Consciousness and Materialism

[Travis Clementsmith]

This is sort of an offshoot from the nonduality thread. We were discussing how consciousness can arise from pure materialism. This got me thinking, "What are the properties of materialism?" I then remembered an old book I had read, The Self-Aware Universe. Amit Goswami, PhD in physics, said the properties of material realism are:

1. Strong objectivity - objects are independent and separate from the mind (or consciousness)

2. Causal determinism - all motion can be predicted exactly given the laws of motion and the initial conditions of the objects

3. Locality - all objects must travel through space one bit at a time with finite velocity

4. Physical monism - all things in the world, including mind and consciousness, are made of matter (and of such generalizations of matter as energy and force fields)

5. Epiphenomenalism - all mental phenomena can be explained as secondary phenomena, reduced to antecedent physical conditions

As many of you may know, these principles are heavily reliant on the Newtonian-Cartesian worldview, a view that was transcended by the development of quantum mechanics.

Yet, when we talk about consciousness in debates between materialists and idealists, materialists often go back and forth in their reliance of the above five to prove their point, even though quantum theory leaves them on shaky ground to maintain. In the quantum view, awareness is an integral ingredient, collapsing wave potentials into a viewable reality.

I bring this up not to champion monistic idealism, but to challenge materialists on where modern materialism stands. Do all five of the above still color the majority of your defenses on consciousness? Have you replaced them with quantum (or other) qualities? Are you vigilant so as not to fall back to Newtonian-Cartesian defenses because they are simpler to understand. What is the modern materialst's best explanation of consciousness and does that explanation provide for a distinction between types of consciousness as well as "awareness" or "witnessing"?

-TC

[metis]

When it comes to quantum mechanics, the final verdict is not in yet. Yes, there is definitely some evidence that q.m. is part of the laws of physics, but exactly how the viewer interrelates with the viewed is still very unclear. So, with that in mind, I'm unwilling to go out on a limb and state exactly how consciousness and materialism interrelate.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the laws of physics are more complex than most physicists originally thought and, as Gandhi often said, the truth is rarely simple.

[modus_tollens]

Originally Posted by Travis Clementsmith

As many of you may know, these principles are heavily reliant on the Newtonian-Cartesian worldview, a view that was transcended by the development of quantum mechanics.

Yet, when we talk about consciousness in debates between materialists and idealists, materialists often go back and forth in their reliance of the above five to prove their point, even though quantum theory leaves them on shaky ground to maintain. In the quantum view, awareness is an integral ingredient, collapsing wave potentials into a viewable reality.

This article might be of interest.

[quant-ph/9907009] The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes

abstract:

Based on a calculation of neural decoherence rates, we argue that that the degrees of freedom of the human brain that relate to cognitive processes should be thought of as a classical rather than quantum system, i.e., that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current classical approach to neural network simulations. We find that the decoherence timescales ~10^{-13}-10^{-20} seconds are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales (~0.001-0.1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagreeswith suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.

[Lightkeeper]

If we are using QM and everything is energy, why would we be discussing materialism?

[Travis Clementsmith]

Originally Posted by modus_tollens

This article might be of interest.

[quant-ph/9907009] The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes

abstract:

Seems like a "Yeah, but..." argument to me. Can we predict the path of the moon using classical calcultions? Sure. Is that what is actually happening? No. But, I think we can argue that the implications are much greater for a brain using QM principles, than a large rock in orbit. So it seems to me, a means of trying to not get pinned down to classical shortcomming, like we should just ignore them for the sake of the argument. Here are those shortcommings as Goswami relates them:

1. Strong objectivity. A basic assumption that the materialist makes is that there is an objective material universe out there, on that is independent of us. This assumption has some obvious opertional validity, and it is often assumed to be necessary to conduct science meaningfully. Is the assumption really valid? The lesson of quantum physics is that we choose which aspect - wave or particle - a quantum object is going to reveal in a given situation. Moreover, our observation collapses the quntum wave packet to a localized particle. Subjects and objects are inextricably blended together. If subjects and objects mesh this way, how cn we uphold the assumption of strong objectivity?

