V olum olume 3, 3, Number 4, December 1985 I PSY DK 3(4) 3(4) 235-312 235-312 (1985 (1985) ISSN I SSN 0735-3847 This This number complet letes Volu Volum me 3 I ndex Num Number ber
I nte teg gra rati tive ve Psychi ychia atry A n Int Inte erna rnati tion ona al J ou ourna rnall for the the Synt Synthe hesi sis s of of Medicine and Psychiatry Editor-in-Chief A lfre red d M. M. Fre Free edman Contents: Original Articles with Commentary
The The Quantum Physics ics of Co Con nsciou iousness: Tow Towards a New Psy Psycholog logy Fred Alan Wolf Commentary entary by L arry Doss Dosse ey • Richard M. Restak
Stress and Schizophre Schizophreni nia: a: A Revie eview Christopher C. Tennant Commentary entary by
K enne nneth S. K endl ndler • J oel Y ager • Davi David d S. J anowsky nowsky • Paul E. Bebbington • J ose osef Pamas _______________ _______________________ _______________ _______________ ________________ _______________ _______________ ________________ _________ _ Elsevier
2 I ntegr. Psychia Psychiatry 1985:3:235 EDITORIAL
A New New Ma M anne nner of Thinki T hinking ng A lbert Ei E instein once obse observed that “T “The spli splitting tting of the atomhas change changed everythi everything ng except our way of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe. ... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” That phrase phrase “a new manner of thinki thinking” ng” comes to mind mind in in conside consideri ring ng the future developm velopment of psychiatry and the behavioral sciences. Needless to say, mankind’s survival is not contingent upon arriving at better models of normal normal and abnormal bnormal human behavior havior,, but it it is is true true that we have need for for a new manner of thinking for developing models that will go beyond the dichotomies that currently inhibit nhibit progress. progress. As A s poi pointe nted out out in in thi this colum column previ previously ously,, “One “One must recogni recognize ze that that all the factors—biologic, psychologic, sociologic—are inextricably bound together in a systemin which which all act upon upon each each other other a and nd thus thus are are both products products of, of, and inputs inputs into, into, the system.” Where should one turn for a new manner of thinking? George Engel has suggested looking at the progress in physics, not following it slavishly but utilizing the concepts of Einstein’s theory of relativity, Heisenberg’s theory of uncertainty, and Planck’s quantum mechanics to comprehend new ways of thinking of behavior. I n thi this issu issue, e, Fre Fred Al Alan Wolf Wol f util utilizes concepts concepts of quantu quantum m physi physics cs to unde understand rstand consciousness. In I n an articl rticle e entitl ntitle ed “The “The Quantum QuantumPhysics hysics of Cons Consci ciousn ousnes ess: s: Toward Towards sa New Psychology,” Wolf presents many provocative ideas that deserve careful reflection. A s Ri Richard Re Restak stak observes observes in in his his commentary, “The “The process process of observation rvation modif odifies present reality, our past interpretations, and our future prospects along lines which would not occur absent our efforts.” The very act of observation has an effect on the physical structure of the brain, social behavior and psychology, including memory. Thus, we see an interpenetration of the variables of the biopsychosocial model, so they are interwoven and inse insepa parabl rable. e. Wol Wolff presents a new manner of thinki thinking ng that that commands attention. ntion. I n aprevious vious issue ssue of Inte I ntegrative tive Psychia Psychiatry, Dr. Dr. Werner Koe K oella’s ‘‘ ‘‘A Gene General The Theory of Vigil gilance’ nce’’ off offered nove novell ways and means to look look into into the the pathog athoge enesis sis of aberrant behavior vior as manife nif ested by the the mentally il ill. Dr. Dr. K oella appl pplied thi this neurobi urobiologicall ologically y founded concept of vigilance to a fresh explication of the pathogenesis of the functional mental ental disea diseases as well well as to unde understand rstandiing of the mechanism nisms of action action of psychopharmacotherapeuti psychopharmacotherapeutic c agents. agents. In this issue, R. S. Cohen and D. W Pfaff, in their “Cell-biological and Math-logical The Theories ies of the Neuro Circ Circuit for for Steroid-d id-de ependent Female Reproductive ive Behavior ior,” not
