or4cl3ai/Aiden_t5
Text Generation
•
Updated
•
1.9k
•
12
text
stringlengths 0
923k
|
|---|
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 41-45
Polanik, J. Is There an I3?
41
Article
Inaugural Issue
Is There an I3?
A Search Focusing Question for Consciousness Exploration and Research
Joseph Polanik
ABSTRACT
A voyage of exploration requires a question to focus the search. Such a question is proposed for
consciousness exploration and research. Is there an I3? The author’s notation for subscripting
pronouns by reality type is first explained and then used to diagnose the situation in which
contemporary consciousness research finds itself and to pose the search-focusing question for
Consciousness Exploration and Research as a means for moving on from here.
Key Words: consciousness, exploration, question
1. The Search-Focusing Question1
A voyage of exploration and discovery can
begin with a simple search-focusing question. Is
there a shorter way to China? What’s beyond
that ridge? What am I?
As a search-focusing question for the next
generation of researchers and explorers, I
propose:
Is There an I3?
To make the case for adopting this searchfocusing question, I will first clarify the rationale
for subscripting the first person singular
pronoun, I. Then I will present the case for
revisioning the science of consciousness so that
it may genuinely engage the question, is there
an I3.
awareness’) while not identical to the brain, is
just an experience somehow produced by the
brain – merely phenomenology. Still others view
consciousness (used as a synonym for an
immaterial mind, self or soul) as a thing-like
entity that is more than just a phenomenon –
more than just the experience of awareness.2
It would seem that, while most would agree
that consciousness is real in some sense, there is
persistent disagreement as to its reality type.
What do I mean by ‘reality type’? simply
this: if what is is real (in some sense); then, a
reality type is a name for the way that some
thing (allegedly) is. For convenience, I name
three reality types and number them as follows.
1. existential
(anything
physical
–
mass/energy and/or spacetime, an
existent);
2. phenomenological (experiential); and
3. ontological (anything that is non-physical
but not merely phenomenological, a
being)
2. Why Subscripted Pronouns?
The rationale for subscripting the first
person singular pronoun, I, is simply that
‘consciousness’ – the very term that defines this
field of inquiry – is a hopelessly ambiguous term.
2.1 Consciousness is What I Am
There are those who assume that
consciousness (used as a synonym for ‘mind’) is
just the brain. Others assume that consciousness
(used as a synonym for ‘phenomenal
Correspondence: Joseph Polanik, J.D., M.S.W.
Email: jPolanik@nc.rr.com
Website: http://what-am-i.net
ISSN:
2
There is also the use of ‘conscious’ in phrases like
‘conscious experience’ or ‘conscious awareness’ to
mean a particular state of awareness, either reflexive
awareness (e.g. awareness of seeing ... whatever) or
reflexive self-awareness (e.g. awareness of that
which is seeing ... whatever). Consciousness could
then be defined as an instance of phenomenal
awareness in such a state of awareness.
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 41-45
Polanik, J. Is There an I3?
For each reality type there is a use of
‘consciousness’ that assumes a referent of that
reality type; but, while we could subscript
‘consciousness’ to indicate the reality type of its
referent (as used by a given speaker); but, that
would only tell us how the word is used. It
wouldn’t tell us which definition is correct.
Translating from the third-person to a firstperson perspective clarifies the problem enough
to transform it.
Let us define pronouns I1, I2 and I3 to
function syntactically as does the typeambiguous ‘I’ of vernacular English while also
conveying the user’s self-asserted reality type.
Which of these pronouns could plausibly be
used to claim that its referent is a consciousness?
Could a group of neurons assert, “I1 am an
instance of consciousness”? It seems unlikely –
even if those neurons were known to be the
neural correlates of consciousness. Similarly, I
really can’t imagine a quantum microtubular
computation having the capacity to use selfreferential pronouns – even if that computation
is the NCC.
Could some immaterial entity such as a soul
assert, “I3 am an instance of consciousness”? It is
hard to answer this question. We don’t yet know
that there are any such entities; and, we don’t
know what their powers would be, if there were
any.
Could an instance of phenomenal
awareness assert, “I2 am an instance of
consciousness”? Posed this way, the question
answers itself in the affirmative. Indeed, given
the use of ‘consciousness’ as that which is
consciously aware, the claim “I2 am an instance
of consciousness” is performatively selfverifying.
A general discussion of performative
arguments is beyond the scope of this paper;
and, the reader is referred to Bardon (2005) and
Hintikka (1968).
In any case, the conclusion just reached is
(but for the subscripts, of course) identical to
that reached by Deikman (1996): “Thus, if we
proceed phenomenologically, we find that the ‘I’
is identical to awareness: ‘I’ = awareness”.
42
2.2 The Problem Transformed
Given that I2 experience, it is necessarily
true that I2 am. Upon further reflection, I2 will
claim that I2 am this experiencing I2; but, I2 must
admit still not knowing the origin of experiencing
as an experiencing I2.
From the perspective in which properties
are attributed to meta-phenomenal objects3 to
explain phenomena, the problem is that I2 know
that I2 am without knowing whether I2 am a
phenomenon that is generated by:
1. an I1 alone;
2. an I3 alone; or,
3. an I1 and an I3 working together.
How do I learn which meta-phenomenal
entity or entities are responsible for generating
the phenomenon of experiencing as an
experiencing I2?
Descartes tried to answer that question by
purely rational means; but, he quickly lapsed
into an intractable circularity beginning with the
Third Meditation. He relied on the natural light
to validate the deduction that there is a God;
but, the veracity of the natural light in turn
depended on God.
Clearly, we have no alternative but to
proceed by scientific means.
3. The Science of Consciousness
Given that I2 have elected to proceed
scientifically, I2 am faced with a problem: two of
the three types of explanations listed in the
previous section assume the possibility that
there is an I3 involved in the generation of the
experiencing I2 – a possibility denied by
contemporary neuroscience on a priori grounds.
Consequently, I2 will briefly critique the a
priori rejection of the possibility of an I3 by the
currently dominant physicalist paradigm of
research into consciousness. I2 will then present
the case for revisioning the science of
consciousness so that it may genuinely engage
the question, is there an I3.
3
An entity of reality type 1 or reality type 3 is called
meta-phenomenal; meaning, that such entities are
real independently of an individual’s experience of
them.
ISSN:
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 41-45
Polanik, J. Is There an I3?
3.1 The Critique of Physicalism
It is said that there are two types of
problems in consciousness research: the easy
problems, the so-called hard problem.
The hard problem is explaining how
experience happens. Given that there is
experiencing as an experiencing I2, identifying
the neural correlate of a particular quale of
experience is an easy problem.
For example, given that there is subjective
experience, an experience of an afterimage is
easily explained. A retina that is ‘fatigued’ (by
staring at the stimulus object) sends inaccurate
signals to the brain which then produces (in
some unknown way) the color quale that
corresponds to the signal rather than to the
actual object being perceived.
This tells us where it happens but not how it
happens that experience is generated.
Given the a priori assumption that there is
only one type of meta-phenomenal object,
physical objects; and, given the perspective
alluded to earlier, in which properties are
attributed to meta-phenomenal objects in order
to explain phenomena; it follows that
measurable neural phenomena cause the
experienceable phenomena with which they are
correlated.
This conversion of correlation into
causation might not do significant harm to
consciousness research provided that we’re only
talking about experiences as simple as
afterimages. It is extremely difficult to believe
the claim that a brain pronounced dead by
skilled physicians somehow causes the NearDeath Experiences so frequently reported.
It gets worse once one turns the attention
to the hard problem. Now the assumption that
the neural correlate causes its phenomenal
correlate provides illusory creates the a priori
assumption that there is no I3 involved in
generating experience itself.
In any case the claim that a neural event
causes a particular experience creates a logical
paradox for monistic physicalism. A cause can
not be identical to its own effect; otherwise,
nothing would ever happen. To put it another
way, if a neural event causes an experienceable
phenomenon; then, the neural event has a
property the experience doesn’t have (being
about to cause that experience). Consequently,
ISSN:
43
by the Law of Indiscernibility of Identicals, the
measurable, neural phenomenon can not be
identical to the experienceable phenomenon.
Hence, the logical paradox at the heart of
physicalism is that one must either suppress
awareness of subjective experience; or, one
must admit to some form of dualism. Is it
enough to admit to recognizing two types of
phenomena, measurable and experienceable?
No. Even in the relatively simple case of an
afterimage it is apparent that there are two sets
of properties that physical objects can have.
They can have the property of creating only
measurable phenomena; or, they can have the
property of causing experienceable phenomena
(either in addition to or instead of causing
measurable phenomena).
That’s property dualism.
And there is still no explanation for how
experience actually happens – only where it
happens.
Perhaps, it is time to consider the possibility
that there is an I3 involved in the generation of
experiencing as an experiencing I2.
