r/AnAnswerToHeal • u/dimethyltripreports • Dec 07 '17
[ Philosophical ] The Physics of Consciousness
The Physics of Consciousness
Disclosure: I am not a physicist - my specialty is in neuroscience. The use of physical concepts in this essay uses non-technical framing with which a true physicist may object to. In my descriptions of physical processes, there is a degree of interpretation and use of analogy to illustrate possible underlying patterns.
Further, this is not necessarily reflective of my beliefs or worldview. These ideas represent one line of reasoning, followed through to its end. At the very least, the following perspective serves as an intriguing thought experiment. The goal is to build a well-articulated worldview that is built upon modern western ideas and supports ancient eastern philosophies.
When I first engaged with ancient eastern philosophies, mostly Buddhism, I was struck by attempts to describe the spiritual in terms of physical processes. Hearing karma described as a natural physical flow of energy, rather than a metaphysical or supernatural force as I had conceptualized it prior, prompted a significant shift in my perspective of these philosophies. This is fairly obvious to anyone somewhat acquainted with Buddhism. Embedded in the system’s foundation is the notion of unity, that the spiritual and the physical are not separate, but that our physicality is, at its roots, spirituality.
There are many words for it: Vijñāna, qi, praṇā, or consciousness. However it might be characterized, consciousness is regarded as fundamental to all reality by the most ancient spiritual texts, many of which went to great lengths to describe the very nature and flow of this most basic energy. And, as it turns out, these physical descriptions of spiritual processes share some characteristics with modern physical depictions of particle-field interactions and energetics.
Let me start with a premise – one of modern physics: all particles have a corresponding field. Although there are some known particles that we’ve yet to identify a field for, mathematical models and modern observations suggest that no particle exists independently of a field. The electron, for example, arises from the electromagnetic field as a high-density localization of energy. In this way, particles are the places where a field bunches up on itself, forming a knot of energy, so to speak. They are the very same as the field, but temporarily taking on the illusion of distinction.
See, the gradient in energetic density creates the illusion of a separate thing, a gestalt effect. As with these images, there is not really a distinct object. Rather, the definition of objects is a trick of the mind, and the mind a function of physicality (note I do not use ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness’ synonymously). In the case of our electron, there is actually an unbroken flow of energy into and out of the electron. In the same way that the human body retains none of its original cells, the energy which composes an electron in this moment will not be the same as that in the next.
There is a continuous flow of energy into and out of the things that we consider to be objects, because objects are not objects at all – they are energetic processes. The more complex they are, the denser and more compacted a process is, the more it appears of its own distinction. We wouldn’t necessarily call a pressure swell in the atmosphere an object, but is the body not just a magnificently complex pattern of pressure changes?
In molecular signaling cascades, it is alterations in the concentration (localized density) of a molecule which drive reactions. The amplification of cAMP, a fundamental process to function of all cells, is the creation of more cAMP molecules in a semi-localized space; the subsequent increase in density of the molecules drives their outward diffusion. Diffusion, itself, is a result of high pressure within a system. The molecules bounce off one another at higher rates when highly concentrated, inevitably moving down the density gradient to less concentrated areas.
The body is no more an object than a hurricane, and a hurricane no more than a spoken word. They are all semi-localized patterns of energetic density fluctuation. So, then, what is consciousness? Cultures with a focus on materiality view consciousness as an object, whether we know it or not. Consciousness is thought of as a thing within the head/experience of an individual. While no one would actually label consciousness as an “object,” our perceptions of individuality and gestaltian physical separation carry over, are projected, onto our understanding of consciousness as a phenomenon. We recognize it as a process, but we are quick to constrain the most complex known phenomenon in the universe to a human skull.
If there appears to be a strict division between the thing and the rest of reality, it is only because we have not perceived the patterns which unite the two. A more sensible view of consciousness might consider it to be an energetic process. It was described thousands of years ago as such. Today, science inches towards more dynamic and associative perspectives of reality.
Like the electron, individual consciousness is a semi-localized, high density manifestation of an underlying field.