3 only delineate cell-biological and math-logical theories in the animal but also go on to apply ply these findings ndings to the understanding rstanding of releva relevant beha behavi vior or and mood in in human beings. A ll three three articl rticle es provoke us us to al alter ter our comfortable comfortable frag fragmented manner of looking ooking upon behavior as a matter of simple linear cause and effect and to start creating fresh systems and and model odels better abl able to account for normality and abnorm abnormal aliity. I f necessa necessary, we must be jarred into experimenting with new manners of thinking in order to insure progress in the field of behavior. Alfred M. Freedman, M.D. Editor-in-Chief Professor and Chairman. Department of Psychiatry New York Medical College. Valhalla. NY
4
The Qua Quantum Ph Phy ysics ics of Con Consciou iousness: T owards rds a New Psychology Fre red d Al Alan Wol Wolf, Ph.D. Summary. After a brief overview explaining the discoveries of quantum physics relevant to biopsychosoci biopsychosocial al synthesis, sis, the prof profound ound connection ction between human consciousne consciousness ss and quantumphysics physics is is made. The observer effect, al also known as the “ coll collapse of the wave wave function,” function,” is explai explaine ned d in in ter terms of human tolerances tolerances that that affe affect the comple plementari ntarity between locati location on and ene energy of a physical sical syste system m. A sim simple ple model of feelings and thoughts based on the energies and locations of typical channel protein molecules embedde bedded d in in a neural ural membrane brane illustrates ustrates theobserver effect effect acting acting in in the human brai brain. n. I mpli plications cations and dir directions ctions for future rese research arch are expl xplored.
I ntroduc ntroduction Each of us believes in the existence of a real physical world. We argue or, perhaps if we doubt our own belief, succumb to rational arguments, that such a world exists objectively and inde independe pendently ntly of our mi minds, our thoughts and prej prejudices, udices, our fee feelings and ide ideas about the world, our emotions, and regardless of whether anyone lives or dies. This belief, or this argument, has provided a baseboard for objective science ever since Galileo and Newton explained the marvelous workings of the clockwork universe. More than likely, particularly if we have been trained as scientists, we sense an ingrained prejudice that the world is solid, objective, and independent of human consciousne consciousness. As A s we peer insi inside de our own own brain brain and and nervous rvous system, we seek seek chemical units of living stuff hoping to find the unit that causes that feeling to occur. We search for “hard-wired” engrams and attempt to apply Boolean binary logic to brain functioning. Perhaps we hope to find, in this manner, the very origin of human thought itself. Much of today’s scientific thinking and research support is based upon such lines of reasoning, which have remained within our educational system despite the fact that quan quantumphysi physics cs is is nearly arly 90 years old. old. It I t is is rem remarkable rkable that we stil still foll ollow such such li lines of research, particularly as we delve deeper into the molecular biology of brain functioning, in spite of the findings of quantum physics. These findings now convincingly indicate that the world—the physical world of hard matter, light, and energy—simply does not, and cannot, exist exist inde i ndepende pendent of human consciousne consciousness. I n this this arti articl cle, e, I hope to show how and why there is is an interdependence betwe between en the physi physical cal world world and and human conscious consciousne ness. It I t shoul should be poi pointe nted out that this this is is not a “chicken and egg” controversy in which consciousness is cause and matter is effect or vice vice versa, versa, but a necessa cessary ry whole whole or correla correlation tion between the two. I t is, is, in i n fa fact, perhaps rhaps
5 jus just as meaning ingles less to require ire that eith ither consciou iousness or matter was primary as it is to ask, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”