Arguably, our situation is similar to that
faced by Bouvard, the French astronomer who
postulated the existence of a then unknown
planet to explain irregularities in the orbit of
Uranus. (O’Connor and Robertson, 1996)
The willingness to consider this possibility
may invite allegations of substance dualism; so,
let us face up to the hard solution to the hard
problem of consciousness research: the
physicalist account of consciousness can’t
possibly be true unless von Neumann is wrong
about quantum mechanics.
3.2 von Neumann on QM
In 1932, John von Neumann published
Mathematical
Foundations
of
Quantum
Mechanics in which he axomized the
mathematical formalism of QM. He took the
time to reject one of the ‘features’ of the
Copenhagen Interpretation advocated by Bohr,
the ad hoc division of physical reality into a
quantum world and a classical world.
von Neumann showed that this division was
unnecessary; one could have “a unified way of
looking at the physical world on a quantum
mechanical basis” (Foundations. p. 352). It was
an all-quantum theory.
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 41-45
Polanik, J. Is There an I3?
There was, however, a price to be paid for
eliminating Bohr’s ad hoc dualism. If the entire
body and brain of the experimenter was subject
to the Schrodinger equation, something else,
something “outside the calculation” was needed
to explain the collapse of the wave function. von
Neumann postulated that this was the
experimenter’s abstraktes ‘Ich’ – the abstract ‘I’.
In discussions of the relation between QM
and consciousness, the phrase ‘abstract I’ is
usually replaced by the word ‘consciousness’.
Obviously, we can’t now review the linguistic
history of the word ‘consciousness’ and then
draw a valid conclusion as to what the math
means; so, let us assume that we must try to
understand von Neumann before evaluating
arguments for or against the von Neumann
Interpretation of QM.
44
Nick Herbert (1993 p. 172) is the most
direct:
“In the von Neumann interpretation of
quantum theory ... consciousness is a process
lying outside the laws that govern the material
world. It is just this immunity from the quantum
rules that allows mind to turn possibility into
actuality. Because quantum-based minds are
inevitably different in substance from the matter
they control, theories of such minds are bound
to be dualistic.”
Henry P Stapp is more circumspect than
Herbert. In his Mindful Universe (2007. p81) he
writes:
“Contemporary physical theory allows, and
its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an
interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all
the laws of physics.”
Is the abstract ‘I’ an I1, an I2 or an I3?
We can rule out the I1 right away. The point
of von Neumann’s analysis of the measurement
problem is that something non-physical is
required to collapse the wave function from a
superposition of all possible values of the
property being measured to the single definite
value actually observed.
Could the abstract ‘I’ be an I2? Well, is the I2
causally effective in interactions with physical
realities? I’ve not done a systematic survey; but,
it seems to me that physicalists deny that the I2
(e.g. phenomenal awareness and similar
constructs) is causally effective in any way. The
basis for this conclusion is that the alternative
would violate the so-called ‘causal closure’ of
the physical; precisely would be required to have
a physical effect – collapsing the wave function.
Can anyone imagine how the self, Dennett’s
narrative center of gravity, could be anything
other than epiphenomenal? I can’t.
Thus, it seems likely that ‘abstract I’ as
intended by von Neumann is an entity of reality
type 3, an I3.
This conclusion is supported by evidence
that physicists who have chosen to commented
on the von Neumann Interpretation of QM or
who have developed their own versions of the
von Neumann Interpretation seem to have come
to the same conclusion.
ISSN:
Stapp also reports on various email-list
discussions concerning his theory, including one
in which the present author asked whether
quantum interactive dualism was a Cartesianstyle (substance) dualism or a Chalmers-style
(property) dualism. Stapp declined to link his
views to traditional philosophical terminology;
leaving that for the reader.
Nevertheless, Stapp’s emphasis on the
causal efficacy of conscious choices strongly
suggests that, for him, consciousness is not an I2
and that his dualism is not property dualism;
particularly, since Chalmers (1996. p. 150 et.
seq.) himself indicates that property dualism
tends toward epiphenomenalism.
3.3 The Evidence for the I3
What is needed now is empirical evidence
to support the essential idea within the von
Neumann Interpretation of QM: that there is a
subjective reduction of the wave packet.
Researchers have begun to look for a
subjective reduction signal (“SRS”), some signal
evident within a subject experience that occurs
at a time when quantum theory indicates that a
collapse of the wave function should be taking
place. At this point, the results have been mixed.
Nunn et al. (1994) took EEG readings of
subjects who were asked to perform simple
tasks. They reasoned that taking an EEG would
count as a measurement and would collapse the
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 41-45
Polanik, J. Is There an I3?
wave function of a quantum state in the
subject’s brain. This, the researchers theorized,
to improve the subject’s performance on
observation related tasks.
Nunn and co-researchers report that
subjects made fewer mistakes while the EEG was
recording that when it was not, a result which
could not be explained by any non-quantum
theory known to them.
Bierman (2003) compared the Auditory
Evoked Potential of subjects who were observing
a previously observed and those who were
observing a previously unobserved (and, hence,
presumably uncollapsed) quantum state.
Significant differences were found. However,
Bierman and Whitmarsh (2006) reported failing
to replicate the earlier results with an improved
apparatus.
45
It would seem that, if there is a signal
indicating that a subjective reduction has
occurred, we don’t yet know how to reliably
elicit it. Nevertheless, the results to date indicate
that further research is clearly warranted.
5. Conclusion
A genuine science of consciousness must
investigate the possibility that there is an I3
somehow associated with or a part of the human
individual. Such a science is only now being
constructed by researchers and explorers.
Let’s see what’s out there.
References
Bardon,
Adrian.
2005.
Performative
Transcendental Arguments. Philosophia 33.
http://www.wfu.edu/~bardona/PTA.pdf
Bierman, Dick J. 2003. Does Consciousness
Collapse the Wave-Packet? Mind and Matter.
1(1):45-57.
Bierman, Dick J. and Whitmarsh, Stephen. (2006).
Consciousness and Quantum Physics: Empirical
Research on the Subjective Reduction of the
State Vector. in Jack A. Tuszynski (Ed). The
Emerging Physics of Consciousness. p. 27-48
Chalmers, David J. 1996. The Conscious Mind: In
Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Deikman, Arthur. 1996, ‘I’ = Awareness. Journal of
Consciousness Studies, 3(4):350-6.
Herbert, Nick. 1993. Elemental Mind: Human
Consciousness and the New Physics. New
York: Penguin Books.
Nunn, C. M. H. et. al. (1994). Collapse of a
Quantum Field may Affect Brain Function.
Journal of Consciousness Studies. 1(1):127139.
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1968. Cogito, Ergo Sum: Inference
or Performance? In Willis Doney (Ed).
Descartes: A Collection of Critical Essays. Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
James, William. 1981/1890. The Principles of
Psychology.
Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
University Press.
O’Connor and Robertson. 1996. Mathematical
Discovery of Planets.
http://wwwhistory.mcs.stand.ac.uk/HistTopics/Neptune_and_Pluto.htm
ISSN:
Stapp. H. P. 2007. Mindful Universe: Quantum
Mechanics and the Participating Observer.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com |
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | November 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 8 | pp. 898-906
898
Pregnolato, M. Time for Quantum Consciousness
Focus Issue: Quantum Brain/Mind/Consciousness 2010 (Part II)
Guest Editorial
Time for Quantum Consciousness
Massimo Pregnolato*
ABSTRACT
The consciousness is the basis of our reality and our existence, but the mechanism by which
the brain generates thoughts and feelings remains unknown. Most of the explanations depict
the brain as a computer, with nerve cells (neurons) and their synaptic connections acting as
simple switches. However, the calculation alone cannot explain why we have feelings,
awareness and "inner life". Indeed, neurophysiological processes and phenomena of the
mind are now among the biggest unanswered questions in science. It is time for quantum
consciousness.
Key Words: quantum consciousness, mechanism, mind, computer, thought, feeling, reality.
Introduction
In the Hu’s editorial published in 2008 (Hu, 2008a) he refers to a general reflection on the
current values of Science and Religion: “The very revolutions have created a deep gulf
between Science and Region as reflected by increased hostilities and seemingly
irreconcilable differences between Science and Religion. The very same revolutions have
also produced dogmas, arrogance and intolerance of alternative views in Science. On the
other hand, the enterprises of Religion seem to lack innovations and are unable to cope
with or adapt to the new environments”. Now is the time to make real progress in Science
and Religion. It is a call to free knowledge, an appeal to the humanity to move towards the
“Knowledge Society”.
