|
Department of Theoretical Physics, Birkbeck
College, University of London, Malet St,
London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT:
The relationship of mind and matter is approached
in a new way in this article. This approach
is based on the causal interpretation of
the quantum theory, in which an electron,
for example, is regarded as an inseparable
union of a particle and afield. This field
has, however, some new properties that can
be seen to be the main sources of the differences
between the quantum theory and the classical
(Newtonian) theory. These new properties
suggest that the field may be regarded as
containing objective and active information,
and that the activity of this information
is similar in certain key ways to the activity
of information in our ordinary subjective
experience. The analogy between mind and
matter is thus fairly close. This analogy
leads to the proposal of the general outlines
of a new theory of mind, matter, and their
relationship, in which the basic notion is
participation rather than interaction. Although
the theory, can be developed mathematically
in more detail the main emphasis here is
to show qualitatively how it provides a way
of thinking that does not divide mind from
matter, and thus leads to a more coherent
understanding of such questions than is possible
in the common dualistic and reductionistic
approaches. These ideas may be relevant to
connectionist theories and might perhaps
suggest new directions for their development.
1 Introduction
This article discusses some ideas aimed at
bringing together the physical and mental
sides of reality. It is concerned mainly
with giving the general outlines of a new
way of thinking, consistent with modern physics,
which does not divide mind from matter, the
observer from the observed, the subject from
the object. What is described here is, however,
only the beginning of such a way of thinking
which, it is hoped, can be developed a great
deal further.
The problem of the relationship of mental
and physical sides of reality has long been
a key one, especially in Western philosophy.
Descartes gave a particularly clear formulation
of the essential difficulties when he considered
matter as extended substance (i.e. as occupying
space) while mind was regarded as thinking
substance (which clearly does not occupy
space). He pointed out that in mind, there
can be clear and distinct thoughts that correspond
in content to distinct objects that are separated
in space. But these thoughts are not in themselves
actually located in separate regions of space,
nor do they seem to be anything like separate
material objects in other ways. It appears
that the natures of mind and matter are so
different that one can see no basis for a
relationship between them. This point was
put very clearly by Descartes (see Cottingham,
1986) when he said that there is nothing
included in the concept of body that belongs
to mind, and nothing in that of mind that
belongs to body. Yet, experience shows that
they are closely related.
Descartes solved the problem by assuming
that God, who created both mind and matter
is able to relate them by putting into the
minds of human beings the clear and distinct
thoughts that are needed to deal with matter
as extended substance. It was of course also
implied by Descartes that the aims contained
in thoughts had somehow to be carried out
by the body, even though he asserted that
thought and the body had no domain in common.
It would seem (as was indeed suggested at
the time by Malebranche) that nothing is
left but to appeal to God to arrange the
desired action somehow. However, since that
time, such an appeal to the action of God
has generally ceased to be accepted as a
valid philosophical argument. But this leaves
us with no explanation of how mind and matter
are related.
This article aims at the development of a
different approach to this question, which
permits of an intelligible relationship between
mind and matter without reducing one to nothing
but a function or aspect of the other (such
reduction commonly takes the forms of materialism
which reduces mind, for example, to an 'epiphenomenon'
having no real effect on matter, and of idealism,
which reduces matter to some kind of thought,
for example, in the mind of God).
The new approach described in this article
is made possible from the side of matter
by the quantum theory, which is currently
the most basic theory of the nature of matter
that we have. Certain philosophers of mind
(see, e.g. Haugeland, 1981, ch. 1) would
criticize bringing physics into the study
of mind. In this way, because they assume
mind to be of such a different (and perhaps
emergent) quality that physics is not relevant
to it (even though they also assume that
mind has a material base in the brain). Such
criticisms are inspired, in large part, by
the belief that physics is restricted to
a classical Newtonian form, which in essence
ultimately reduces everything to a mechanism
of some kind. However, as will be explained
in more detail later, the quantum theory,
which is now basic, implies that the particles
of physics have certain primitive mind-like
qualities which are not possible in terms
of Newtonian concepts (though, of course,
they do not have consciousness). This means
that on the basis of modern physics even
inanimate matter cannot be fully understood
in terms of Descartes' notion that it is
nothing but a substance occupying space and
constituted of separate objects. Vice versa,
It will be argued that mind can be seen to
have always a physical aspect, though this
may be very subtle. Thus, we are led to the
possibility of a real relationship between
the two, because they never have the absolute
distinction of basic qualities, that was
assumed by Descartes and by others, such
as the emergent materialists.