A Bri Br ief Over verview of the Dis Discove coverr ies of of Quantum uantum Physi Physics Relevant vant to Biopsycho opsychos soci ocial Synthes Synthesis The There are many proponents of the connection ion between human consciou iousness and quantum physics (1). Briefly, those who believe that consciousness acts on the physical world worl d believe that that the action action li lies in the phenomenon known as as the “col “colllapse apse of the wave function.” This “collapse” is the sudden change in the probability of observing some property of matter brought on when that property is observed. The following example illustrates how an ordinary event “collapses” an everyday probability function. Suppose you flip a coin and catch it without noticing which side is up. The probability that that “heads” is is up is 50%. 50%. But But suppose suppose that someone actuall ctually saw the coin coin lan land. Is I s the probabi probability stil still 50%? Just J ust the knowled knowl edge ge that that the coin coin has been seen seen change changes the proba probabili bil ity the insta nstant nt it it is is vie viewe wed. d. Ins I nste tea ad of 50%, 50%, the proba probabili bil ity after vie viewing wing is eithe either 100% or zero. This sudden change in a probability brought on by observation is no mystery for ordinary objects. Ordinary objects, such as coins, “possess” two sides, and the result of observing one of the sides in no way alters the coin, just our knowledge about the coin. coin. Whe When n the object object bei being ng observed observed is an an atomic, molecul molecular, ar, or subatomic particle, however, the action of observation not only changes the probability, but also changes the object itself. A ccording ccording to Heise Heisenbe nberg’s rg’s pri princi ncipl ple e of uncertai uncertainty, nty, such particl rticle es were not particl rticles es after all. They were perhaps fuzzy particles. Each particle was fuzzy because it was impossibl possible e to determine its positi position on and and momentum at thesame tim time. Any A ny effort eff ort to measure thelocation ocation of a subatomic parti particl cle, e, such as an an el electron, disturbed disturbed the particl rti cle e so much that its its momen omentum (its mass multi ultipl pliied by its its veloci velocity) ty) was rende rendered inde indeterminate. nate. On the other hand, hand, if the mom momentumwas measured, the the measurement surement necessari necessarilly cause caused one to lose lose inform nforma ation tion about bout the locati ocation on of the particl rticle e. I t beca becam me indete indeterm rmiinate. te. I f one attempted to measure both momentumand posi positi tion on sim simultane ultaneousl ously, y, one had to compromise, givi giving ng up, for for example, ple, momentum entumknowled knowl edge to gain posi position tion knowled knowledge ge. Thu Thus, the particle icles s exist isted, but they appeared a bit fuz fuzzy as in a photograph of a moving ing object taken with a long exposure time. Some physicists tried to “render the photographs clearer” by formulating theories involvi nvolving ng hidde hidden param parameters tha that governed themovement ent of the assumed real, soli solid particl rticle es (2). (2). I f the particl rticle es existed, then then the fuzzine uzziness was entirel ntirely y due to the hum human fail ailure to control the hidde hidden parameters governing governing the the movements ents of the particl rti cles es during during the measurement proces process. s. Usual sually the measuring suring device vice consisted consisted of enormous enormouslly large l arger numbers of particles interacting with the observed particle. The sheer magnitude of these numbers bers im i mpli plied that that inte interacti ractions ons betwee between n the observ observed ed parti particl cle e and the device vice would would introduce uncontrollable interactions. These interactions would then be responsible for the blurry picture of the observed particle.
6 Whether or not the uncertainty principle is due to uncontrollable interactions or to an intrinsic property of matter—that it exists in a form, neither matter nor non-matter, which is known as a quantum wave function—is still debated today. Regardless of the outcome, physicists accept the existence of the quantum wave function, either as a real physical field eld exi existi sting ng in in space and tim time or as as a mathem athematical atical artif artifact needed to calcul calculate ate the properties of real physical matter. The The main problem lem is how to int interpret the wave fun function ion its itself. The The best descript iption ion of quantumphysics, physics, now accepted by most physici physicists, sts, has come to be known as the Cope openha nhagen Inte Interpreta rpretati tion on.. I t was first fi rst pronoun pronounce ced d by Nie Ni els Boh Bohrr who, li l ike hi his yin-yan yin-yang g principle of complementarity, is often considered to be both the mother and father of quantumphysics. physics. Today oday there are, are, I suppose, suppose, as many any inte i nterpr rpreta etations tions of the Copenhag Copenhagen en I nterpretation tion as there are physi physici cists sts (3). My M y inte interpretation tion of of Bohr’s ohr’s expla xplanation tion is no no excepti xception on to this. I n my view, vi ew, the world world exi exists sts in in two comple plementary tary