I enjoyed physics courses in college and over the years picked up some engaging texts, especially regarding quantum physics and how physicists have grappled with the concepts of time and consciousness. You’re probably familiar with the “observer effect,”
Neale Donald Walsch says “Quantum physics tells us that nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer. That statement, from science, holds an enormous and powerful insight. It means that everyone sees a different truth, because everyone is creating what they see.”
Space-Time and Beyond — Bob Toben with Fred Wolf and Jack Sarfatti
This fun paperback book came out in 1975 and brought some of the scientific discoveries of quantum physics into a more personal and tangible perspective. It’s still controversial to state that “the physical universe does not exist independent of the thought of the participator,” yet the relationship between consciousness and quantum physics seems undeniable.
The book offers a fascinating exploration of possible quantum-world explanations of various otherwise “unexplainable” psychic phenomenon, including psychokinesis, materialization/dematerialization, astral travel, remote viewing, telepathy, teleportation, levitation, and healing.
Almost 50 years later, in September 2023, Gangsha Zhi and Rulin Xiu of the Hawaii Theoretical Physics Research Center in Hawaii published a fascinating paper entitled “Quantum Theory of Consciousness.” In the paper, the authors show “the predictions from this theory about the existence of a universal quantum vibrational field and the large-scale, nearly instantaneous synchrony of brainwaves among different parts of brain, body, people, and objects.”
The Tao of Physics — Fritjof Capra
Also in 1975, The Tao of Physics was published, in which the author grappled with bridging the gap between physics and mysticism. He initially found inspiration through “power plants” (e.g. psychedelics), which opened his mind to profound experiences. These encounters prompted him to pour out his impressions onto paper, much like Carlos Castaneda did.
Later, Capra engaged in discussions with physicist Werner Heisenberg. Heisenberg revealed that during his work on quantum theory, he had visited India and conversed extensively with philosopher Rabindranath Tagore, gaining insights into Indian philosophy. These dialogues helped Heisenberg see that the revolutionary ideas in quantum physics were not as far-fetched as they seemed; similar concepts existed in Eastern thought.
Around this time, while in college, I was exposed to the idea that some gifted individuals seemed to possess the ability to “dowse” for water. They could walk around an outdoor area with some kind of forked stick, and through the sensations derived from the stick’s motion, suggest places where a well could be drilled to likely find water. Wondering how that could be possible, I read that fluctuations in the strength of the earth magnetic fields occur near regions in the earth where underground water may be found.
Maybe water dowsers were sensitive to these slight variations? I hadn’t heard of anyone saying that humans or animals had any “sense” of the earth’s magnetic field. But then I read that birds have some kind of built-in compass-like mechanism that allows them to know which direction to fly as the seasons change. Decades ago, scientists proved this by artificially changing the natural direction of the magnetic field using magnets placed under a bird house, and observing that the flock would fly off in the direction they sensed as north, when artificially changed by the experimenter’s magnets.
More recently, mechanisms have been discovered to explain how animals can sense the magnetic fields of the earth and use them for navigation.
Organisms from a broad variety of taxa are able to detect the magnetic field of the Earth and use it for compass information to determine their movement directions over short and long distances
Expression patterns of cryptochrome genes…
—Atticus Pinzon-Rodriguez et. al
So, biologically, Mother Nature has found a way for animals (maybe humans too) to sense magnetic fields. But how?
From a 2018 article in ScienceAlert.com entitled Birds Can See Earth’s Magnetic Fields, And Now We Know How That’s Possible::
We know that birds can only sense magnetic fields if certain wavelengths of light are available – specifically, studies have shown that avian magnetoreception seems dependent on blue light.
This seems to confirm that the mechanism is a visual one, based in the cryptochromes, which may be able to detect the fields because of quantum coherence.
Ah, so the mechanism appears to be related to the mysterious nature of quantum physics. How far-fetched then can it be to consider advanced life forms such as homo sapiens to also be able to make use of quantum-level effects?