In a subsequent editorial Hu (2010b) extend his reflections to the status of research on
consciousness: “…because our state of consciousness is the catalyst for the transformation
of humanity at the dawn of 2012 and the missing link on the pass to truth.” He wrote: “…in
mainstream sciences the study and even the mentioning of mind or consciousness are till
taboo and indeed the physicists’ version of a theory of everything does not include
consciousness. However, physicists encountered consciousness more than eighty years ever
since quantum mechanics was born (Rosenblum, 2006). Instead of embracing such
encounters and exploring the mystery of consciousness, the majority of physicists have been
avoiding the consciousness issue like a plague”.
*Correspondence: Massimo Pregnolato, Professor, Quantumbiolab, Department of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Pavia (Italy)
Via Taramelli 12, 27100 Pavia, Italy. E-mail: maxp@quantumbionet.org or massimo.pregnolato@unipv.it
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | November 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 8 | pp. 898-906
899
Pregnolato, M. Time for Quantum Consciousness
Fortunately, not all the physicists feel the same way, on the contrary there are radical idea,
such as those of Manousakis, which derives the foundations of quantum mechanics from
consciousness. (Manousakis, 2006). This approach is not new you consider that Planck
(1931) had also concluded: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as
derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk
about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness”. Hu also has
formulated his theory of consciousness (Hu, 2004).
The consciousness is the basis of our reality and our existence, but the mechanism by
which the brain generates thoughts and feelings remains unknown. Most of the
explanations depicts the brain as a computer, with nerve cells (neurons) and their synaptic
connections acting as simple switches. However, the calculation alone cannot explain why
we have feelings, awareness and "inner life". There are many quantum theories based on
the common premise that "quantum mechanics" can help us to understand the mind
(particularly consciousness) that the "classical mechanics" cannot provide (Vannini, 2008;
Smith, 2009) by those theories emerge possible formal descriptions of the most basic
mental manifestations, namely, the subjective experience of the process of perception
(Manousakis, 2009).
Neurophysiological processes and phenomena of the mind are now among the biggest
unanswered questions in science and Tarlaci, editor of the NeuroQuantology Journal wrote
a recent testimony to the importance of quantum physics in the field of cognitive
neuroscience (Tarlaci, 2010).
A Radical View of Quantum Consciousness
Quantum physics and cognitive-behavioral and Eastern philosophies are recognizing that
the reality of space-time that we perceive is only a possible processing of our ordinary
consciousness. Just think of how it looks different the space-time and therefore the
perception of our reality under the influence of drugs able to alter the state of ordinary
consciousness. To understand this view of the universe has been introduced a fundamental
element long-overlooked: "The Information". The content of information is the basis of this
and all other possible universes. An immense information would be compressed to a scale
infinitely smaller than the size of subatomic particles, in what is called "non-local quantum
field", self-organization of quantum information would be able to generate self-awareness
and even space-time itself. The basic unit of this quantum information is called Qubit.
According to this theory, consciousness is not a phenomenon exclusive to humans, but
belonging to each particle in this universe. More or less complex aggregates of particles
would characterized by streams of consciousness (quantum information), different in their
nature and on different time scales. This allows to attribute to any organism living or not
such as the materials (including the planets, stars and galaxies) a content of consciousness,
though very different in nature from each other. For each entity the perception of physical
reality will be different as well as communication.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | November 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 8 | pp. 898-906
900
Pregnolato, M. Time for Quantum Consciousness
According to classical physics, communication is possible, effectively, only among beings
who share the same state of consciousness. According to quantum physics, through the
phenomenon of entanglement, the communication can occur instantaneously between
particles very far from each others in a non-local fashion whereas, according to the classical
view, this it should be possible only between living entities at a distance compatible with
the times of the signal transmission. Applying this new vision of reality, the anthropocentric
concept of man would be demolished and a fundamental concept of Eastern philosophy
would be introduced: all is one and anything cannot be isolated from the rest of the
universe.
Quantum Biology
Dr. Stephen Hawking says: “Humans have existed as a species for less than a million years
and we are, as far as we know, the only species on Earth that has even the vaguest notion of
physics. We only discovered the atom and learned to unleash its power within the last
century. Our understanding of quantum mechanics is rudimentary, at best, yet we are on the
verge of developing practical quantum computers that promise virtually unlimited
computational power”. While many physicists are trying to get a quantum computer
capable of operating at low temperature, other researchers have shown that bacteria and
algae are capable of performing quantum computations at normal temperatures for the life
from billions of years. First came the news that the birds can see magnetic fields, thanks to
quantum effects (Kominis, 2008), it now appears that the pigments used to seize the light in
photosynthesis, are able to perform quantum computations (Collini, 2010). The evidence
comes from a study on how light energy travels through the molecules involved in
photosynthesis. The work was released in February with the announcement in Nature
journal that these unique molecules in a seaweed can take advantage of quantum processes
at room temperature to transfer the energy without loss. Physicists had excluded this
possibility because the heat destroys an effect called quantum coherence. The implication is,
as Hameroff and Penrose (Hameroff, 1996, 2010) have told from 15 years, that we may
have in our neurons some functioning quantum computers inside the so called “Schrödinger
Proteins”.
Gregory Engel had shown the same principle in 2007 at the University of California,
Berkeley, even if at a temperature of -196°C. His team had developed a complex of
batterioclorofilla sulphurous green bacteria discovering that the pigment molecules were
linked together in a quantum network. His experiment showed that the quantum
superposition allows the energy to explore all possible routes and then choosing the most
efficient (Engel, 2007). Engel and his group in Chicago have just repeated the experiment
at 4°C and found a quantum coherence of about 300 femtoseconds. (Panitchayangkoon,
2010)
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | November 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 8 | pp. 898-906
901
Pregnolato, M. Time for Quantum Consciousness
Quantum Paradigms of Psychopathology
A new window into the nature of mental illness may have opened with the recent
publication of an on-line symposium entitled "Quantum Paradigms of Psychopathology"
(QPP), which appeared in March of this year as a special issue of the NeuroQuantology
Journal. QPP’s novel approach seeks a grounding of psychiatric disease in the
counter-intuitive but physically foundational phenomena of the quantum micro-world
within the brain. The relevance of physics on that small scale to sentient processes in the
normal brain has been an ongoing subject of study since the closing decades of the last
century. Pioneers like the physicists Hiroomi Umezawa (Ricciardi, 1967) and Kunio Yasue
(Jibu, 1995), mathematicians like Roger Penrose and biomedical investigators like Stuart
Hameroff (1996), Gordon Globus (2009) and Gustav Bernroider (2005) have plumbed the
depths of subatomic structure and its macroscopic amplifications in search of substrates for
quantum computation and other capabilities that may match attributes of the human psyche
better than models advocated by conventional cognitive neuroscience. One especially
powerful set of insights into the quantum brain has been contributed by Giuseppe Vitiello,
his influential book, My Double Unveiled (Vitiello, 2001) has helped to weld the disparate
disciplines of quantum field theory, thermodynamics, and neurophysiology into a so-called
“dissipative quantum theory” of the conscious brain. The crux of his perspective is the
hidden, virtual existence of a shadow brain operating in a time-reversed mode to stabilize
the quantum coherence of neural memory structures. The March 2010 on-line QPP
symposium is the culmination of a related project that began in June 2008. At that time
Donald Mender conducted an informal poll of participants in Quantum Mind, a series of
conferences exploring the ideas introduced by Hameroff, Yasue, Vitiello, and others.
Mender asked whether there exists among researchers any interest in the prospect of
applying insights from Quantum Mind to aberrant processes underlying schizophrenia,
bipolar illness, and other forms of psychopathology. The answer was a robust “yes”. Nine
fertile texts appeared in the resulting symposium. In his lead target article, Globus (2010)
propounded a highly original concept of schizophrenia linked to the “tuning” of quantum
vibrations suffusing the brain. Woolf and Tuszynski, offered credible links between
psychopathology and quantum-computational dysfunction within the skeletal proteins
giving shape to brain cells (Woolf, 2010). Pylkkänen related the physical substrates of
mental illness to quantum “pilot waves” and analyzes in detail the significance of Bohm's
ontology for quantum paradigms of psychopathology. (Pylkkänen, 2010). Mender himself
proposed ways of comprehending the neurophysiology of disordered thinking and emotion
in terms of quantum analogies to the freezing and melting of ordinary matter employing the
language of quantum phase transitions and the quantum epistemology of Von Neumann,
Wigner, and Stapp (Mender, 2010a; Stapp, 2004). Five commentators on these four target
papers each introduced additional fresh quantum perspectives on the biophysical origins of
psychopathology. A further commentary by Mender on this important monograph number
of Neuroquantology has been recently published (Mender, 2010b). Plans are under way for
expansion of QPP’s act ivies both on line and at live symposia. Pregnolato’s recent
assumption of the QPP Chair affords contributors yet another forum for internet-based
discourse through his Quantumbionet web site. Face-to-face conferences will likely occur
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | November 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 8 | pp. 898-906
902
Pregnolato, M. Time for Quantum Consciousness
in years to come either through umbrella networks or as free standing meetings. The next
few decades promise progress in this new area of scientific exploration.