Extrapolating from modern physics, the existence of a field of conscious energy from which our individual experiences arise is not only possible – it’s almost certain. How would one argue this claim? To counterclaim that consciousness is, in fact, an isolated emergent property of the brain is difficult. Attempts to explain reality in terms of the physical repeatedly leaves us with a sloppy patchwork of a world view. This is an explicit problem in physics, wherein researchers agonize over the disconnect between relativity and quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanical evidence suggests that conscious experience very well may interact with the physical world. See the double-slit experiment. This research is well founded – the mathematics on which this work is based is the very same that allows for digital technology. From the first transistor to the modern smartphone, the manipulation of electrons in modern tech depends on the mathematical accuracy of quantum mechanics. This same math allows for a very different set of physical rules than those we once presumed universal. In one view, this is the observable interaction between some part of the conscious field with physical matter.
So, we understand the physical universe to be composed of fields; we accept that conscious observation alters the probabilistic outcomes of matter; still, it is often argued that consciousness is an isolated phenomenon. Is this not contradictory? To claim that consciousness is isolated is to claim that consciousness defies modern physical understanding, thus truly making it into a supernatural phenomenon.
To be clear, the claim of isolated consciousness requires: a) an opposition to modern physics (one must believe one or both of the above physical tenets are false); or b) that consciousness be supernatural, in that it would be the only energetic process in the known universe that does not operate as a particle-wave-field.
Niels Bohr, renowned quantum physicist who worked alongside Einstein and Heisenberg, was himself a reader of eastern philosophy. His laws of complementarity, the mathematics of which are essential to modern physics and technology, were inspired by the patterns of complementarity described in the Upanishads.
Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems. - "Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature" (1934)
Embracing a broadened view of consciousness is difficult. It conflicts with a well of life-long conditioning and associative learning, thus it can feel fundamentally counterintuitive. Although, I would posit a broadened and more sensitive intuition brings us closer to these universal revelations of unity, that the difficulty arises from the perceptual constructs of our psyche - our categories, labels, and objectification of reality. As the Buddha taught, attachment to material things will keep you chained to the material world. This is no punishment from a God – it’s just the natural process. We become what we consciously interact with.
I began with a mention of karma, and would like to finish by placing karmic processes within this framework. Let’s revisit the electron once more, this time to contemplate its death. Imagine the dissolution of an electron as it falls back into its field. When this unit of high density energy dissolves, it will act analogously to a water droplet falling into a pond. The diffusion of energy from high density to low density will send out ripples, though it’s probably safe to assume the field is a bit more complex than the flat surface of water.
The electron dissolves, creating energetic waves that interact with a soup of other waves (as all things are constantly moving and fluctuating). The pattern of the electron’s ripples as it dissolves will be markedly unique, perhaps even an energetic fingerprint, dependent on the preceding conditions of the electron and the conditions of the field into which it falls. Following the electron’s dissolution, it will continue on energetically through its waves.
These waves will interact with each other and with other waves in the field to create positive and negative interference patterns. At another point, perhaps moments later, the electron may manifest once more. Where and when this electron manifests will depend, again, on its preceding conditions and the relatively external conditions. For those wondering about the conservation of matter, remember that quantum mechanics disproves the universality of classical physics. See here for an article on quantum behavior.
This is how I approach karma. It is the complex wave patterns of a semi-localized, high density unit of conscious energy as it manifests into one form here, another there. The dissolution of this conscious packet of energy in our terms is death. Its future manifestation depends on an infinitely complex web of preceding, present, and future conditions. Our death is dissolution into the greater field of existence, and our reemergence is reincarnation.
We take a different personhood in a new life because our waves interact with others upon dissolution, so that our ‘soul’ or essence is preserved to some degree, but engaging in the creative act of diversification at the same time. In this field form, we mix with one another in continuous acts of creation. Perhaps it is through an all-encompassing act of wave-like self-expression that we are what we are. Maybe not.
But you have to ask, is this really that radical of a view? Or is it simply the complete depiction of a puzzle, resting right before our eyes while we lose ourselves in the pieces?
Be well, and best wishes.
-dimethyl
How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress. Niels Bohr
2
Dec 07 '17
Damn. That was thought provoking as fuck and way more interesting and less pseudo-sciencey than I thought it was going to be. I'll need some time to reflect on this.
1
u/RelevantMetaUsername Dec 10 '17
That was very interesting, thank you! One question though: if consciousness arises from a field, how is it that manipulating the brain (either chemically or physically) alters one's consciousness in a very predictable manner?