2. Causal determinism. Another assumption of the classical scientist that lends credence to material realism is that the world is fundamentally deterministic - and all we have to know are the forces acting on each object and the initial conditions (the initial velocity and position of the object). The quantum uncertainty principle, however, says that we can never determine both an object's velocity and it's position simultaneously with absolute accuracy. There will always be error in ourknowledge of the initial conditions, and strict determinism does not prevail. The idea of causality itself is even suspect. Since the behavior of quantum objects is probalistic, a strict cuse-effect description of the behavior of a single object is impossible. Instead, we have statistical cause and statistical effect when tlking about large groups of particles.

3. Locality. The assumption of locality - tht all interactions between material objects are mediated between local signals - is crucial to the materialistic view tht objects exist essentially independent and separate from one another. If, however, waves spread over vast distances and then instantly collapse when we take measurements, then the influence of our measurement is not travelling locally. Thus locality is ruled out. This is another fatal blow to material realism.

4. & 5. Materialism and epiphenomenalism. The materialist maintains that subjective mental phenomena are but epiphenomena of matter. They can be reduced to material brain stuff alone. In order to understand the behavior of quantum objects, however, we seem to need to inject consciousness - our ability to choose - according to the complimentary principle and the idea of subject-object mixing. Moreover, it seems absurd that an epiphenomenon of matter can affect matter: If consciousness is an epiphenomenon, how can it collapse the spread-out wave of a quantum object to a localized particle when it takes a quantum measurement?

-TC

[metis]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

If we are using QM and everything is energy, why would we be discussing materialism?

Because all material is made up of energy. Even though we may divide up energy and material, it's at least somewhat of an arbitrary division. IOW, all material is composed of energy, but not all energy is referred to as material. However, even that division appears to be illusionary since energy itself is composed of sub-atomic particles, and please note the word "particles".

Hope this helps, but if it seems at least somewhat confusing, welcome to the club.

[vivamis123]

To me (and I am not a scientist) all material is energy...All energy is material. What is energy? Where does it come from?

I have no proof for my theory...but I believe energy is an illusion of the mind. An appearance caused through a belief in a separation from God: Spirit. Mind is not separated from the world nor energy. They all three arrise together.

Why I believe my theory to be true is because everything that is material is subject to change...decay...death. Yet God is Life.

Energy is an idea (belief in a separation from God0....beyond the physical realm there is no energy....only spirit. Energy is to material as God is to spirit or energy is to intent as Spirit is to grace.

[Lightkeeper]

Originally Posted by vivamis123

To me (and I am not a scientist) all material is energy...All energy is material. What is energy? Where does it come from?

I have no proof for my theory...but I believe energy is an illusion of the mind. An appearance caused through a belief in a separation from God: Spirit. Mind is not separated from the world nor energy. They all three arrise together.

Why I believe my theory to be true is because everything that is material is subject to change...decay...death. Yet God is Life.

Energy is an idea (belief in a separation from God0....beyond the physical realm there is no energy....only spirit. Energy is to material as God is to spirit or energy is to intent as Spirit is to grace.

As I understand it, energy cannot be destroyed. How does spirit differ from energy?

[Travis Clementsmith]

In my conception, Spirit cannot be different from anything. From the integral perspective, perspective is all there is, and you can have a subjective, objective, inter-subjective, or inter-objective perspective, and you can attempt to increase that perspective as well. For example, the scientist attempts to increase his/her perspective from the utmost objective view by removing as much subjectivity as possible, giving them the truest objective picture. The mystic, on the other hand attempts to increase his/her perspective from the innermost subjective view by removing as much objectivity as possible, giving them the truest subjective picture they can. Relationships often strive for the most inter-subjective picture they can. Law attempts to create the most inter-objective picture it can. But, none of those pictures has a monopoly on absolute truth.

I think there is a difference between limiting one quadrant from another for research and claiming that research explains all other quadrants. Limiting subjective influence for objective science is good. Claiming the results of the objective study explain or delete the truth of other quadrants is overreaching and bad. The same is true for idealism, explaining objective phenomena as simply illusions of the subject is overreaching, but limiting their influence to delve into subjective study is good. What we have to get over is the epiphenomenalism of "one is the explanation of the other", that's what leads to the debates, disagreements, and overreaches.

-TC

[vivamis123]

How does energy differ from spirit?

What is energy without intent/belief/concept? Energy is neither good nor bad but duality. Energy as an idea can manifest positive or negative. Unless one believes God is dualtiy: good and bad...God can not be energy...God is one.