Metaphysical “Choices” – Consciousness

Consciousness is something we intuitively believe we understand. After all, in many ways it is who we are personally. Yet try to define it and the meaning becomes elusive. American Philosopher Thomas Nagel describes another organism as conscious when we mean “there is something it is like to be that organism… something it is like for the organism.” While there is not much agreement on a specific definition of consciousness, a rough triangulation of a definition could be consciousness is subjectivity.

In Evolved I have been wrestling with the idea of consciousness. Specifically, what does it mean to be an organic life form versus a silicon life form? In the Evolved world there are silicon people who are recognized as alive, along with all the legal rights of an organic life. This sets up an interesting tension as both sides try to define what it means to be ‘alive.’ Silicon life have dreams, emotions and a sense of ‘self.’ So what does that mean? Are they conscious? If so, how are they different?

Philosophers, scientists and psychologists have grappled with consciousness from multiple angles. Religions themselves rest on certain assumptions about consciousness, and what it means. Yet despite the extended history of human study of consciousness, we remain deeply confused by it (even if we don’t recognize our own confused state).

“For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.” -David Hume, 1739

By approaching from the perspective of the ‘self,’ there are two basic theories: ego theorists and bundle theorists. Ego theorists believe in a continuously existing self who are subjects of experiences and who think, act and feel. Bundle theorists deny there is a self, instead arguing we are simply a collection of different perceptions that are in constant flux and movement. Buddhism denies there is a self and therefore falls into the bundle theory, while most other religions believe in either immortal souls or reincarnating spirits that fall into the ego theory.

“I am not thought, I am not action, I am not feeling: I am something which thinks and acts and feels.” -Thomas Reid, 1785

In Evolved, silicon life is most definitely in the bundled theory. Yet how does a silicon life form feel about that? Could they not believe they too have a soul, a continuity of their existence beyond their physical existence? All the perceptions they process have similar reactions as organic life. In which theory does organic life fall? Well, I can’t give away all the fun…

Approaching from another angle, there are competing theories over whether consciousness is dualism or monism. Dualism argues a part of consciousness is non-physical, creating a separation between mind and body, object and subject. Monism includes physicalism and materialism, which argues matter is the fundamental substance in nature. From a scientific perspective, dualism is a hard argument to defend. After all, it argues something mystical is going on, or at least beyond current scientific reason.

Plato used the allegory of a cave to describe consciousness while David Hume described it as a type of theater, which later Daniel Dennett rejected and called the Cartesian Theater. This concept imagines a place inside the mind where ‘I’ am, complete with a sort of mental screen or stage where contents of consciousness are presented to the mind’s eye. A similar concept is Cartesian Materialism in which the consciousness is not separate from the brain. Both concepts reflect a dualism in which there are two parts to a person, the physical and the conscious. But, Susan Blackmore explains the problem with inventing a central place in which subjectivity happens:

“So either we have to find an answer to the question, ‘how does subjective awareness arise from the objective actions of all these neurons and muscle cell?’, or we have to work out what mistake has led us into posing such an impossible question in the first place.” -Susan Blackmore, 2011

Another consideration about consciousness is whether it causes directed attention or is the effect of paying attention, or neither. Many positions today describe attention in a causal manner, similar to “the sentry at the gate of consciousness” (Adam Zeman, 2001), which implies a dualism. A similar monism causal view is “there is no conscious perception without attention.” (Mack and Rock, 1998) William James asked, “Is voluntary attention a resultant or a force?” He made a strong case for the effect side but ultimately sided with the causal on ethical grounds.

Some scientists have dived down to the quantum level (Eugene Wigner and Henry Stapp) to explain consciousness, assuming a Copenhagen-sympathetic interpretation that allows for an open future (and therefore free will). Yet the actual mechanism allowing our brains to willfully collapse a wave function, or provide true chance in the process, remains mysterious. Alternatively, one could argue a Bohm interpretation, implying a deterministic reality in which we either have no free will or our brains use a mysterious outside influence on our deterministic brains.

Could silicon produce a conscious being? Could we eventually upload our consciousness into a silicon-based computer without losing anything? So much depends on your definition of consciousness but most scientists don’t see any reason why it could not happen. Most religious leaders are appalled by the notion. What would the Buddha think of it? Would robots also strive for “emptiness” to clear out the distracting objectivity originally programmed into them?

If a robot had dreams, emotions, displayed moral behavior, could create original art pieces, and vehemently argued it had a ‘self,’ would you consider it conscious? Would it be an equal to you legally? If an organic human killed it, would it be murder with the same penalties as what we consider is murder?