The way is thus now opened to see the possible
relevance of physics in this context. This
is because the quantum theory denies the
mechanistic (Newtonian) conceptual framework
which has thus far implicitly justified the
notion that mind is of such a nature that
it can have absolutely nothing to do with
the laws of matter. Moreover, though those
new qualities of matter have been established
at the fundamental level of particle physics,
we shall indicate in a later section how
it may be possible for them to become operative
at higher levels of organization such as
that of brain and nervous system.
2 The implicate order and the quantum theory
The question of the relationship of mind
and matter has already been explored to some
extent in some of my earlier work in physics
(Bohm, 1980). In this work, which was originally
aimed at understanding relativity and quantum
theory on a basis common to both, I developed
the notion of the enfolded or implicate order.
The essential feature of this idea was that
the whole universe is in some way enfolded
in everything and that each thing is enfolded
in the whole. From this it follows that in
some way, and to some degree everything enfolds
or implicates everything, but in such a manner
that under typical conditions of ordinary
experience, there is a great deal of relative
independence of things. The basic proposal
is then that this enfoldment relationship
is not merely passive or superficial. Rather,
it is active and essential to what each thing
is. It follows that each thing, is internally
related to the whole, and therefore, to everything
else. The external relationships are then
displayed in the unfolded or explicate order
in which each thing is seen, as has already
indeed been indicated, as relatively separate
and extended, and related only externally
to other things. The explicate order, which
dominates ordinary experience as well as
classical (Newtonian) physics, thus appears
to stand by itself. But actually, it cannot
be understood properly apart from its ground
in the primary reality of the implicate order.
Because the implicate order is not static
but basically dynamic in nature, in a constant
process of change and development, I called
its most general form the holomovement. All
things found in the unfolded, explicate order
emerge from the holomovement in which they
are enfolded as potentialities and ultimately
they fall back into it. They endure only
for some time, and while they last, their
existence is sustained in a constant process
of unfoldment and re-enfoldment, which gives
rise to their relatively stable and independent
forms in the explicate order.
The above description then gives, as I have
shown in more detail elsewhere (Bohm, 1980)
a valid intuitively graspable account of
the meaning of the properties of matter,
as implied by the quantum theory. It takes
only a little reflection to see that a similar
sort of description will apply even more
directly and obviously to mind, with its
constant flow of evanescent thoughts, feelings,
desires, and impulses, which flow into and
out of each other, and which, in a certain
sense, enfold each other (as, for example,
we may say that one thought is implicit in
another, noting that this word literally
means 'enfolded'). Or to put it differently,
the general implicate process of ordering
is common both to mind and to matter. This
means that ultimately mind and matter are
at least closely analogous and not nearly
so different as they appear on superficial
examination. Therefore, it seems reasonable
to go further and suggest that the implicate
order may serve as a means of expressing
consistently the actual relationship between
mind and matter, without introducing something
like the Cartesian duality between them.
At this stage, however, the implicate order
is still largely a general framework of thought
within which we may reasonably hope to develop
a more detailed content that would make possible
progress toward removing the gulf between
mind and matter. Thus, even on the physical
side, it lacks a well-defined set of general
principles that would determine how the potentialities
enfolded in the implicate order are actualized
as relatively stable and independent forms
in the explicate order. The absence of a
similar set of principles is, of course,
also evident on the mental side. But yet
more important, what is missing is a clear
understanding of just how mental and material
sides are to be related.
Evidently what is needed is an extension
of the implicate order, which develops the
theory in the direction indicated above.
In this paper, we shall go into another approach
that in my opinion goes a long way toward
fulfilling this requirement. This is based
on what has been called the causal interpretation
of the quantum theory (Bohm, 1952; Bohm &
Hiley, 1975, 1987; Hiley & Peat, 1987).
To show why this is being brought in, I shall
first give a brief review or some of the
main features of the quantum theory that
called for a new interpretation along the
proposed lines (see also Bohm, 1984; Zukav,
1979).
First, the quantum theory implies that all
material systems have what is called a wave-particle
duality in their properties. Thus, electrons
that in Newtonian physics act like particles
can, under suitable conditions, also act
like waves (e.g. electrons can show statistical
interference properties when a large number
of them is passed through a system of slits).
This dual nature of material systems is totally
at variance with Newtonian physics, in which
each system has its own nature independently
of context.
