The Nature of Consciousness and Reality

The Nature of Consciousness & Reality
Introduction (under construction)

Introduction & Overview

CONSCIOUSNESS & REALITY

We intend to demonstrate that consciousness corresponds to the process of being able to start the collapse of a wave function in an universe made only of waves. In other words, we defend the theory that Mind, when it is stilled, is like a mirror, and within that "still point" it is totally conscious. And in such a state (a meditative state) it doesn't process, it just reflects, and is the only architect of reality.

Additionally, we postulate that in the case of Humans, this biological process has its foundations in a neural net system (non-local) that does not exist separately from the local (individual brain) neural net. Its structure is composed of units of consciousness in a quantum field, where the information is free from what we call Newtonian Physics. This information can be accessed and manipulated by human will and intent. Every point in the space-time grid is conscious, and the human brain is a neural structure permeated by these units. Consciousness is an active force that we can exercise in the universe and not simply a passive perception of that same universe.

Therefore we study consciousness, demonstrating that it operates in a more subtle plane, less dense, not merely rational, but always logical. We will include an approach to the electric field emanated from the human heart muscle and, inside this analysis of the more subjective aspects of consciousness, we will reaffirm under a scientific perspective, Blaise Pascal's famous sentence: "The heart has reasons that reason itself knows nothing about."

1. MORPHIC RESONANCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS

"The problem of consciousness is perhaps the largest outstanding obstacle in our quest to scientifically understand reality."

In trying to develop a theory of mind or consciousness, a factor of extreme importance is the way local interactions in a given system can control or influence its global behavior and responsiveness. Not only is this important for its expected flexibility and dynamics, but also to the implementation of fault tolerance mechanisms. Let us imagine, for instance, that the normal functioning of a given software application depends broadly on the results obtained in small and apparently less decisive routines of the computation being made - for instance, the communication routines in a distributed system. If one of them exhibits flaws during the execution of a process, the expected operation of the entire application can fail. The more dependent the different modules (or processes), the higher the chances that this can happen. A tendency exists in all complex and interdependent systems to degrade if exceptions to normal functioning are not considered and solutions implemented. Are infinite 'multiple connected' distribution systems really identical wave functions? Is one node in your hologram infinitely connectable to every other node in that hologram because all nodes are connected by waves connected to waves connected to waves - a giant wave "net" or network. Each mind can be thought of as just another "IP" address (internet protocol) within the network.

If a given system has a specific purpose, such as, for instance, an artificial intelligence application built to produce medical diagnoses, where the maximum of information should be interconnected in such a way to produce results, and if possible, that it can learn over time, this should also consider fault tolerance factors. Its natural evolution in terms of the amount of acquired data and its interconnectedness amongst information contexts creates a coherence problem associated with learning. The conclusion is that any system programmed to learn, should seek a state where it can reflect internally and externally.

These two aspects we just mentioned - fault tolerance and coherence in learning systems - are two key criteria whenever we want to implement any kind of flexible system. So, this is a typical computational problem associated with cognitive sciences, because the intelligence and the cognition are, by nature, dynamic: they strongly depend on the context (also dynamic) in which they work.

This adaptability is one of the characteristics that more easily enables us to distinguish a biological system from a merely logical non-living system, as is the case of a computer. If we look at it etymologically, the difference lies in the suffix "bio", which may be the expression of the essence of "life". In other words, the limits of the evolution of computational cognitive systems can be found, precisely in Nature, and also, even in the meaning of life. Life appears to be rational, yet slightly escapes from logic and suggests itself to us as something more than merely probabilistic. This may be the so-called "chaos frontier". This means that if in the future we completely understand it, then maybe we will be able to develop everything that today we only dream about.

However, this approach gets us face to face with (apparently) less scientific and more philosophical problems, and some times, even religious ones. This hinders the work of those that try limiting their investigation to only that which is tangible, measurable and not just intuitive and abstract. However, sciences such as physics already reached this stage and, forced into the inevitable approach of this more metaphysical perspective, they dove into "fields" that relate quantum mechanics with quite specific religious literature, as it is the case of Vedic texts and their exquisite approach to the nature of the universe.

Keeping our study in the measurable dimensions, let us try to elucidate a little bit more the nature of this problem. What is true for biology, is also true for the simple field of logic. This term, only lacks that element of life - the bio suffix- that we still don't know very well how to define. The prefix 'bio' is intimately related with the nature of consciousness itself. Therefore our concern focuses on discussing this theme.

If we intend to clarify all of the less clear aspects of the cognitive studies and all of the sciences that arise from them, namely the subject of memory and of learning, we must also in parallel study the area of neurobiology. However, here a problem shows may arise. Sometimes, it is not enough to be bounded to the study of one area. As we shall see, -in the nature and essence of biology and life force and awareness - their own nature lives beyond that ‚ beyond the concepts that academically define it nowadays. It is correct that the understanding of the operation of cellular nets in the brain originated the development of countless processes in the areas of medicine and in computation, namely in neural nets, but as we will demonstrate, it is a mistake to end here. And, as a mistake, its repercussions are incalculable.