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is a severe psychiatric disorder expression of serious harm to the person's
mind which is characterized by an alteration of perception and examination of "reality".
Hallucinations, delusions, disorganized thought, and various cognitive impairments have
been described in this 'disconnection syndrome', but similar principles are likely to apply to
depression and ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). All these diseases are
associated with impaired co-ordination of neural population activity, which manifests as
abnormal EEG (electroencephalogram) and LFP (local field potential) (Jones, 2010).
The symptoms of acute schizophrenia are by their nature the aberrations of conscious
experience (Pert, 2007). As reported in a recent Ciba Foundation Symposium (Bock, 2007)
current theories on the mechanisms that underlie schizophrenic manifestations differ in
their relation to four levels of description: the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, cognitive,
and the symptoms. However, what emerges is the current lack of a basic theory of shared
links between the occurrence of conscious events and neural bases of the brain, the problem
formulated by David Chalmers, known as "The hard problem" (Chalmers, 1995). This
problem makes difficult if not impossible to think of theories that touch the foundation and
the causes of these symptoms. The research of Paola Zizzi and Massimo Pregnolato, wants
to demonstrate how the "quantum theory" and the "basic logic" can provide useful insight
in this problem and how they could help us get closer to the construction of such theories.
Major Depression
Among the articles published in the March issue of Neuroquantology the paper of
Tonello and Cocchi (2010) open new question among the possible connection between the
biological structure of the cells and the quantum consciousness. Gas-chromatography
analysis on blood samples of over 200 people including depressed (with clinical psychiatric
diagnosis) and healthy allowed to determine the levels of specific fatty acids in the platelets
membrane. The data were then processed by an artificial neural network, the Kohonen Self
Organizing Map (SOM) yielding a classification of subjects with major depression versus
the normal. According to the fatty acids triplet identified by the SOM, there are evidences
that the identification on the map, states for saturation or instauration of the platelet
membrane and instantly qualify the subject status in “normal” or “depressed”. This research
is still ongoing to correlate the biochemical basis of depression and the Quantum
Cytoskeleton Nanowire Network (QCNN) as suggested by the Penrose and Hameroff
quantum consciousness model, or the membrane viscosity itself as suggested by the Hu’s
model. The measurement of gamma synchrony, coupled with quantitative analyses of the
platelet fatty acid triplet and supplemented by the SOM, may serve as a new test for
determining quantum correlations with aberrations characteristic of psychiatric illness
(Cocchi, 2010).
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | November 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 8 | pp. 898-906
903
Pregnolato, M. Time for Quantum Consciousness
Biovitalistic's Renewal of Knowledge
On the 24th of September 2010, the President of the Italian Republic awarded Prof.
Massimo Pregnolato with "Giorgio Napolitano Medal" which he shared with Prof. Paolo
Manzelli for activities in Quantumbionet/Egocreanet and their connections with the
international project "Florentine Renaissance for a new Measurement of Humanity"
(FRNMH). As Manzelli says: the birth of modern science began with Galileo Galilei and
gave impetus to ideas of "mechanics" in nature that have proliferated during the industrial
era on the basis of the "quantitative measurements" of science. This mechanistic
conception coincides with the idea of the definitive overcoming of "Vitalism-Renaissance".
Today Egocreanet/ON-NS&A collaborators summarize that this "mechanical" approach
offers a partial and narrow view of "Life Sciences" because induce new scientific and
cultural barriers overly influenced by concepts that were useful for the production of
industrial machines, now in obvious crisis also for the progressive "entropic destruction" of
the ecosystem. Therefore, the "mechanical" concept does not take into account the
complexity of "Life Sciences" and also forbid the inescapable aspects of modern Bio-Vital
renaissance, who shared and addressed appropriately trans-disciplinary art and science
culture, as become indispensable today to focus very important aspects of contemporary
life, such as the defence of the quality of foods, biodiversity in nature and more, which
together preclude to the development of Knowledge Based Bio-Economy (KBBE European
Strategy). On the renewal trans-disciplinary 's art and science, we landed in an innovative
formulation of science coined by Alberto Olivero as "Bio-Vitalism" (Pregnolato, 2010).
The innovative aspects of social, economic and cultural meeting of the current proposal,
that is included in the FRNMH Project, are intended to implement an open discussion on
the topic: “Life Science 2010: The Bio-vitalism in Renaissance Science & Art”. As a matter
of facts this new meeting tends to explore strategies and opportunities for development of
life sciences in the era of Knowledge Based Bio-Economy, associated with the actual
implementation of the Green and Blue-Economy-Economy of the sea (Manzelli, 2010).
Robert Pope attempts to establish a Social Cradle to promote the FRNMH Project are
generating matters of international interest (Pope, 2010).
In essence, we realized that it is time to overcome the reductionist logic and expressions of
mechanical science that dominated the industrial age that have widened the gap between
nature and culture, creating obvious dangers for the survival of life and biodiversity of our
planet. This strategic goal and to take forward the development of a cognitive innovation so
that new ideas and design to participate can lead to a profound revision of the horizons of
creative development, individual social and economic development. The challenge for the
regeneration of learning in terms of "Bio-vitalism" can be achieved by structuring a series
of forms of participatory learning in the classroom or online, initially aimed to the
aggregation of individuals, associations, publishers and entrepreneurs interested in develop
new knowledge and to create conceptual models for the science and art of the XXI century.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | November 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 8 | pp. 898-906
904
Pregnolato, M. Time for Quantum Consciousness
Currently those who want to join the idea proposed by Pregnolato, may proceed through a
continuous involvement in network (use of Facebook and other online tools) directed to
propose a series of blogs interconnected to build 2.0 e-learning modules based on
trans-disciplinary bio-vitalism. These are the reasons to say that it is time for quantum
consciousness to take off in the scientific world and beyond.
References
Bernroider G, Roy S (2005) Quantum entanglement of K ions, multiple channel states and the role
of noise in the brain – SPIE. 5841-29, 205–14
Bock GR and Marsh J Eds (2007) Ciba Foundation Symposium 174 - Experimental and Theoretical
Studies of Consciousness. Novartis Foundation Symposia Series.
Chalmers D (1995) Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies.
2 (3) 200-219
Collini E, Wong CY, Wilk KE, Curmi PMG, Brumer P, Scholes GD (2010) Coherently wired
light-harvesting in photosynthetic marine algae at ambient temperature. Nature. 463, 644-647
Cocchi M, Gabrielli F, Tonello L, Pregnolato M (2010) Interactome Hypothesis of Depression.
Neuroquantology, 8 (4) In press.
Engel GS, Calhoun TR, Read EL, Ahn T, Mančal T, Cheng Y, Blankenship RE, Fleming GR
(2007) Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems.
Nature. 446, 782-786
Globus G (2009) Halting the descent into panpsychism: A quantum thermofield theoretical
Perspective (67-82) In D. Skrbina, ed. Mind that abides: Panpsychism in the new millenium.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Globus G (2010) Toward a quantum psychiatry: hallucination, thought insertion and DSM.
NeuroQuantology. 8 (1) 1-12
Hameroff S, Penrose R (1996) Conscious events as orchestrated spacetime selections. J. Conscious
Stud. 3, 36-53
Hameroff S (2010) Clarifying the tubulin bit/qubit - Defending the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR
model of quantum computation in microtubules. October 22, Google Campus,
http://sitescontent.google.com/google-workshop-on-quantum-biology/
Hu H, Wu M (2004) Spin-mediated consciousness theory: possible roles of neural membrane
nuclear spin ensembles and paramagnetic oxygen. Medical Hypotheses. 63, 633–646
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | November 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 8 | pp. 898-906
905
Pregnolato, M. Time for Quantum Consciousness
Hu H (2008a) We Have a Dream. A Call to All Men and Women of Science and Religion to Rise
Up. NeuroQuantology. 6 (1) 75-79
Hu H (2008b) Reflection 2008: The State of Science, Religion and Consciousness.
NeuroQuantology. 6 (4) 323-332
Jibu M, Yasue K (1995) Quantum brain dynamics and consciousness, in Advances in Consciousness
Research, Vol.3, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam
Jones MW (2010) Errant ensembles: dysfunctional neuronal network dynamics in schizophrenia.