Secondly, all action is in the form of definite
and measurable units of energy, momentum
and other properties called quanta which
cannot be further divided. (For example,
an atom is said to 'jump' from one state
to another without passing through intermediate
states and in doing this to emit an indivisible
quantum of light energy.) When particle interact,
it is as if they were all connected by indivisible
links into a single whole. However, in the
large scale limit, the number of links is
so great that processes can be treated to
a good degree of approximation as divisible
(as one can treat the collective movement
of a large mass of grains of sand as an approximately
divisible flow). And this explains the indefinite
divisibility of processes that we experience
on the large scale level as a limiting case.
Thirdly, there is a strange new property
of non-locality. That is to say, under certain
conditions, particles that are at macroscopic
orders of distance from each other appear
to be able, in some sense, to affect each
other, even though there is no known means
by which they could be connected. Indeed
if we were to assume any kind of force whatsoever
(perhaps as yet unknown) to explain this
connection, then the well-known Bell's theorem
gives a precise and general criterion for
deciding whether the connection is local,
i.e. one brought about by forces that act
when the systems are not in contact (Bell,
1966). It can be shown that the quantum theory
implies that Bell's criterion is violated,
and this implication is confirmed by the
actual experiments. Therefore, it follows
that if there are such forces, they must
act non-locally. Such non-local interactions
are basically foreign to the general conceptual
scheme of classical (Newtonian) physics,
as it has been known over the past few centuries
(which states that interactions are either
in contact or carried by locally acting fields
that propagate continuously through space).
All of this can be summed up in terms of
a new notion of quantum wholeness, which
implies that the world cannot be analyzed
into independently and separately existent
parts. This sort of analysis will have at
most an approximate and limited kind of applicability;
i.e. in a domain in which Newtonian physics
is approximately valid. But fundamentally,
quantum wholeness is what is primary.
In particular, such wholeness means that
in an observation carried out to a quantum
theoretical level of accuracy, the observing
apparatus and the observed system cannot
be regarding as separate. Rather, each participates
in the other to such an extent that it is
not possible to attribute the observed result
of their interaction unambiguously to the
observed system alone. Therefore, as shown
by Heisenberg, there is a limit to the precision
of the information that can be obtained about
the latter. This contrasts with Newtonian
physics, in which it is always possible in
principle to refine observations to an unlimited
degree of precision.
Niels Bohr (1934, 1958) has made a very subtle
analysis of this whole question. For reasons
similar to those outlined above, he treats
the entire process of observation as a single
phenomenon, which is a whole that is not
further analyzable. For Bohr, this implies
that the mathematics of the quantum theory
is not capable of providing an unambiguous
(i.e. precisely definable) description of
an individual quantum process, but rather,
that it is only an algorithm yielding statistical
predictions concerning the possible results
of an ensemble of experiments. Bohr further
supposes that no new concepts are possible
that could unambiguously describe the reality
of the individual quantum process. Therefore,
there is no way intuitively or otherwise
to understand what is happening in such processes.
Only in the Newtonian limit can we obtain
an approximate picture of what is happening,
and this will have to be in terms of the
concepts of Newtonian physics.
Bohr's approach has the merit of giving a
consistent account of the meaning of the
quantum theory. Moreover, it focuses on something
that is new in physics, i.e. the wholeness
of the observing instrument and what is observed.
The question is clearly also of key importance
in discussing the relationship of mind and
matter. But Bohr's insistence that this wholeness
cannot be understood through any concepts
whatsoever, however new they may be, implies
that further progress in this field depends
mainly on the development of new sets of
mathematical equations without any real intuitive
or physical insight as to what they mean
apart from the experimental results that
they may predict. On the other hand, I have
always felt that mathematics and intuitive
insight go hand in hand. To restrict oneself
to only one of these is like tying one hand
behind one's back and working only with the
other. Of course, to do this is a significant
restriction in physics, but evidently it
is even more significant restriction in studying
in mind, where intuitive insight must itself
be a primary factor.
In view of the above, it seems very important
to question Bohr's assumption that no conception
of the individual quantum process is possible.
Indeed, it was just in doing this that I
was led to develop the causal interpretation
of the quantum theory, that I have already
mentioned earlier, which is able, as will
be shown in this article, to provide a basis
for a non- dualistic theory of the relationship
of mind and matter.
3 The causal interpretation of the quantum
theory
A brief account of the causal interpretation
of the quantum theory win now be given (see
Bohm, 1952; Bohm & Hiley, 1987). The
first step in this interpretation is to assume
that the electron, for example, actually
is a particle, following a well defined trajectory
(like a planet around the sun). But it is
always accompanied by a new kind of quantum
field. Now, a field is something that is
spread out over space. We are already familiar,
for example, with the magnetic field, shown
to spread throughout space by means of iron
filings around a magnet or a current carrying
wire. Electric fields spreading out from
a charged object are also well known. These
fields combine to give electromagnetic waves,
radiating out through space (e.g. radio waves).