All of these questions about consciousness are rich veins to mine in Evolved. Honestly, I am still changing things as I reconsider questions, find inconsistencies between my meta physical choices, and work to bring out the issues to the reader. I will probably never reach a satisfactory end point, but will I consciously accept that?

Chance – Does Humanity Have Any?

Does chance exist in our reality?

Do we live in an indeterminate universe?

Two different questions, but closely related. The first asks whether anything is truly random. The second incorporates the first but also asks whether we can actively change how the future plays out. Is there room in our universe for free will?

You might be surprised that scientists and philosophers find it quite difficult to allow an opening for chance to exist in our reality. Time is asymmetric, but just because we can’t perceive the future doesn’t mean it is random in nature. Theoretically, the laws of physics should determine how the future unfolds.

Those probabilities in quantum mechanics? In the wrong place to allow for real chance. The probabilities reflect our inability to measure effectively at the quantum level. They do not allow for random wave functions, unless one incorporates the GRW theory into the model. GRW theory implies an inherent randomness within the quantum wave functions, allowing a wave function to randomly reset itself every billion years, or so. (It also implies many dimensions exist beyond what we perceive)

So, does humanity have any chance? It would appear the answer is no, or at least an extraordinarily small degree. Does that mean we have no free will? Let’s return to that idea of extra dimensions.

String theory implies ten, or even eleven dimensions if you include time. GRW theory implies more dimensions than that. Other theories suggest we live in a multi-universe, which requires multiple dimensions. Science, and math, consistently suggests something more is going on than we perceive with our limited senses.

Do extra dimensions open up the opportunity for free will? Does consciousness use extra dimensions to change the deterministic universe we perceive? Is consciousness simply a receiver of something from extra dimensions, manipulating this reality for some greater purpose? Is life’s ability to create order in a less organized environment a hint of its higher purpose? These are the questions explored in Evolved.

When I started writing Evolved I entered through a well-defined sturdy portal with a neon light blinking “Science” above it. When the writing was finished I had unexpectedly popped out of some twisted rabbit hole into a reality well beyond what we perceive today. It is something I hope to share with the world one day.

Present State

The challenge of Presence is a big part of Evolved. Presence both in the spatial and temporal sense. Mahayana Buddhism talks about Zen through meditation, a way of seeking emptiness for enlightenment. Judaism describes God in one form as Present. There is something special about the present, being present. In our world we tend to live in the past, highlighted by recent neurological studies focused on the time lag between subconscious and conscious thought.

The universe in Evolved is split into two (what we think of as reality and something else) through the interaction of a ten dimensional brane with a field of resistance. The mind of the protagonist, the Evolved, strives to make two back into one.  While writing Evolved I danced around the concept of presence through many re-writes, approaching it from a cosmological, quantum, philosophical, neurological and then psychological angle. When I finally felt like I had wrestled the concept into something that made sense, I read Martin Buber’s “I and Thou” and Richard Rohr’s “Immortal Diamond.” They approached this concept from a religious and spiritual perspective. Their message came together with what I had written like a thunder clap in my head. Richard Rohr discusses Presence from the Christian faith:

In some ways, presence is the “one thing necessary” (Luke 10:42), and perhaps the hardest thing of all. Just try to keep your heart open, your mind without division or resistance, and your body not somewhere else. Such simple presence is the practical, daily task of all mature religion and all spiritual disciplines. Once you are “present and accounted for,” you grow from everything, even the problematic and difficult things. If your presence is wrong, you will not recognize the Real Presence even in the Eucharist. The Presence will be there–it always is–but you won’t be. I love to say that it has been much easier for Jesus to teach bread and wine what it is than to teach humans, who always resist their deepest and simplest identity.

– Richard Rohr

Nested Meanings

Two is better than one, as the saying goes. This seems true from the smallest to the largest scale. Did you know particles in quantum theory like photons are monogamous? Only two can become entangled, not three. Entangled particles are connected in a way not completely understood by physicists, but basically it means the measurement of one determines the value of the entangled particle, no matter the distance separating them. Breaking the entanglement is possible, but costs energy. It is one of the stranger and least intuitive aspects of quantum theory, and also one that has proven vexing when scientists have tried to integrate the theory of general relativity with quantum theory.

Bridging quantum theory and the theory of relativity has been an on-going effort, resulting in fields of study like string theory. String theory replaces particles with loops and strands, creating a mathematical basis allowing for the two theories to combine, but not without contradictions. String theory requires higher dimension objects called D-branes to solve some of the contradictions between quantum and relativity. String theory suggests D-branes (branes for short) are ten dimensions, although there are theories that imply many more dimensions are necessary. Dr. Randall at Harvard does a great job pulling it together in a readable manner.