Biochem Soc Trans. 38 (2), 516-21
Kominis KI (2008) Quantum Zeno Effect Underpinning the Radical-Ion-Pair Mechanism of Avian
Magnetoreception" arXiv:0804.2646v1 [q-bio.BM]
Manousakis E (2006) Founding Quantum Theory on the Basis of Consciousness. Foundations of
Physics. 36 (6) 795-838
Manousakis E (2009) Quantum formalism to describe binocular rivalry. Biosystems. 98, 57-66
Manzelli P (2010) Knowledge Project 2010 in Science and Art. The General Science Journal.
http://wbabin.net/science/manzelli75.pdf
Mender D (2010a) Post-classical phase transitions and emergence in psychiatry: beyond George
Engel's model of psychopathology. NeuroQuantology. 8 (1) 29-36
Mender D (2010b) From Quantum Wetware to Mental Illness: A Section Editor's First Interim
Progress Report. NeuroQuantology. 8 (2) 115‐119
Panitchayangkoon G, Hayes D, Fransted KA, Caram JR, Harel E, Wen J, Blankenship RE, Engel
GS (2010) Long-lived quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes at physiological
temperature. arXiv:1001.5108v1 [physics.bio-ph]
Pert B (2007) Consciousness and co-consciousness, binding problem and schizophrenia.
Neuroendocrinology letters. 28 (6) 723-726
Pylkkänen P (2010) Implications of Bohmian quantum ontology for psychopathology.
NeuroQuantology. 8 (1) 37-48
Pope R (2010) Renaissance Science, Registered 21st Century Rebirth Document. EzineArticles.
http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Robert_Pope
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | November 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 8 | pp. 898-906
906
Pregnolato, M. Time for Quantum Consciousness
Pregnolato M (2010) Biodiversity in the Human Physical Body. The new frontiers of metagenomics
and quorum sensing. International Journal of Anthropology. in press
Ricciardi LM, Umezawa H (1967) Brain and physics of many body problems, Biological
Cybernetics, Springer, Berlin. 4 (2) 44-48
Rosenblum B, Kuttner F (2006) Quantum Enigma (Oxford University Press)
Smith CU (2009) The 'hard problem' and the quantum physicists. Part 2: Modern times. Brain
Cogn. 71 (2) 54-63
Stapp H (2004) Mind, matter, and quantum mechanics. Berlin: Springer Verlag
Tarlaci S (2010) Why We Need Quantum Physics for Cognitive Neuroscience. NeuroQuantology. 8
(1) 66‐76
Tonello L, Cocchi M (2010) The cell membrane: a bridge from psychiatry to quantum
consciousness? NeuroQuantology 8 (1) 54-60
Vannini A (2008) Quantum model of consciousness. Quantum Biosystems. 2,165-184
Vitiello G (2001) My Double Unveiled – The dissipative quantum model of brain. Benjamins
Publishing Co., Amsterdam
Woolf N, Craddock T, Friesen D, Tuszynski J (2010) Neuropsychiatric illness: a case for impaired
neuroplasticity and possible quantum processing derailment in microtubules. NeuroQuantology. 8
(1) 13-28.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
JCER.com |
877
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | August 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 6 | pp. 877-884
Janew, C., Dynamic Existence
Article
Dynamic Existence
Claus Janew*
Abstract
Everything is in motion. "Inertness" arises from (approximative) repetition, that is, through
rotation or an alternation that delineates a focus of consciousness. This focus of
consciousness, in turn, must also move/alternate (the two differ only in continuity). If its
alternation seems to go too far - physically, psychically or intellectually - it reaches into the
subconscious. In this way, interconnection is established by the alternation of the focus of
consciousness. Therefore, in a world in which everything is interconnected, all focuses must
reciprocally transition into each other. "Reality" is a common "goal", a focus which all
participants can switch into and which is conscious to them as such, as a potential one. Its
"degree of reality" is the probability of its fully becoming conscious (or more simply: its
current degree of consciousness). Thus, a reality is created when all participants increase its
probability or, respectively, their consciousness of it.
Keywords: dynamic existence, consciousness, reality, interconnection.
What is real?
I am an individual. Nothing and nobody else occupies my standpoint. Otherwise, he would
be I. Thus, all what I perceive is individual, perspective of an individual, part of me.
The computer screen should be a part of me? And when my daughter is sitting beside me: is
it a part of her, then? And she herself would be a component of me? Consequently, it must
be so. But why is the screen a part of her? Why are they both not just components of me?
Why the detour over her? One could renounce this detour. But this would not be consistent:
My daughter differs from the screen, and, nevertheless, I perceive both. That is there is
mediation between both within my individuality. This mediation can consist first in my
shifting attention from one to the other. While this, my individuality permanently changes a
bit, because it is an entirety of its components. Then I can sit down to the place of my
daughter and experience another perspective and individuality thus again. Is this that to my
daughter? No, of course it is only a geometrical point of view. However, again this point of
view is mediated with my first one, while I alternate the views mentally or physically,
more or less fast. Now there speaks my daughter and means, the monitor display is poor in
contrast from obliquely. This reminds me of my perception on her place, and I conclude
from it, her statement must deal something with my perception there. And consequently
(alternation!) also with my perception on the present place. Because she has spoken, at
other times, also of other things with me, I have understood her perception, her approach to
life, already to a bigger extent and, therefore, subordinate to her an own individuality - with
a screen as a component.
* Correspondence: Claus Janew, Independent Philosopher, http://www.free-will.de E-mail: clausjanew@yahoo.de Note:
This work was originally completed in 2009 in German.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
878
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | August 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 6 | pp. 877-884
Janew, C., Dynamic Existence
What has happened? I have permanently alternated positions (attention, viewpoint,
approach to life), though always found me in just one. Does this work logically at all?
Apparently not. Since if I am not any more there, I am evidently here. Can I be, however,
only here? Probably also not. Then I would know nothing from there, but only from here,
my individual reality. Though this could be enough for me, actually, my individuality itself
arises from such standpoint alternations.
This fact results from the uniqueness and entirety of the individual (in Latin „the
indivisible“). Because it is not divisible without changing the individual, it differs from all
others in any regard. Agreement at any place would presuppose the division of the
individuals, namely in the not unique overlapping and the unique remainder. Instead of an
overlapping, we would have thus an own individual. 1 Hence, a static individual could be
not even subdivided, because everything we consider, for example, as a part (or
component) of ourselves just thereby is an indivisible perception position: every organ,
every cell, every particle, every wave, every thought. It completely differs from the entirety,
because it can nowhere agree with the whole. Without alternation between the components,
we could not become the individual that we regard as ourselves. We would be without
structure, nothing.
Therefore, every individual exists only in the alternation of the individuality. There is no
Here or There, but only the alternation between all, with a right now priority position.
Thus, the standpoint is a phase of the dynamic individual. Everything that exists for the
individual exists dynamically.2
Why then do we consider things seldom as so changing? We say they are relatively
constant. Although we know that movement is at the heart of everything, that every
individuality changes itself. Or we say, the movement is relatively continuous, so at every
moment the whole is itself. At all, the whole is complete and the part is a part.
Everything properly. All these phenomena arise from the structure of the dynamic, of the
alternation. Approximately closed successions of change generate relative constancy.
Finely gradated change seems relatively continuous. And different extent of the alternations
makes the difference between “part” and whole.
Before we can explain this closer, we must accept logically that the dynamic existence
reaches to the infinitely small. No entirety is elementary, because without structure it would
be infinitesimal, could not have an effect, not even as a needle sting. After all, we measure
everything by its effect. Even an energy quantum cannot shirk, because it has a certain
„size“; and it can be only measured (perceived) when it reveals an effect structure, on an
electron, for example. But a structure means alternation between individuals (see above). In
the case of the energy quantum between the states of the electron, what the quantum arises
from. To put the effect down to an elementary quantum, therefore, would not be logical.
Without structure no effect (and vice versa) whomever one assigns the effect to. Exactly
this effect also expresses itself in the energy size of the quantum (and not vice versa).
1 Only in infinitely small points, the individuals can meet. Since these are nothing without individual derivation.
2 As well as the individual himself, because every standpoint also is a dynamic individual that „derives“ from the
others etc.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
879
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | August 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 6 | pp. 877-884
Janew, C., Dynamic Existence
Yet, in the end, we find between the varying individuals and in the center of every
individual only an infinitesimal point. That is the alternation happens, actually, between
single points. Though, of course these are defined by alternation only, so that alternation
turns out again as the basic structure. Because this basic structure extends to the
infinitesimal, I call it infinitesimality structure.
The form of the alternation, therefore, is the form of the infinitesimality structure. If an
individual never returned, „exist“ only one infinitesimal moment, nobody could grasp it. If
it returned precisely, nobody could perceive its change. Hence, there should be - aside from
the change from A to B and B to A’ - also a change from A’ to B’ as well as from B’ to A’’
etc.3, so that an approximate unity of A and B is weaved.
In the middle (unity!) between A and B, a quasi-static approximate object of the alternation
thereby comes out. Not the previously mentioned tissue, but rather a symbolic form
circumscribed by it. This already resembles that what we usually call a thing. 4 If the unity
predominates, the object is denser, like the tissue. If the difference predominates, it is
thinner, sometimes hardly discernibly, because it is due to a more peripheral fabric.