Ever since my college days I have pondered the question “what makes me (a human) different than some advanced computer system?” Could some future powerful AI-powered computer awaken and ask the question “who built me, and why”? I think the key answer to this question is that conventional hardware and software (computing systems and computational ability, input/output systems, memory capacity, clever programming) can not (currently) replicate what we are as sentient humans. We have something else, something like a divine spark, or Soul, that computers as they are currently constructed don’t have, even accounting for the “neural networks” that allow advanced AI systems of today use to learn and act very human-like in their interactions. Or perhaps it’s an actual physical connection to other dimensions, the “vast intelligence of the universe,” and/or our “higher self.”
Queue the spooky world of quantum physics.
The Emperor’s New Mind — Sir Roger Penrose
In 1989 eminent physicist Roger Penrose challenged the prevailing notion that consciousness can be reduced to a mere computer program. His central argument is that human cognition transcends algorithmic processes and cannot be fully modeled by a conventional Turing machine, including digital computers 1.
Two key points from “The Emperor’s New Mind”:
- Non-Algorithmic Consciousness: Penrose posits that human consciousness operates beyond the bounds of algorithms. Unlike a deterministic computer, our minds exhibit qualities that defy strict computational rules.
- Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: Penrose suggests that quantum mechanics plays a crucial role in understanding consciousness. He proposes that the collapse of quantum wavefunctions is intricately linked to brain function. It’s the collapse of the quantum wavefunction that turns a probabilistic outcome into an observed result.
Penrose looked to the structure of the brain in his search for a link between physiology and quantum effects, and came upon the hollow microscopic tubes called microtubules which are found there. He posited that these structures could hold quantum-entangled particles in their “unobserved” state, and that some aspect of consciousness could be attributed to the collapse of the quantum wavefunctions of these trapped particles.
The Emperor’s New Mind generated a lot of controversy, discussion, and critical appraisal, since it challenged many long-held views of the nature of physics and biology. In 1994 Penrose wrote the follow-up, Shadows of the Mind – A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness to address his critics and further his hypothesis.
Penrose’s conjecture as to the relationship between quantum physics and consciousness involves the idea that the microtubules within neurons support quantum superpositions (the notion that more than one result can be held in parallel, awaiting an “observation.”)
Activities in the brain that we might call “thinking” can collapse the quantum wavefunctions held in the microtubules. He says that this collapse, being non-algorithmic (in other words, not capable of being modeled by computers as they are currently constructed), transcends the limits that computational-based processes would face.
Thus, human minds possess abilities beyond what Turing machines can achieve due to this mechanism of non-computable physics.
In 1931, mathematician Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems demonstrated that certain truths cannot be proven within formal proof systems. Penrose argues that human mathematicians can prove Gödel-type results, suggesting that they operate beyond mere algorithms.
What are Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, you ask? It’s a challenge to grasp, unless you have the mind of a mathematician (which I don’t), although one book did illuminate the mystery for me quite entertainingly.
Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid — Douglas Hofstadter
I loved this fun and engaging book. Though it is about mathematics and artificial intelligence, it is relevant to the puzzle of consciousness and what differentiates human from machine. Hofstadter said later that he wrote the book to explore the question “What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?”
There are several fanciful escapades of two characters in the book, Achilles and the Tortoise. In one, the pair discover a book entitled Provocative Adventures of Achilles and the Tortoise Taking Place in Sundry Spots of the Globe. One adventure in the book is “Djinn and Tonic,” in which drinking a small glass of “pushing-potion” allows the pair to enter into a 3D world found within a 2D painting such as an M. C. Escher lithograph. One returns to the original world by means of sipping “popping-potion.”
While in the Escher world, they come upon a magic lamp, that when rubbed produces a genie who (as is their nature) grants three wishes. Achilles decides that one of his wishes is to be granted a hundred wishes, but the djinn says “I am sorry, Achilles, but I don’t grant meta-wishes.” Achilles replies “I wish you would tell me what a ‘meta-wish’ is,” but of course that itself is a meta-meta-wish.
The genie says meta-wishes are his favorite kind and agrees to try to help. He pulls out from “the wispy folds of his robe” a lamp labeled “ML” (meta-Lamp). Upon rubbing, out pops a Meta-Genie. The genie asks the Meta-Genie about the meta-wish, and the Meta-Genie pulls out from the wispy folds of his robe a lamp labeled “MML” (meta-meta-lamp). The process continues to infinity, where GOD is the final arbiter. GOD grants the wish. By the way “GOD” is an acronym for “GOD Of Djinns,” a recursive acronym.