The quantum field is, however, not simply
a return to these older concepts, but it
has certain qualitatively new features. These
imply a radical departure from Newtonian
physics. To see one of the key aspects of
this departure, we begin by noting that fields
can generally be represented mathematically
by certain expressions that are called potentials.
In physics, a potential describes a field
in terms of a possibility or potentiality
that is present at each point of space for
giving rise to action on a particle which
is at that point. What is crucial in classical
(-Newtonian) physics is then that the effect
of this potential on a particle is always
proportional to the intensity of the field.
One can picture this by thinking of the effect
of water waves on a bobbing cork, which gets
weaker and weaker as the waves spread out.
As with electric and magnetic fields, the
quantum field can also be represented in
terms of a potential which I call the quantum
potential. But unlike what happens with electric
and magnetic potentials, the quantum potential
depends only on the form, and not in the
intensity of the quantum field. Therefore,
even a very weak quantum field can strongly
affect the particle. It is as if we had a
water wave that could cause a cork to bob
up with full energy, even far from the source
of the wave. Such a notion is clearly fundamentally
different from the older Newtonian ideas.
For it implies that even distant features
of the environment can strongly affect the
particle.
As an example, we may consider the two slit
interference experiment, shown in Fig. 1.
FIG. 1. The two slit interference experiment.
In this experiment, one may think of quantum
waves that are incident on a sheet containing
two slits, A and B. These waves pass through
the two slits and then spread out as they
propagate forward. Where the waves meet,
they interfere, adding up to a stronger wave
where their oscillations are in phase and
cancelling each other where they are out
of phase. With classical fields, such as
the electromagnetic, this gives rise to the
well known interference pattern consisting
of a set of fringe-like bands that are alternately
strong and weak.
To see what happens with quantum systems,
let us consider a very weak beam of electrons
coming in to the slit system separately and
independently, one after another. Each electron
follows a well defined path, going through
one slit or the other. Indeed, according
to Newtonian ideas, after such an electron
has passed through one of the slits, it should
move through the empty space in front of
it in a straight line at constant velocity.
But quantum theoretically, this is not so.
To see what happens here, let us consider
the quantum potential, shown in Fig. 2.,
which results from the interference of the
waves shown in Fig. 1.
FIG. 2. The quantum potential for the two
slit interference experiment.
The quantum potential is present in front
of the slits. It consists of a series of
plateaus' separated by deep 'valleys'. When
an electron crosses one of these 'valleys',
it is sharply accelerated. So the electrons
are deflected even in the empty space in
front of the slits by the quantum potential,
and this deflection may still be large even
far from the slits.
Now, in a typical experiment of this kind,
the source of electrons is a hot filament,
behind the slits, out of which they may be
thought of as 'boiling' with a random statistical
variation of initial positions (i.e. appearing
here and there by chance). Each electron
follows a particular path, going through
one slit or the other, as it arrives at the
detecting screen as an individual, particle,
producing, for example, an individual spot
in a photographic plate located at the screen.
In its movement the electron is affected
by the quantum potential, which, as we recall,
is determined by the wave that in general
precedes the particle. However, if we follow
the whole set of trajectories, which represents
an initially random distribution of particles,
then, as shown in Fig. 3, these are 'bunched'
systematically into a fringe-like pattern
(which will become apparent after many electrons
have arrived at the screen in front of the
slits).
FIG. 3. Particle trajectories for the two
slit interference expedient.
In this way, we explain how the electron
can be a particle, and yet manifest characteristics
wave-like properties statistically. It is
essential for this explanation, however,
that the quantum potential depends only on
the form of the wave, so that it can be strong
even when the wave intensity is weak. Or
to put it differently, what is basically
new here is the feature that we have called
non-locality, i.e. the ability for distant
parts of the environment (such as the slit
system) to affect the motion of the particle
in a significant way (in this case through
its effect on the quantum field).
I would like to suggest that we can obtain
a further understanding of this feature by
proposing a new notion of active information
that plays a key role in this context. The
word in-form is here taken in its literal
meaning, i.e. to put form into (rather than
in it's technical meaning in information
theory as negentropy). One may think of the
electron as moving under its own energy.
The quantum potential then acts to put form
into its motion, and this form is related
to the form of the wave from which the quantum
potential is derived.