The approximation - whether dense or thin - is also individual of course, with an
infinitesimal center of identity, so that an alternation takes place between identity and
difference of A and B, between oneness and multitude. In the last consequence between the
central point and periphery, and again the center inbetween and its periphery etc. In the
course of this, also spiral tissue and approximations are produced between all centers and
peripheries: there originates an entire, more or less uniform thing. 5
In the case of the screen the thing is dense: we change from edge to edge, edge to center,
pixel to pixel; all individual settings - identity centers - in the awareness of their
dynamically existing alternatives. Nevertheless, between my daughter and me the
difference predominates; no approximate object crystallizes out, although we feel an
ethereal quasi-static unity between us.
If I extend the dynamic of my standpoint to the situation as such, now I alternate between
relatively independent „parts“ (screen, daughter, I), while I put myself into the position of
my daughter, realize a solid monitor etc. I perceive from the respective position an
individual totality; and over and over again also from the center of the „whole“ situation,
which I arrange individually as well.
Does this mean a universal definition of existence on the base of individuality alternations?
Yes, because another existence than an individual one is not consistently generalizable.
3 Moreover, also between A’ and A, A’’ and A’ etc.
4 To be precise: For the individual A who becomes aware of its phase B the approximation between them is a
potential to the existence of B. If it becomes aware of the alternation between two other phases of itself, the
approximation seems concrete.
5 Because the approximation is basically a potential to the reproduction of the in each case other side, she can be no
additional individual, but was present from the beginning of the alternation - as an original change partner who went
over to an other one and is now the center.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
880
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | August 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 6 | pp. 877-884
Janew, C., Dynamic Existence
The alternation does not happen necessarily physically (whatever is meant by
„physically“). It depends only on the position of perception. The need of the
infinitesimality structure to grasp this dynamic shows that we can speak as well of
consciousness or consciousness foci. Since nothing is solid, everything are back-coupling
alternation structures of alternations.
These also must not be space-temporal. This is only our habitual perception. Alternation
can and will take place in every state space formed by quite different coordinates. How
these alternations are arranged by perception, is open, too. Dreams and associations are an
example of this.
Nevertheless, the logical consequences are bigger: If everything exists only in the
alternation of the individuality, this alternation must enclose the whole universe! No
alternation can be separated from the others completely, run possibly in parallel, because
this would mean an absolute division of the universe. That is we speak of one single
alternation.
If the universe is unlimited - and for a final limit there is in no direction a reason - then the
position change must occur at infinite speed. („Speed“ as its space-temporal interpretation.)
This is the basic speed from which every relatively limited consciousness is filtered out by
the form of the alternation. Such filtering forms are narrow back couplings, which reduce
the superficial frequency of the change, slow down movement apparently, so that the
quicker frequencies work only in the little conscious background. Just as well as if I
concentrate upon the screen and „forget“ my daughter besides, while I am still aware of her
and a lot of farther. Even the macrocosm has not disappeared completely. Only the details
are not resolved any more. 6
If the form shows a finely gradated structure, it seems solid. If it proves in addition a drift,
we have a continuous movement. If it is closely tied and variously intertwined, it will not
dissolve fast. If it more allows spontaneous change, it will develop new, but related
structures.
What does it mean, actually, to say „we“? Do „we“ see anything? Also this „we“ and „our“
something originate from the exchange of positions - while we transform (!) subjective
information back and forth and create thus an approximate collectivity. 7
It needs a paradigm change from the view of “objective” objects to the awareness of a
dynamic individual that alternates through all realities and determines itself by the form of
this alternation. Despite it is unusual: The infinite basic speed gives every way to it. 8 Even
6 From this the reality funnel originates, as it is described in my e-book „How Consciousness Creates Reality“ (in
the chapter of the same name). This is the very abridged version of my German book „Die Erschaffung der
Realität“ (The Creation of Reality). They are both available from www.free-will.de.
7 See the chapter „Projection and creating approximations“ in „How Consciousness Creates Reality“
8 I have thought through all basic questions, which arose to me from this result. Here their discussion would be too
extensive. However, I will answer with pleasure your questions by e-mail.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
881
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | August 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 6 | pp. 877-884
Janew, C., Dynamic Existence
with a relatively steady awareness of my individuality, with a self-filtered consciousness,
sitting here, I am at every moment a phase of the unlimited alternation. The terms
awareness, individual, standpoint, consciousness, focus are basically synonymous. I only
structure with them the all-embracing dynamic. If I sit down from one place on the other, I
do nothing else, than to relate phases of my unlimited alternation back coupling to each
other and thus design a local change.
What is creation?
The infinitesimality structure of focus dynamic has another two essential consequences:
1.
The freedom of choice of consciousness is automatically integrated. I have founded
this in my article Omnipresent Consciousness and Free Will as well as in my e-book How
Consciousness Creates Reality.9
In brief: Weighing describes a back coupling between alternative changes. This
indefiniteness circumscribes an entirety and defines it thus up to an infinitesimal center.
However, in a decisive situation the indefiniteness of the progress is also an indefiniteness
of the situation as a whole. The alternatives are defined on the other hand as those very
well. That is definiteness and indefiniteness of the situation can be separated from the
decision-making process at no place, they actually arise from it. Besides, the peripheral
structure of the whole and its most internal core establish an infinitesimality-structured
unity. This unites definiteness and indefiniteness also totally. In this totality both are
assimilated, are not even partly distinguishable. Hence, from this totality every new
definiteness is freely chosen.
2.
All consciousness is also tied together immediately with each other - not only by
immediate focus alternation, but by the central identity in every „braked“, with apparently
limited focus speed. I have explained this in the mentioned booklet, too. 10
The approach: Every consciousness is in infinitesimality-structured relation to all others. In
this relation, the center of every consciousness is also identified with the center of the
totality, because such unity centers are at every place „between“ part and whole.
Accordingly, the decisions of partial consciousness and whole consciousness from the unity
with these centers are also identical.
If we consider in addition the described presence of all individual realities in the awareness
of our own, we get a shimmering, adaptable „consciousness net“ from which every
consciousness chooses its reality permanently. According to structure of the network one
reality is more likely and the other one less. If consciousness makes a probable reality its
actual one, the others „fall down a bit“, lose probability. They become potential.
9 See the chapter „Consciousness – the infinitesimality structure”.
10 See the chapters „Consciousness – the infinitesimality structure” and „Our permanent choice”.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
882
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | August 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 6 | pp. 877-884
Janew, C., Dynamic Existence
Because our current awareness is tied together with all other awareness indirectly and
immediately, consciously and less consciously to subconsciously, it can come to an
agreement with them about a collective approximate reality. The biggest part of the
coordination will take place for capacity reasons subconsciously (nevertheless, always
within awareness), so that we must make not too big thoughts about the form of the world.
Also, its stability will be maintained naturally subconsciously. For this we have recognized
the general structure, although we do not know most concrete processes yet.
Accordingly, the creation of a collective reality would be the decision of all participant
individuals for a priority approximation of their positions and the fading out of others. This
can be illustrated by the origin of the screen. From all states to which all individuals are
fluctuating permanently, a not too improbable one (the vague „idea“) is „condensed“ in a
physical object by the inventor / manufacturer. He raises that advance-felt (or investigated)
probability by attention, skill and energy application to 100%. Then it is handed over to us
„attention-energetic“, is selected by us in this form from the huge number of offers. Other
versions are not considered any more. We fade them out. After that, we further construct
from the acquired approximate object a more individual screen, our very own one (as
described) from which the manufacturer gets as a rule nothing more. However, our screen
remains more narrowly related with the prototype than the prototype with the vague „idea“
selected by the inventor - this „idea“ has hardened on a higher level. The friends who visit
us (!) may now easily construct a similar screen on our desk.
We maintain the stability of the „material object“ partly consciously, because we appreciate
it. We also find the way back repeatedly - consciously and half consciously - to the state of
screen consideration (i.e. home). And if the object is broken, in the end, we let recycle the
atoms. Only how the consciousness net maintains physical laws and human prejudices is
widely unsolved.
How much we can consciously create, therefore is left to our experimental joy and personal
development. There is no lack of guides to it. According to my experience, our possibilities
are clearly bigger than materialists believe, but their probabilities often are not so high as
many others promise. „Matter“ is compressed consciousness, however, the „matrix“ wants
to be taken along.11
Two subtle questions arise if one considers the timelessness of the alternation between all
„past“ and „future“ individuals:
1. If every focus, every individual, every reality is run through permanently, how can we
create then a reality? How can it be really new? To put it briefly: The way is more than the
goal. Though every individual is a phase of all others, however, its awareness is a unique
hierarchy of probabilities, which exists only if it is just taken. Though it is generated at
every moment again, the filtered, slower way from peak A to peak B is not! Although it
shows a partial frequency of the infinite, there it is only here and now where it is walked.
