are not only quantum events that may correlate
with "actual" subjective states. Quantum potencies have subjective correlates
too. They correspond both to personal (if they are connected to other subjective
phenomena) meanings and to transsubjective ones (beyond this connection).
Third group of subjective phenomena - will and emotions, correspond to the very
"mechanism" of actualization which bridges actual (sensual) and potential
("noetic") components of being.
Our unique "selfhood" may correspond to "hidden reasons" which are determinants
of unique (noncomputable) choices between different possible quantum histories.
The greatest advantage of this approach is that it allows us to search
consciousness in framework of contemporary science methods. We may, for example,
propose that consciousness corresponds to the some sort of quantum computer,
that is localized in our brain. This proposition allows us to use theory of
quantum computations for explanation of the huge computational power of our
brain and, besides, we can try to use analogy with quantum computer for
explanation of some peculiarities of our subjective experience.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Walker, E.H. (1970) The Nature of Consciousness, Mathematical Biosciences,
7, pp. 131-178.
Bohm, D. (1983) Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London, UC.
Penrose, R. (1989) The Emperor's New Mind, London, UC.
Penrose, R. (1993) Shadows of the Mind, London, UC.
Stapp, H.P. (1996) Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate
Consciousness bat Quantum Mechanics Can, Psyche, 2 (21).
Stapp, H.P. (1993) Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics, Berlin, GFR.
Globus, G. (1996) Quantum Consciousness is Cybernetic, Psyche, ? 2 (21).
Hameroff, S., Penrose, R. (1996) Orchestrated Reduction of Quantum Coherence
in Brain Microtubules : A Model of Consciousness, Toward a Science of
Consciousness. The First Tucson Discussions and Debates, Tucson, USA.
Hameroff, S. (1994) Quantum coherence in microtubules: A Neural Basis of
Emergent Consciousness, J. of Consciousness Studies, ? 1, pp. 91-118.
Toward a Science of Consciousness. The First Tucson Discussions and
Debates. Tucson, 1996.
Riccardi, L.M., Umezawa, H. (1967) Brain and Physics of Mand-BodyProblems,
Cybernetic, 1967.Vol 4, ? 44.
Jibu, M., Yasue, H. (1993) Intracellular Quantum Signal Transfer in
Umezawa's Quantum Brain Dynamics, Cybernetics and Systems, ? 24, pp.1-7.
Wigner, E.P. (1983) Remarks on Mind-Body Problem, Quantum Theory and
Measurement, Prinsceton, USA, pp. 168-181.
Sarfatti, J.(1996) Is Consciousness a Violation of Quantum Mechanics,
Toward a Science of Consciousness. The First Tucson Discussions and Debates,
Tucson, USA.
Husserl, E. (1962) Ideas. General Introduction to Phenomenology, N.Y., USA.
Popper, K.R. (1972) Objective Knowledge. Oxford, UC.
Costa de Beauregard, O. (1977) Time Symmetry and the Einstein Paradox. 1,
Novo cimento, Vol. B 42, ? 1, pp. 41-64.; (1979) Vol. B 51, ? 2, pp. 267-279.