There are many analogies to the notion of
active information in our general experience.
Thus, consider a ship on automatic pilot
guided by radar waves. The ship is not pushed
and pulled mechanically by these waves. Rather,
the form of the waves is picked up, and with
the aid of the whole system, this gives a
corresponding shape and form to the movement
of the ship under its own power. Similarly,
the form of radio waves as broadcast from
a station can carry the form of music or
speech. The energy of the sound that we hear
comes from the relatively unformed energy
in the power plug, but its form comes from
the activity of the form of the radio wave;
a similar process occurs with a computer
which is guiding machinery. The 'information'
is in the program, but its activity gives
shape and form to the movement of the machinery.
Likewise, in a living cell, current theories
say that the form of the DNA molecule acts
to give shape and form to the synthesis of
proteins (by being transferred to molecules
of RNA).
Our proposal is then to extend this notion
of active information to matter at the quantum
level. The information in the quantum level
is potentially active everywhere, but actually
active only where the particle is (as, for
example, the radio wave is active where the
receiver is). Such a notion suggests, however,
that the electron may be much more complex
than we thought (having a structure of a
complexity that is perhaps comparable, for
example, to that of a simple guidance mechanism
such as an automatic pilot). This suggestion
goes against the whole tradition of physics
over the past few centuries which is committed
to the assumption that as we analyze matter
into smaller and smaller parts, their behaviour
grows simpler and simpler. Yet, assumptions
of this kind need not always be correct.
Thus, for example, large crowds of human
beings can often exhibit a much simpler behaviour
than that of the individuals who make it
up.
Does our knowledge of physics allow room
for a structure of the kind suggested above?
Actually, the smallest distances that have
thus far been probed in physics are of the
order of 10-16 cm. On the other hand, the shortest distance
that could have meaning in present-day physics
is of the order of 10-33 cm, the so-called Planck length, at which
it is generally agreed that current concepts
of space, time and matter would probably
have to change radically. Between 10-16 and 10-33, there is a factor of 1017, which is about the same as that between
10-16 and ordinary macroscopic distances (of the
order of 10 cm). Between 10 cm and 10-16 cm lies a tremendous possibility for structure.
Why should there not be a similar possibility
between 10-16 cm and 10-33 cm, and perhaps beyond even this? (It is
interesting in this connection to note that
even the current string theories of physics
lead to the possibility of very complex structures
at distances as short as 10-33 cm.)
The notion of active information implies,
as we have seen, the possibility of a certain
kind of wholeness of the electron with distant
features of its environment. This is in certain
ways similar to Bohr's notion of wholeness,
but it is different ill that it can be understood
in terms of the concept of a particle whose
motion is guided by active information. On
the other hand, in Bohr's approach, there
is no corresponding way to make such wholeness
intelligible.
The meaning of this wholeness is, however,
much more fully brought out by considering
not a simple electron as we have done thus
far, but rather a system consisting of many
such particles. Here several new concepts
appear.
First, two or more particles can affect each
other strongly through the quantum potential
even when they are separated by long distances.
This is similar to what happened with the
slits, but it is more general. Such non-local
action at long distances has been confirmed
in experiments aimed at testing whether the
Bell criterion that I mentioned earlier is
satisfied.
Secondly, in a many particle system, the
interaction of the particles may be thought
of as depending on a common pool of information
belonging to the system as a whole,, in a
way that is not analyzable in terms of pre-assigned
relationships between individual particles.
This may be illustrated in terms of the phenomenon
of superconductivity. Now, at ordinary temperatures,
electrons moving inside a metal are scattered
in a random way by various obstacles and
irregularities in the metal. As a result,
there is a resistance to the flow of electric
current. At low temperatures, however, the
electrons move together in an organized way,
and can therefore go around such obstacles
and irregularities to re-form their pattern
of orderly movement together (see Fig. 4).
Thus they are not scattered, and therefore
the current can flow indefinitely without
resistance.
FIG. 4. Superconducting current flowing around
an obstacles.
A more detailed analysis shows that the quantum
potential for the whole system then constitutes
a non-local connection that brings about
the above described organized and orderly
pattern of electrons moving together without
scattering. We may here make an analogy to
a ballet dance, in which all the dancers,
guided by a common pool of information in
the form of a score, are able to move together
in a similar organized and orderly way, to
go around an obstacle and re-form their pattern
of movement.
If the basic behaviour of matter involves
such features as wholeness, nonlocality and
organization of movement through common pools
of information, how then do we account for
ordinary large scale experience, in which
we find no such features? It can be shown
(Bohm & Hiley, 1987) that at higher temperatures,
the quantum potential tends to take the form
of independent parts, which implies that
the particles move with a corresponding independence.