11 Allusion on the feature film of the same name in which the „matrix“ stands for the collective consciousness
network.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
883
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | August 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 6 | pp. 877-884
Janew, C., Dynamic Existence
2. If everything already exists in the focus movement, is there then a universal
development, or is everything merely repeated? This question is related to the preceding
one, and so the answer is easy.12 The unique slow way does not recur most probably,
because it is infinite. Also, it can be hardly repeated by someone else (or ourselves),
because our freedom of choice makes it unpredictable. Somebody who wanted to follow it
would not make the same decisions.
Another question on the direction of individual development leads us to the concept of
value fulfillment, which can be assumed maybe from the above if we include the
asymmetry between restriction that is more quasi-static and dynamic infinity. I would like
to close here with a self-citation: „Value fulfillment cannot be determined by a goal. It
exists rather in its own prospering, it is in itself way and goal, an experienced awareness
and timeless. It means feeling the own meaning in the world, also the own significance, and
living according to this value feeling. This feeling encloses its own growth, as well as the
growing awareness of a more comprehensive whole in which it is secured.“ 13
Additional comment by the author (2010):
Individuality and the physical paradigm
The physical paradigm contains serious distortions or inconsistencies:
1.
The Brain is seen as the ultimate "perceiver". But who perceives the brain? The
brain again? This is a circle, where my concept of circumscription comes in.
2.
Reality is seen as physical after all, and by "physical" our paradigm is meant. From
this a limited view of information derives. Here, my infinitesimality structure suggests a
deeper view from which "information" derives.
3.
"Physical" also means "objective", and objectivity is considered to be "not part of
the observer" (the term "observer" contains this misunderstanding in itself). So where in
this world is the observer? Observed by whom? Or not observed at all?
Infinitesimality structure means, that there is no object in itself. Objects only condense
from universal change by circumscription. This change is an alternation between
individuals, and these individuals are condensations of this change, too. So neither firm
objects nor objective individuals exist. There is only change or alternation in itself
(structure of alternation).
12 Both questions can be refined in several directions, which is why I have dedicated to them an own chapter („Die
Unzerstörbarkeit des Individuums”) in my German book „Die Erschaffung der Realität”.
13 „Die Erschaffung der Realität”, Chapter „Werterfüllung“.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
884
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | August 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 6 | pp. 877-884
Janew, C., Dynamic Existence
Quantum physics describes another form of alternation than classical physics. There seems
to be a basic unity, an elementary quantum. To perceive (or think) such a quantum,
however, needs circumscription of "it", condensation of a movement. Again, there is no
quantum in itself, although we treat it as such – and limit our focus on it.
How then can it be circumscribed so stable? This is the question to be asked, while not
simplifying it to an object in itself (except for practical use).
In this concept there is no exclusive observer, there are only individual views (=
individuals). Every view is unlimited at the end (and so are the individuals), but is limited
asymptotically by self-reflection aimed at a controllable world and at building structures at
all. (A continuous plenum reflects on limited structure to define itself.)
To view the world infinitesimality-structured means to think beyond elementary quantum
and quantum information, because "information" is already a condensation, a permanent
attuning of alternating individuals (individual views). No information is transmitted: An
attunement takes place – by condensating a change, changing position, and decondensating
individually. The whole process is precondensated before of course by developing a
"common" language, establishing a "common" infrastructure etc., and by unknown
processes, too.
Alternation is unlimited, because logically there cannot be a limit without the possibility to
cross it in principle. I know that logic is thought by humans, but on the other hand thinking
is seen as an appropriate tool to relate to the bigger world. It must be so, otherwise we
would not (self-) exist in it. Although our thinking may be inconsistent, it cannot be
meaningless to the bigger extent. Although the "ultimate" observer does not exist,
individual standpoints do exist; and so does their attunement.
Infinitesimality and infinity are consequences of limitlessness with respect to the existent
meaning of the individual thinking. They can be well a camouflage for unperceived
structures, but they always point beyond the perceived ones and they always remain
essential values to deal with.
ISSN: 2153-8212
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com |
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 1-4
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Let All Truth Seekers Be the Vessels to Carry Consciousness Research to New Heights
1
Editorial
Inaugural Issue
Let All Truth Seekers Be the Vessels to Carry
Consciousness Research to New Heights
Huping Hu & Maoxin Wu
ABSTRACT
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research ("JCER") is a publication in which scientists,
philosophers and other learned scholars publish their research results and express their views on the
the nature, origin and mechanism of consciousness. JCER is not about a particular philosophical view
of consciousness nor is it focused on philosophical debates which have been done over the millenia.
Rather, it is a journal mainly dedicated to the scientific studies of consciousness. JCER is published by
QuantumDream, Inc. We are committed to truth and excellence at JCER.
Key Words: consciousness, science, exploration, research
1. Purpose, Mission & Policy1
The main purpose and mission of JCER are
to conduct scientific studies on the nature, origin
and mechanism of consciousness. It is a journal
in which scientists, philosophers and other
learned scholars publish their research results
and express their views on issues outline herein.
In doing so, we hope that one day we will be
able to arrive at a genuine science of
consciousness.
The current policy at JCER is editorial
invitation for publication and editorial selections
of submitted papers for publication. All papers
published by JCER are either subject to openpeer-review (“OPR”) in the same issue of JCER or
open to OPR in subsequent issues of JCER.
2. The State of Consciousness Research
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to
the most clear headed science, to the study of
matter, I can tell you as a result of my research
about atoms this much: There is no matter as
such. All matter originates and exists only by
virtue of a force which brings the particle of an
atom to vibration and holds this most minute
solar system of the atom together. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a
conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the
Corresponding author: Huping Hu, Ph.D., J.D.
Address: QuantumDream, Inc., P.O. Box 267, Stony Brook,
NY 11790, USA. E-mail: hupinghu@quantumbrain.org
ISSN:
matrix of all matter.” These were the words of
Max Planck (1944). Planck (1931) had also stated
that “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I
regard matter as derivative from consciousness.
We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything
that we talk about, everything that we regard as
existing, postulates consciousness.”
However, in mainstream sciences today the
study and even the mentioning of mind or
consciousness are till taboo and the physicists’
version of a theory of everything does not
include consciousness. Indeed, physicists
encountered consciousness more than eighty
years ever since quantum mechanics was born
(see, e.g., Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2006). Instead
of embracing such encounters and exploring the
mystery of consciousness, the majority of
physicists have been avoiding the consciousness
issue like a plague. The irony is that, if we cannot
understand ourselves and refuse to do so, how
can we hope to understand fundamentally the
world surrounding us. Shouldn’t the logic be that
in order to understand the external world
fundamentally we need also (or we must first) to
understand how consciousness work?
On the other hand, in the current field of
consciousness research some individuals treat
the field not as an arena of truth-seeking but a
playground for personal gratifications and gains.
The goal for them is not about truth but
themselves. These individuals create so much of
the unhealthy atmosphere in consciousness
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 1-4
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Let All Truth Seekers Be the Vessels to Carry Consciousness Research to New Heights
research
such
as
rivalry,
arrogance,
protectionism and intolerance of alternative
views which lead to mediocrity and stagnancy in
the field. Similarly, being the mouthpieces of the
entrenched, dogmatic, and/or self-proclaimed
authorities in the field, some of the journals,
electronic archives and conferences covering the
field reject or degrade many original works,
although freedom and impartiality are their
slogan.
3. The Way Out of the Crisis
So, how can we turn around the currently
depressing and even shameful situations? First,
all men and women of consciousness research
have to rise above ourselves by putting our
personal interests and gains aside and the
mission of truth-seeking as the first priority.
Second. All truth-seeking men and women
should be granted the rights of freedom,
equality and opportunity to be heard in the
pursuit of truth. Third, all men and women of
consciousness research should be humble, openminded and tolerant of alternative and opposing
views.
Over the last 450 years since Copernicus,
we have reached the golden age of science. It is
up to us, the modern scientists and all truthseeking men and women, to study the nature of
consciousness scientifically so as to usher
mankind into a new era of unprecedented
enlightenment and knowledge.
4. Authors’ View on Consciousness
The authors are of the view that the reality
is an interactive quantum reality centered on
consciousness and the interaction between
consciousness and reality seems to be a
“chicken-egg” puzzle. The perplexing questions
are: (1) Is quantum reality (the “chicken”)
produced and influence by consciousness (the
“egg”); or (2) is consciousness produced and
influenced by quantum reality?
Quite a few consciousness researchers have
tried to answer parts of these two questions. For
example, on the first question, Henry Stapp
(1993) has made heroic efforts in the face of
various criticisms. On the second question,
Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff (1996), for
example, have made tremendous efforts in
producing and advocating the Penrose-Hameroff
ISSN:
2
model. Philosophically, David Chalmers (1996) in
the 90’s shook up the field of consciousness
research with his classification of the problems
of consciousness into “easy problems” and “hard
problems”. However, the answers to all these
fundamental questions are far from settled and
they must be answered to arrive at a genuine
science of consciousness.