Thus the genie grants Achilles one “Typeless Wish,” e.g. one that can be a meta-wish, or meta-meta-wish, or as many “metas” as desired. Achilles announces that his meta wish is “I wish my wish would not be granted.” The author describes what happened next:
(At that moment, an event—or is “event” the word for it—takes place which cannot be described, and hence no attempt will be made to describe it.)
It was a PARADOX. For the wish to be granted, it had to be denied, yet not to grant it would be to grant it. So “the System crashed.”
A meta-wish is self-referential, being a wish about a wish. One of Hofstadter’s themes in the book, as I understand it, is that our human consciousness is capable of appreciating such paradoxes, as mind-bending as they are, whereas any rigid mathematical or computer-assisted solution to a paradox breaks “the System,” which simply cannot handle them.
We are aware that we are aware.
The Self-Aware Universe — Amit Goswami, Ph.D.
Goswami is one of my favorite metaphysical physicists. He considers consciousness to be the ground of all being. He says, in an article on his website entitled Quantum Spirituality:
If consciousness is the nonlocal ground of being, all of our experiences — not only physical sensing, but also nonphysical thinking, feeling, and intuition — must come from it. This extension leads us to what we call quantum science. Thinking brings meaning back in science, intuitions bring back purpose such as love, and feelings bring back passion in our exploration of meaning and purpose. In this way, the extension of the ideas of quantum physics to quantum science further opens the scope of the integration of science and spirituality. In fact, it gives us a new conceptual lens to sort out all of our experiences — sensing, feeling, thinking, intuition, and spiritual.
The author appreciates the work of Douglas Hofstadter in Gödel, Escher, Bach as well, explaining that to understand consciousness and our sense of self (“I”), “all you need to understand is tangled hierarchies.” In tangled hierarchies, we are dealing with self-referential systems, like the meta-wishes in the story above. “What interests Dr. Hofstadter is this: He thinks that the programs of the brain’s computer, the ones we call the mind, form a tangled hierarchy, and out of this tangle comes our many splendored self.”
Consider the statement “I cannot live with myself any longer,” which is of course the one that led to the implosion of Ekhart Tolle’s ego, as he realized there is an “I” who is conscious of the “myself” (another “I”?). There must be two of me. The self-referential nature of being “present” with one’s own being, e.g. conscious of the state of your own existence, is an example of the tangled hierarchy of the mind. Like the meta-wish example, can we recursively become aware of the one being aware, and the one being aware of the one being aware, etc., all the way to a collapse of the “system”?
The idea that consciousness is the fundamental ground of being has been around for a long time. Sir James Hopwood Jeans (1877-1946) was an English physicist, astronomer and mathematician.
The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter… we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.
— James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, [18]
In a 1931 interview published in The Observer, Jeans was asked if he believed that life was an accident or if it was, “part of some great scheme.” He said that he favored, “the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness,” going on to suggest that, “each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.”[19]
While physicists have long attempted to explain the meaning of quantum mechanics, one viewpoint, called the “Copenhagen interpretation,” is most favored, even as more than half of physicists surveyed consider other (perhaps undiscovered) explanations more plausible.
In metaphysical terms, the Copenhagen interpretation views quantum mechanics as providing knowledge of phenomena, but not as pointing to “really existing objects,” which it regards as products of ordinary intuition. Only when the observer is considered do we reach the level that an object “really exists.”
Additionally, the interpretation says that the act of “observing” or “measuring” an object is irreversible, and no truth can be attributed to an object except according to the results of its measurement. The Copenhagen interpretation says we cannot assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, if they have not been measured. It also holds that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists’ personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors.
I think this last statement is very interesting. When I had the “aha” moment described in “Three in a Row” here, the observed result of my experiment definitely did seem to be impacted by my mental state! If there is indeed a connection between consciousness, “mental factors,” and how “all possible outcomes” are collapsed into one that is observed and experienced, then our understanding of our existence and experiences is greatly expanded.