It is as if, instead of engaging in a ballet
dance, people were moving independently,
each with his own separate pool of information.
They would then constitute a crowd, in which
the organized movement of the ballet has
broken up.
4 Implications for mind
It follows from the above that the possibilities
for wholeness in the quantum theory have
an objective significance. This is in. contrast
to what happens in classical physics, which
must treat a whole as merely a convenient
way of thinking about what is considered
to be in reality nothing but a collection
of independent parts in a mechanical kind
of interaction. On the other hand, in the
quantum theory, the 'ballet-like' behaviour
in superconductivity, for example, is clearly
more like that of an organism than like that
of mechanism. Indeed, going further, the
whole notion of active information suggests
a rudimentary mind-like behaviour of matter,
for an essential quality of mind is just
the activity of form, rather than of substance.
Thus, for example, when we read a printed
page, we do not assimilate the substance
of the paper, but only the forms of the letters,
and it is these forms which give rise to
an information content in the reader which
is manifested actively in his or her subsequent
activities. A similar mind-like quality of
matter reveals itself strongly at the quantum
level, in the sense that the form of the
wave function manifests itself in the movements
of the particles. This quality does not,
however, appear to a significant extent at
the level at which classical physics is a
valid approximation.
Let us now approach the question from the
side of mind. We may begin by considering
briefly some aspects of the nature of thought.
Now, a major part of the significance of
thought is just the activity to which a given
structure of information may give rise. We
may easily verify this in our subjective
experience. For example, suppose that on
a dark night, we encounter some shadows.
If we have information that there may be
assailants in the neighbourhood, this may
give rise immediately to a sense of dancer,
with a whole range of possible activities
(fight, flight, etc.). This is not merely
a mental process. But includes an involuntary
and essentially unconscious process of hormones,
heart-beat, and neurochemicals of various
kinds, as well as physical tensions and movements.
However, if we look again see that it is
only a shadow that confronts us, this thought
has a calming effect, and all the activity
described above ceases. Such a response to
information is extremely common (e.g. information
that X is a friend or an enemy, good or bad,
etc.). More generally, with mind, information
is thus seen to be active in all these ways,
physically, chemically, electrically, etc.
Such activity is evidently similar to that
which was described in connection with automatic
pilots, radios, computers, DNA, and quantum
processes in elementary particles such as
electrons. At first sight, however, there
may still seem to be a significant difference
between these two cases. Thus, in our subjective
experience action can, in some cases at least,
be mediated by reflection in conscious thought,
whereas in the various examples of activity
of objective information given here, this
action is immediate. But actually, even if
this happens, the difference is not as great
as might appear. For such reflection follows
on the suspension of physical action. This
gives rise to a train of thought. However,
both the suspension of physical action and
the resulting train of thought follow immediately
from a further kind of active information
implying the need to do this.
It seems clear from all this that at least
in the context of the processes of thought,
there is a kind of active information that
is simultaneously physical and mental in
nature. Active information can thus serve
as a kind of or 'bridge' between these two
sides of reality as a whole. These two sides
are inseparable, in the sense that information
contained in thought, which we feel to be
on the 'mental' side, is at the same time
a related neurophysiological, chemical, and
physical activity (which is clearly what
is meant by the 'material' side of this thought).
We have however up to this point considered
only a small part of the significance of
thought. Thus, our thoughts may contain a
whole range of information content of different
kinds. This may in turn be surveyed by a
higher level of mental activity, as if it
were a material object at which one were
'looking'. Out of this may emerge a yet more
subtle level of information, whose meaning
is an activity that is able to organize the
original set of information into a greater
whole. But even more subtle information of
this kind can, in turn, be surveyed by a
yet more subtle level of mental activity,
and at least in principle this can go on
indefinitely. Each of these levels may then
be seen from the material side. From the
mental side, it is a potentially active information
content. But from the material side, it is
an actual activity that operates to organize
the less subtle levels, and the latter serve
as the material' on which such operation
takes place. Thus, at each level, information
is the link or bridge between the two sides.
The proposal is then that a similar relationship
holds at indefinitely great levels of subtlety.
I am suggesting that this possibility of
going beyond any specifiable level of subtlety
is the essential feature on which the possibility
of intelligence is based.
It is interesting in this context to consider
the meaning of subtle which is, according
to the dictionary 'rarefied, highly refined,
delicate, elusive, indefinable'. But it is
even more interesting to consider its Latin
root, sub-texere, which means 'finely woven'.