It is with this fundament that we intended to demonstrate that the approach of the Cognitive Sciences, only supported by the Neo-Darwinian and Newtonian vision of the world, is incomplete and limiting. The very nature of morpho-genesis - the growth of form from a single embryonic cell - demonstrates this dramatically and it allows us to reach conclusions that are precious to the future of this study.

Life exhibits an exceptional functioning from the evolutionary and systemic point of view. Biology is dynamic, flexible, and has fault tolerant systems. Above all, LIFE demonstrates memory capacities and fantastic cognition abilities, reaching, some believe, its maximum sophistication with Human Beings, some cetaceans and other extremely complex life forms.

The intelligence that shapes and steers biological morpho-genesis brings up unprecedented questions in the history of biology and physics. The structured growth of cellular matter is a process that, obviously, doesn't happen with inanimate matter. However, we say "obviously", but the mechanism, or the simple explanation that resides in that differentiation is still unclear. The actual physical knowledge of the universe is not capable to coherently explain morpho-genesis. Erwin Schrodinger and others acclaimed scientists say it peremptorily.

Later, the theory of morphogenetic fields was born among these questions ‚ a located field situated inside and around a morphic unit, that organizes its characteristic structure and activity pattern. These fields are behind the complexity levels of a unit of this nature. They are formed and stabilized by morphic resonance with other previous units (in time) that were on the influence of similar fields. Consequently, these new units contain a type of cumulative memory.

A morphic unit is destined to accomplish the "shape function", as well as organization patterns. It can be an atom, a molecule, a crystal, a cell, a plant, an animal, a pattern of instinctive behavior, even a social group, an ecosystem, a planet, a planetary system or even a galaxy. These units are organized in hierarchies of units inside of units. A crystal, for instance, contains molecules, which contain atoms, which contain electrons and nuclei, that contain nuclear particles, that contain quarks...

However, a few years ago, according to the vision that science had regarding the study of the morphogenesis, we were taken to believe that these fields could not include such units as a pattern of behavior or even something more subjective such as a social group. The first biologists, due to faith in the supremacy of matter as the cause of all existence (upward causation), ignored such possibilities. It was later with the presentation of the theory of morphic resonance, that the inclusion of morphic units based on non-local fields (non-locatable in space and time) appeared.

Such hypothesis is contrary to the Newtonian vision of the universe, in which only local units (measurable) exist, and obviously, physically detectable. Nonetheless, morphogenesis grasps the field of teleology - the idea that a final purpose is guiding the system. Rupert Sheldrake integrated this concept in his study, as well as the non-locality principle of the fields and the non-materialistic perspective (downward causation). In general, the morphic fields proposed by Sheldrake have a purpose and they are non local. Therefore, they are not material. However, we know that matter, as an effect of a superior cause, is always affected by the principle of morphic resonance.

Unlike the matter, the fields live at a dimension no-place. Sheldrake suggests that as soon as a shape is created, its field is constantly reinforced by the replication of itself. This explains memory in morphogenesis. However, the origin of morphic fields is the main subject, and for us to analyze it, we will stay with the examples of live and local morphic units. Let us look at the following: the true problem of the morphogenesis is the nature/essence of non-locality, right? It is the problem of trying to explain how local interactions are capable of controlling a global development of a system. In other words, how, for instance, a cell in the neck knows where it is relative to the whole body, in such way that its function in shaping is properly activated so that it does what is necessary in the neck?

From the causal point of view of matter, the immediate deduction is the that a map of functions exists in the DNA of the cell. This could be a perfectly plausible explanation, if we didn't have the following problem: if that map really exists at cellular level, then how does a cell know that it must active only a specific function during shaping? Lets take a look at things in a different way: where is placed the information that tells the cell that it just needs to activate the functions relative to that part of the body where she lives? When our body was only two cells, where was that decisive information for the local recognition of the future evolution of the human shape? An implication shows up: there must exist a general map, a goal-plan that works non-locally, spatially and temporally, so that a small DNA strand from that cell can be able to influence a vast group of cells in a macro-area of spatially defined volume, during the whole evolution of the biological being that it belongs to.

Force fields, unlike particle fields, form a continuous region, they are a whole. In them, an indivisible unit exists. If we cut an apple - a field of particles - in two parts, we will obtain two different half from that same unit. That half is different from the whole. However, if we cut a magnet in two, the magnetic field (force field) of each half is same as the first, the unit. This way, we will be able to obtain two fields of the same magnetic field and not two half of the original.

The morphic field starts up the DNA in the cells, in the sense of guiding the choice of the functions (in the local map) that must be activated in the process of evolution of a biological shape. DNA is a receiver and never a generator of information. Just as a radio receives a signal because it is tuned (it has a specific resonance) with an electromagnetic wave, in a similar way, DNA receives from morphogenetic fields the instructions for the activations of its codes.

Glossary of Terms

Under Construction

Learning Objectives and Outcomes

Under Construction

Textbook and Course Materials

To be Announced

Course Details

Dates, Cost, Place (Online, On location - Netherlands, Australia, Norway, United States), Instructor