Before your brain cramps, simply think of a dimension as a necessary descriptor to describe your location precisely. In the reality we understand, we can locate every particle by its three spatial dimensions and time. But let’s say we found a way to shift gravitational force, holding everything else constant. Well then, we’d need another descriptor, or dimension, in order to describe our location precisely.

In the book Evolved the universe is based on ten dimensional branes within a higher dimension bulk universe. Think of it as objects floating in space. Humanity is in a four dimensional reality (three spatial plus time) within the ten dimensional brane. The Big Bang was the point when the brane (referred to as “The One” in the book) collided with a resistance field in the higher dimension bulk universe, causing the conversion of energy to mass in three spatial dimensions and dividing the reality we understand from the remaining dimensions held within the brane. It is this theme of division, and its counter force of unification, that runs through Evolved. If you look at the Evolved symbol you’ll see a caret-like symbol with a vertical line above it. This is the ‘Two into One’ theme. A lot more to the symbol, but let’s leave it at that for now.

If division was the split of one into two, unification is the effort of making two into one. Our world is defined by the tension between these opposing aspects. I find it interesting you see this unification at the quantum level through entanglement. In our life the will to unify surrounds us. The Rusty Blackbirds reminded my daughters and I of unification yesterday as they squawked at our presence near their three babies in their nest under the eave of the shed by the dock. The Loons watching us closely as we rowed near their nest with eggs was another reminder, as was the startled Eastern Phoebe flapping out of her nest with eggs when we opened the back door. Of course, the Bald Eagles swooping over our shed on their way to their nest where junior typically perches on the edge is a dramatic reminder.

Makes you wonder if evolution is simply “The One” trying to reunify itself in a divisive reality…

That’s Just Warped!

It didn’t take long after I started writing that I figured out if I was going to set the story in the distant future, I needed to understand some of the theories about the universe. After reading many books on bubble universes, multi-universes, and string theory, I found Dr. Randall’s theories most satisfying. Her book, Warped Passages, was one of the first books I read and is filled with my notes, underlines, and turned-down pages. What made her views click is that she is a “model builder.” She builds theories from the bottom up. This means she starts with observable scientific facts in particle physics, within the framework of the Standard Model, and attempts to extrapolate from a firm footing. For a former financial analyst who modeled out the finances of public companies, I very much appreciated the methodology.

Her book is an effort to tie particle physics with string theory. String theory is elegant mathematics but has also been portrayed as “castles in the sky” due to its lack of relationship to anything observable. Dr. Randall developed the theory of branes, named after their membrane-like structure. Basically, the theory argues our three or four (if you include time) dimensional reality is a brane within a multi-dimensional bulk. This allowed Dr. Randall to explain why gravity is so weak in our universe, when the standard model argues it should be much stronger.

As a writer, this theory literally gave me a rich topography of the universe with which to play. It also was a very approachable theory for someone who is not a mathematician, offering an easy way to visualize the universe. To recognize the book’s impact on my writing, I named the main ship in the story the USS Randall.

Standing on Giants

Over the summer I plan to go through my sources of inspiration for Evolved. This is partly for my own benefit as I refresh my understanding of various theories. It is also to recognize the brilliant minds that have transformed my life over the past few years. Finally, it will help you understand the road I have traveled to date, and how I arrived at this point.

The path started innocently enough with the thought, “What if humans could adapt to non-organic elements and unlock new capabilities?” This initial idea quickly swept me into chemistry, neurology and psychology, followed almost immediately by cosmology and particle physics. Quantum mechanics and time philosophy took some time to wrap my head around, but boning up on general relativity helped me to understand at least the basics. I’ve always enjoyed moral philosophical debates like “sacrificing the many for the few,” as well as arguments around free will and determinism. One book on chance I read at least five times before it clicked.

When the second draft of the manuscript was complete I took a step back and thought, “there is something more to this.” After showing the draft to a minister at my church, I was blown away that the world I had created was explained almost perfectly by spiritual teaching. Not only that, but Christian, Judaism, and Buddhism belief systems all seemed to explain the supra conscious element I had developed, especially Native American spirituality. Ancient Greek philosophy suddenly sprang into relevance for me. It became clear my mind was wrestling with deeper questions than I had recognized. This realization has been transforming me, urging me on to deeper understandings in all the areas mentioned above.

It has been very cool to go into science and emerge out of spirit. Hope you enjoy the ride.