This suggests metaphor for thought as a series
of more and more closely woven nets. Each
can 'catch' a certain content of a corresponding
'fineness'. The finer nets can not only show
up the details of form and structure of what
is 'caught' in the coarser nets; they can
also hold within them a further content that
is implied in the latter. We have thus been
led to an extension of the notion of implicate
order, in which we have a series of inter-related
levels in which the more subtle-I.e. 'the
more finely woven' levels including thought,
feeling and physical reactions-both unfold
and enfold those that are less subtle (i.e.
'more coarsely woven'). In this series, the
mental side corresponds, of course, to what
is more subtle and the physical side to what
is less subtle. And each mental side in turn
becomes a physical side as we move in the
direction of greater subtlety.
5 An extension of the quantum theory
Let us now return to a consideration of the
quantum theory. What is its relationship
to the interweaving of the physical and the
mental that has been discussed above? First,
let us recall that because the quantum potential
may be regarded as information whose activity
is to guide the "dance" of the
electrons, there is a basic similarity between
the quantum behaviour of a system of electrons
and the behaviour of mind. But if we wish
to relate mental processes to the quantum
theory, this similarity will have to be extended.
The simplest way of doing this is to improve
the analogy between mental processes and
quantum processes by considering that the
latter could also be capable of extension
to indefinitely great levels of subtlety.
To bring this about, one could begin by supposing,
for example, that as the quantum potential
constitutes active information that can give
form to the movements of the particles, so
there is a superquantum potential that can
give form to the unfoldment and development
of this first order quantum potential. This
latter would no longer satisfy the laws of
the current quantum theory, which latter
would then be an approximation, working only
when the action of the superquantum potential
can be neglected.
Of course, there is no reason to stop here.
One could go on to suppose a series of orders
of superquantum potentials, with each order
constituting information that gives form
to the activity of the next lower order (which
is less subtle). In this way, we could arrive
at a process that would be very similar to
that to which we have been led in the consideration
of the relationship of various levels of
subtlety in mind.
One may then ask: what is the relationship
of these two processes? The answer that I
want to propose here is that there are not
two processes. Rather, I 'Would suggest that
both are essentially the same. This means
that that which we experience as mind, in
its movement through various levels of subtlety,
will, in a natural way ultimately move the
body by reaching the level of the quantum
potential and of the 'dance' of the particles.
There is no unbridgeable gap of barrier between
any of these levels. Rather, at each stage
some kind of information is the bridge. This
implies, that the quantum potential acting
on atomic particles, for example, represents
only one stage in the process.
The content of our own consciousness is then
some part of this over-all process. It is
thus implied that in some sense a rudimentary
mind-like quality is present even at the
level of particle physics, and that as we
go to subtler levels, this mind-like quality
becomes stronger and more developed. Each
kind and level of mind may have a relative
autonomy and stability. One may then describe
the essential mode of relationship of all
these as participation, recalling that this
word has two basic meanings, to partake of,
and to take part in. Through enfoldment,
each relatively autonomous kind and level
of mind to one degree or another partakes
of the whole. Through this it partakes of
all the others in its 'gathering' of information.
And through the activity of this information,
it similarly takes part in the whole and
in every part. It is in this sort of activity
that the content of the more subtle and implicate
levels is unfolded (e.g. as the movement
of the particle unfolds the meaning of the
information that is implicit in the quantum
field and as the movement of the body unfolds
what is implicit in subtler levels of thought,
feeling, etc.).
For the human being, all of this implies
a thoroughgoing wholeness, in which mental
and physical sides participate very closely
in each other. Likewise, intellect, emotion,
and the whole state of the body are in a
similar flux of fundamental participation.
Thus, there is no real division between mind
and matter, psyche and soma. The common term
psychosomatic is in this way seen to be misleading,
as it suggests the Cartesian notion of two
distinct substances in some kind of interaction
(if not through the action of God, then perhaps
in some other way).
Extending this view, we see that each human
being similarly participates in an inseparable
way in society and in the planet as a whole.
What may be suggested further is that such
participation goes on to a greater collective
mind, and perhaps ultimately to some yet
more comprehensive mind in principle capable
of going indefinitely beyond even the human
species as a whole. (This may be compared
to some of Jung's (1981) notions.)
FIG. 5. Magnetic poles as abstractions from
an overall magnetic field.