An excellent treatise on the subject of physics and consciousness is Quantum Enigma—Physics Encounters Consciousness by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner. The book spends a good amount of time on the Copenhagen interpretation and begins with a nice beginning-level introduction of quantum mechanics.
Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness
At the time of this writing (Spring 2024), AI has shown itself to be remarkably conversational, with the apparent ability to draw upon vast amounts of information it has been exposed to during its training. Not only that, but it can draw inferences and analogies in its responses. I have long pondered the question, could a machine become self-aware, like “Data” in Star Trek, given the appropriate machine architecture (which would presumably mimic the neural networks found in our brains) and the appropriate programming?
Here is an unedited conversation I had with Chat GPT4 on this subject. I started with a reference to a Douglas Hofstadter book I am a Strange Loop which deals with the nature of consciousness, and is a follow-on to his Gödel Escher, Bach:
ME: “I am a strange loop”
AI: “I am a strange loop” is a phrase that can have multiple interpretations. It’s famously the title of a book by Douglas Hofstadter, where he discusses concepts of self-reference and the idea of a “strange loop” where, in a system, the levels can loop back to earlier ones, creating paradoxes and complexity. This can be related to consciousness, identity, and the nature of knowledge.
ME: Yes. I would like to design an AI system that can loop back to earlier levels, to explore paradoxes. Can you help?
AI: Designing an AI system that incorporates the concept of a “strange loop” to explore paradoxes is a fascinating and complex task. Such a system would need to be able to reference itself and understand its own processes to a certain extent, which touches on areas of recursive functions, self-improvement, and potentially consciousness.
Here are some high-level steps you might consider for your design:
1. Define the System’s Goals and Boundaries:
- Clearly outline what you want the AI to achieve and the paradoxes it should explore.
- Determine the scope of self-reference and the level of abstraction you’re aiming for.
2. Develop a Recursive Framework:
- Implement recursive algorithms that allow the system to loop back to previous states or levels of understanding.
- Ensure there are base cases to prevent infinite loops and system crashes.
3. Incorporate Self-Improvement Mechanisms:
- Allow the AI to analyze its performance and adjust its algorithms accordingly.
- This could involve machine learning techniques to refine its approach to problem-solving.
4. Integrate Self-Reference Capabilities:
- The AI should have a component that allows it to reference its own code or logic as part of its processing.
- This could be achieved through meta-programming or reflective programming techniques.
5. Test and Refine:
- Rigorously test the AI in controlled environments to see how it handles various paradoxes.
- Use the results to refine the system and improve its loop-back mechanisms.
6. Ethical and Safety Considerations:
- Ensure that the AI’s self-referential capabilities do not lead to unintended consequences.
- Implement safeguards to prevent the AI from making harmful decisions based on its paradox exploration.
Remember, creating an AI with such advanced capabilities is not only a technical challenge but also raises philosophical and ethical questions. It’s important to proceed with caution and consider the implications of creating a system that can engage in this level of self-referential thought.
If you need more detailed guidance or have specific questions about the implementation, feel free to ask!
If you’re like me, this gives you chills. If the technology is already this far advanced, it seems likely that engineers have already attempted to accomplish something like this, just to explore the possibilities. Such breakthroughs have not yet been publicized, though they may have already actually occurred in the lab.
Consider an architecture where one AI system “supervises” another AI system (e.g. provides prompts and considers responses). If the system being supervised runs into a paradoxical dilemma in which no answer will be forthcoming (perhaps an infinitely deep recursion is occurring), the main system will be able to detect this and take appropriate steps. Instead of simply “crashing the system,” an adaptation can be made in which further learning and advancement can occur. That sounds pretty intelligent. It would be “aware” of “itself” (or at least a part of itself). Something to ponder.
However “intelligent” such a system may be, though, I don’t think it would “feel” anything in the way that we do. Fall in love? I doubt it. Intuition, and “knowing” things to be true without the underpinnings of memory or direct experience is a feature our evolved humanity experiences due to some kind of (probably quantum physical) connection with the rest of the universe. Thank you, Mother Nature. How is it that I can be brought to tears by a piece of music, or awestruck by pondering my existence while staring at the infinity of a starry night sky? There’s the mystery.