Borrowing from certain philosophy of
Hinduism, the herein authors are inclined to
believe that: (1) consciousness is both
transcendent and immanent, that is, the
transcendental
aspect
of
consciousness
produces and influences reality as the interactive
output of consciousness and, in turn, reality
produces and influences immanent aspect of
consciousness as the interactive input to
consciousness; and (2) Human consciousness is a
limited or individualized version of this dualaspect consciousness such that we have limited
free will and limited observation/experience
which is mostly classical at macroscopic levels
but quantum at microscopic levels.
As a limited transcendental consciousness,
we have through free will the choice of what
measurement to do in a quantum experiment
but not the ability to control the result of
measurement. That is, the result appears to us
as random. On the other hand, at the
macroscopic level, we also have the choice
through free will of what to do but the outcome,
depending on context, is sometimes certain and
at other times uncertain. Further, as a limited
immanent consciousness, we can only observe
the measurement result in a quantum
experiment which we conduct and experiences
the macroscopic environment surrounding us as
the classical world.
5. Milestones Leading to the Launch of JCER
The herein authors have been conducting
scientific studies of consciousness over last ten
years since 2000 (See, e.g., Hu & Wu, 2001-2007)
thus making the launch of JCER feasible and
practical.
In a series of publications, the herein
authors proposed a novel mechanism of
anesthetic action, a spin-mediated consciousness theory, and a theory in which spin is the
primordial self-referential process driving
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 1-4
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Let All Truth Seekers Be the Vessels to Carry Consciousness Research to New Heights
[immanent] consciousness (See, e.g., Hu & Wu,
2001-2004).
Then, the authors found ways to test
experimentally the spin-mediated consciousness
theory and biological (& macroscopic) quantum
entanglement (Hu & Wu, 2006-2007). It was
discovered that applying magnetic pulses to the
brain when an anesthetic was placed in between
caused the brain to feel the effect of said
anesthetic as if the test subject had actually
inhaled the same (Hu & Wu, 2006a&b). Through
additional experiments, the authors verified that
the said brain effect was indeed the
consequence of quantum entanglement (Id.).
These results support the possibility of a
quantum brain. Experimenting with simple
physical systems such as water quantumentangled with water being manipulated, the
authors also found non-local chemical, thermal
and gravitational effects (Hu & Wu, 2006c,
2007). These non-local effects also support a
quantum brain theory such as the spin mediated
consciousness theory (Id.). In short, the above
experiments call for drastic changes in the
authors own under-standings of nature,
consciousness and life.
On December 21, 2009, the herein authors
made public their work entitled “The Principle of
Existence: Toward a Scientific Theory of
Everything.” The work was also submitted for
publication on the same day to a journal which
provisionally accepted it for publication pending
review of the mathematics. The feedback from
the two reviewers as relayed by the chief editor
of that journal under submission was that there
is too much theology in the work (which is not
true as any reader of the preprint of the work
can tell) thus unsuitable for publication.
To accommodate and/or conform to the
current circumstances in science and consciousness research, the herein authors have decided
to modify their work by leaving the word GOD,
ALLAH and Creator out and publish the modified
work in this journal. However, the herein
authors strongly feel that this yielding to the
present circumstances of scientific journalism
hardly do justice to the work or to the scientific
GOD which the work proposes. So, the original
version has been published separately.
In short, time is ripe to launch JCER at this
critical moment – the first month and year of a
ISSN:
3
brand-new decade in the New Millennium and
the fast approaching December 2012 during
which the supposed transformation of mankind
shall occur. The herein authors believe that the
state of consciousness of mankind is the missing
link for the supposed transformation to take
place.
6. The Contents of the Inaugural Issue
Besides the work of the herein authors, this
inaugural issue also contains original works of
several authors by editorial invitations. The
papers appear in reverse alphabetic order by the
last name of the first author.
The work of Dainis Zeps illustrates cognitum
hypothesis and cognitum consciousness through
which Zeps offers a route to the unification of
mind and matter. Zeps passionately ask the
question: “May we imagine that materialistic
and idealistic thinkers were both right in all point
concerning mind and matter they have
quarreled for centuries?”
The work of Stephen P. Smith investigates
the conflict between formality and intuition and
discusses the importance of sentience (or
feeling). Among other things, Smith argues that
“sentience is covertly connected to space-time
geometry when axioms of congruency are
stipulated, essentially hiding in the formality
what is sense-certain.”
The work of Dick Richardson illustrates from
the mystical point of view “consciousness, time
and prespacetime as consciousness finds it to
be.” Richardson argues that “only things in time
and space which were not made in time and
space can go back beyond time and space where
they come from.” The best way to understand
Richardson’s work fully is to read his online book
given in the reference section of his paper.
The work of Joseph Polanik questions
whether “there is an I3”, and recommends that
this question be the focusing question of JCER.
To this end, Polanik describes his notation for
subscripting pronouns by reality type and then
these are used to diagnose the situation in which
contemporary consciousness research finds itself
and to pose the search-focusing question for
JCER as a means for moving on from here.
Then the work of Alan Oliver addresses the
“Hard Problem” from the perspective of the
ancient teaching in Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research | January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 1-4
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Let All Truth Seekers Be the Vessels to Carry Consciousness Research to New Heights
Oliver finds ontological similarity between the
herein authors’ work to appear as the last paper
in this issue and the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.
The reason for this similarity, according to
Oliver, is that “both seemed to progress through
the same or similar steps in a journey from
prespacetime to the everyday reality in which
we and the Hard Problem exist.”
Indeed, the graphics in the cover page of
this Inaugural Issue tries to capture Oliver’s view.
Finally, the work of the herein authors
attempts to lay out an ontological and
mathematical foundation toward a scientific
theory of everything: “In the beginning there
was Consciousness by itself e0 =1 materially
4
empty and spiritually restless. And it began to
imagine through primordial self-referential spin:
1=e0=eiM-iM=eiMe-iM=e-iM/ e-iM = eiM/ eiM…
such that it created the external object to be
observed and internal object as observed,
separated them into external world and internal
world, caused them to interact through selfreferential Matrix Law and thus gave birth to the
Universe which it has since passionately loved,
sustained and made to evolve.”
In closing let us remind ourselves that
consciousness study is a sacred enterprise of
truth. So, let freedom and knowledge to ring and
let all truth seekers be the vessels to carry
consciousness study to new heights.
References
Chalmers, D. The Conscious Mind (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1996).
Hameroff, S. & Penrose, R. Conscious events as
orchestrated spacetime selections. J. Conscious
Stud., 1996; 3: 36-53.
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Mechanism of anesthetic action:
oxygen pathway perturbation hypothesis. Med.
Hypotheses 2001a: 57: 619-627. Also see arXiv
2001b; physics/0101083.
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Spin-mediated consciousness theory.
arXiv 2002; quant-ph/0208068. Also see Med.
Hypotheses 2004a: 63: 633-646.
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Spin as primordial self-referential
process driving quantum mechanics, spacetime
dynamics and consciousness. NeuroQuantology
2004b; 2:41-49. Also see Cogprints: ID2827 2003.
ISSN:
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Photon induced non-local effect of
general anesthetics on the brain. NeuroQuantology 2006a 4: 17-31. Also see Progress in
Physics 2006b; v3: 20-26.
Hu, H. & Wu, M. Evidence of non-local physical,
chemical and biological effects supports
quantum brain. NeuroQuantology 2006c; 4: 291306. Also see Progress in Physics 2007; v2: 17-24.
Planck, M. Interview with The Observer, London, Jan.
25, 1931.
Planck, M. Speech at Florence, Italy, 1944.
Rosenblum, B. & Kuttner, F. Quantum Enigma
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
Stapp. H. P. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics
(New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993).
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
Published by QuantumDream, Inc.
www.JCER.com |
"1070\n\nJournal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| December 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 9 | pp. 107(...TRUNCATED) |
"887\n\nJournal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| August 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 6 | pp. 887-88(...TRUNCATED) |
"Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 16-36\nSmit(...TRUNCATED) |
"Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| September 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 6 | pp. 773-775\n7(...TRUNCATED) |
"Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| March 2011 | Vol. 2 | Issue 2 | pp. 216-217\nCecil(...TRUNCATED) |
"Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research| January 2010 | Vol. 1 | Issue 1 | Page 05-15\nZeps(...TRUNCATED) |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
YAML Metadata
Warning:
empty or missing yaml metadata in repo card
(https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/datasets-cards)
Papers on consciousness extracted from PDF format, from Cognition and Consciousness, arXiv and JCER.
- Downloads last month
- 0
Size of downloaded dataset files:
46.5 MB
Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:
23.2 MB
Number of rows:
903
Models trained or fine-tuned on gollark/consciousness