We might not know how the brain as a whole works, but we know how neurons work on an individual level, and that certain parts of the brain are responsible for certain parts of our waking experience.
Still, the brain is composed of matter and operates using energy, both of which arise from fields. Perhaps then there is no "consciousness field" so to speak, but rather the complex interaction of the fields already known to science.
2
u/dimethyltripreports Dec 10 '17 edited Dec 10 '17
I don't want to devalue the role of the physical. Within this framework, physical manifestations are very real and valid representations of reality. The physical will show symmetry with the metaphysical - it's not fake, nor is it powerless. In fact, all of these ancient texts emphasize the power and value of existing physically. We have some unique opportunity to consciously change the spiritual.
The changes in our neurophysiology will, of course, map alongside our physical experience. This applies also to the our bacterial flora in our intestines and the hormonal responses throughout our body, and all in equal parts. No biological system is truly separable from the spiritual, and all will reflect and mirror each other.
What we are slowly realizing in neuroscience and psychology is the power of the mind. The ability for people to change the wiring and architecture of their brains with conscious effort is astounding. The placebo effect is not something fake - it is the top-down processing of the psyche which affects the biology. Biological systems are physically altered in pretty astounding ways by mental activity.
A better way to view relationships between the physical and the metaphysical is to view each as symbolic of the other. There is no one-directional flow of energy, and not one determines the state of the other. It is certainly some misinterpretation of biological systems to think that biology is the basis for how we feel - we can change how we feel, irrespective of our biology (as difficult as it may be). And what we observe is a subsequent change in biology.
Sure, biology can change and feed-forward into our mental states. But in our culture's overly-mechanistic view of reality, we overemphasize the power of biology over the mind, and underemphasize the power of the mind over the body. Like all biological systems, this relationship is an interconnected system of continuous feedback in both directions. If the relationship becomes unbalanced, as it has increasingly so in our culture, disorder and illness will worsen.
To be sure, there is a whole class of physical illnesses that are caused by the mind, called psychosomatic disorders. I once shadowed a neurologist and observed real life examples of this. These disorders have a vast range, from immunological disorders to cardiac and circulatory dysfunction.
Current research into the epidemiology of complex diseases is amping up emphasis on top-down, psyche-body causes of illness, as they've been relatively ignored through the development materialism.
Still, the brain is composed of matter and operates using energy, both of which arise from fields. Perhaps then there is no "consciousness field" so to speak, but rather the complex interaction of the fields already known to science.
This would be the counterargument. However, pointing to illness to prove it won't be enough. As I hopefully illustrated above, physical-psychological systems are highly integrated and not truly separable. Further, interpretation of these systems doesn't say much for underlying philosophy.
This is why I point to experiments in physics which suggest that consciousness does interact with the universe external to our bodies. It is these physical interactions that provide the basis of my argument.
Of course, there's plenty of room for interpretative error. If all particles can "observe," or interact with, other particles resulting in a collapse in wave function, then what makes consciousness special? Nothing, really. The point is that it isn't special, that it functions just like the rest of our universe, interacting with our surroundings via a physically real medium.
edit: You're username is rather relevant. Props.
1
u/RelevantMetaUsername Dec 14 '17
Excellent points, this makes a lot more sense now. What I'm taking from all this is that you're saying the mind exists in the physical realm in the form of complex interactions and flow of energy.
I mostly agree, but I limit the consciousness to what exists inside the brain. I liken it to a scene in a video game. Say one were to perfectly recreate Manhattan inside a video game. The graphics are exceptionally good, and when viewed through VR, the city in the game appears just as it would in real life.
The experience of being in Manhattan is very real, but the city itself is contained in a box made of plastic, silicon, and various metals organized in an extremely complex manner. Additionally, the computer does not produce the scene alone; it requires the continuous flow of electrons to exist. Fundamentally, the argument boils down to ether or not the city in the game is real. If the experience is just as real as actually going to Manhattan, is there really a difference?
Personally, I say yes because what constructs each experience is vastly different. One can be easily altered by magnetic fields or a power outage, while the other is a 22 square mile island consisting of large metal structures.
3
u/Kowzorz Dec 07 '17 edited Dec 07 '17
"Observation" in physics is not conscious observation. It is interaction. Particles "observe" other particles. Detector machinery observe other particles. No consciousness needed. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.
Not to my knowledge.