Finally, we may ask how we can understand
this theory if the subtle levels are carried
to infinity. Does the goal of comprehension
constantly recede as we try to do this? I
suggest that the appearance of such a recession
is in essence just a feature of our language,
which tends to give too much emphasis to
the analytic side of our thought processes.
To explain what is meant here, one may consider
the analogy of the poles of a magnet, which
are likewise a feature of linguistic and
intellectual analysis, and have no independent
existence outside such analysis. As shown
in Fig. 5, at every part of a magnet, there
is a potential pair of north and south poles
that overlap each other. But these magnetic
poles are actually abstractions, introduced
for convenience of thinking about what is
going on, while the whole process is a deeper
reality-an unbroken magnetic field that is
present over all space.
Similarly, we may for the sake of thinking
about the subject abstract any given level
of subtlety out of the unbroken whole of
reality and focus our attention on it. At
each such level, there will be a 'mental
pole' and a 'physical pole'. Thus as we have
already implied, even an electron has at
least a rudimentary mental pole, represented
mathematically by the quantum potential.
Vice versa, as we have seen, even subtle
mental processes have a physical pole. But
the deeper reality is something beyond either
mind or matter, both of which are only aspects
that serve as terms for analysis [1]. These
can contribute to our understanding of what
is happening but are in no sense separate
substances in interaction. Nor are we reducing
one pole to a mere function or aspect of
the other (e.g. as is done in materialism
and in idealism). The key point is, however,
that before the advent of the quantum theory,
our knowledge of matter as gained from the
study of physics would have led us to deny
that it could have a mental pole, which would
enable it to participate with mind in the
relationship that have been described here.
We can now say that this knowledge of matter
(as well as of mind) has changed in such
a way as to support the approach that has
been described here. To pursue this approach
further might perhaps enable us to extend
our knowledge of both poles into new domains.
Note
[1] See Marshall (1989, p. 73) for an account
of an idea having important similarities
with what has been proposed here. He, too,
uses the notion of a general quantum reality
as a basis for the bodily and mental realms,
considered as inseparable sides or aspects.
But he proposes to explain this from the
quantum theory as it now stands in its usual
interpretation. However, in this paper we
have used the causal interpretation of the
quantum theory with its additional concepts
of particle trajectories and active information,
and have assumed that ultimately the relationship
of mental and material sides can be understood
only by extending the scheme beyond the domain
in which the current quantum theory is valid.
For other recent attempts to consider the
mind-matter relation in the light of the
quantum theory, see Penrose (1989) and Lockwood
(1989). For a discussion of the notions of
active information and implicate order by
a number of authors, see Pylkkanen (1989).
References
BELL, J.S. (1966) On the problem of hidden
variables in quantum theory, Reviews of Modern
Physics, 38, p. 447.
BOHM, D. (1952) A suggested interpretation
of the quantum theory in terms of hidden
variables, Physical Review, 85, pp. 166-189.
BOHM, D. (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate
Order (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).
BOHM, D. (1984) Causality, and Chance in
Modern Physics, new edn with new preface
(London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).
BOHM, D. & HILEY, B.J. (1975) On the
intuitive understanding of Nonlocality as
implied by the quantum theory, Foundations
of Physics, 5, pp. 93-109.
BOHM, D. & HILEY, B.J. (1987) An ontological
basis for the quantum theory, Physics Reports,
144, pp. 323-348.
BOHR, N. (1934) Atomic Theory and the Description
of Nature (Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press).
BOHR, N. (1958) Atomic Theory and Human Knowledge
(New York, Wiley).
COTTINGHAM, J. (1986) Descartes (Oxford,
Basil Blackwell).
HAUGELAND, J. (Ed.) (1981) Mind Design: philosophy,
psychology, artificial intelligence (Mongtomery,
VT, Bradford Books).
HILEY, B.J. & PEAT, F.D. (Eds) (1987)
Quantum Implications (London, Routledge &
Kegan Paul).
JUNG, C.G. (1981) Memories, Dreams and Reflections
(London, Collins Fontana).
LOCKWOOD, M. (1989) Mind, Brain and the Quantum
(Oxford, Basil Blackwell).
MARSHALL, I.N. (1989) Consciousness and Bose-Einstein
Condensates, New Ideas in Psychology, 7,
pp. 73-83.
PENROSE, R. (1989) The Emperor's New Mind:
concerning minds, computers and the laws
of physics (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
PYLKKANEN, P. (Ed.) (1989) The Search for
Meaning (Wellingborough, Thorsons).
ZUKAV, G. (1979) The Dancing Wu Li Master:
an overview of the new physics (New York,
Morrow).
|
.jpg)