guise guises. s. Ea Each complem complements the other in in the sense that you cannot experience xperi ence one gui guise se whil while you are experien ri encing cing the other. Physicists have come to picture this complementarity in terms of waves and particles. Thu Thus, all of the fun fundamental particle icles s of physics ics are no lon longer imagine ined to be solid and substantial all of the time. Sometimes they exist as waves spread through space. For example, in the simplest atom of hydrogen, which itself is sometimes pictured as a wave, its single single suba subatomic el electron is no no long longe er considered considered to be a point point pa particl rticle. e. I nstead, it it is is pictured pictured as as a wave wave call called aquantumwave functi function on (qwiff ) which is spread over a volume of space. This qwiff can be viewed as an undulating wave cloud only so long as no experim ri ment ent attem attempting pting to locate the electron electron is is performe rformed. Mol M olecul ecules es are then then “buil “built up” from atoms with overlapping electron wave clouds that interact electromagnetically. The The rules les that describe ibe these overlap laps and all atomic behavior ior constitu itute the mathem athematical atical descripti scri ption on cal called wave or quantum quantummechanics. nics. As A s the size size of a molecul olecule e increases ncreases,, corres correspondi ponding ng to greater greater numbers bers of atoms and thei theirr electrons, electrons, the mass of the molecule also increases. Similarly, with an increase in molecular mass, the wave description tends to “wash out,” forming bonds or “electron glue,” which provide a fuzzy hardness and localization in space and time to our observation of the molecule. The larger the mass, ass, the the less the wave descripti scri ption on is is need needed ed. Along with with the increase ncrease in mass, there there is a grea greater ter abil bility to predi predict ct the futu future re behavior vior of the mass. A sim simple ple qua quantum ntum physical calculation shows that we lose the ability to predict the future location of a particle of mass (m) beyond a specific time (T). This time depends on the mass and the initial uncertainty or tolerance (D) with which we know the initial location of the particle. The formula is: 2
[1]
T=2mD /ħ -27 -27
where ħ (pronounced pronounced hh-bar) bar) is Plan Pl anck’s ck’ s quan quantum tumconstant, constant, h =6.626 x 10 -27 -27 divided by twice π (3.14159...), i.e. ħ=1.055 x 10 10 .
erg- seconds
7 T) is someti The The time ( T etimes calle call ed the“spreading ding time.” I t arise arises s in in the form of the quantum wave function representing a free particle—one that is initially located within a region (D), but but is is not not othe otherwise rwi se confine confi ned by by any any physical bound boundari arie es. As A s such, such, it it refers to how quickly we lose our ability to follow, in time, a particle’s location which initially has been determined within an initial tolerance ( D). The greater the “spreading time,” the longer we have to predict the location of the particle in the future. Predictions of the location ocation of the parti particl cle e beyond beyond thespreading ding tim time becom become more and and more uncertai uncertain n with with increasing time.
Tab Table 1 summarize izes the predict ictable behavior ior of variou ious mass particle icles s as their mass increases. Table Table 1. Human Tolerance and Predictable Behavior of “Particles” *
Mass, m(kg)
I nitia nitial Tolerance nce, D (m)
Spreading Time, T (sec)
Comments
-30 (electron) 10-30
-11 10-11
-18 1.9•10-18
A n el electron exists xists for about 2 attoseconds
-25 (atom) 10-25
-10 10-10
-11 1.9•10-11
A n atomexists xists for about 0. 0.2 picoseconds
-21 (molecule) 10-21
10-8
1.9•10-3
A small prote protein molecule exists for about 2 milliseconds
-15 (dust mote) 10-15
10-6
1.9•107 (31.3 weeks)
A dust dust mote visi visible ble microscopically appears as a cla classi ssical particle rticle
10-4 (pea)
10-5
1.9•1020 (600 billion years)
A pea’s behavior vior is is as a classical particle
*A dapted from a similar simil ar table in March M arch, R.H R.H.. Physics for Poets. New York: Y ork: McGraw-Hi McGraw-Hillll,, p 230 230.
K ey to our abi abillity to make predi predicti ctions ons about bout the future uture of a “parti “particl cle” e” is is thetolera tolerance given given to the first observati observation. on. I t can be seen that that the tabl table’s e’s val values ues depend on the the initi nitial al tolerance (D). I have chose chosen n typical values of of D to provi provide som some ide idea of how quantum quantum indeterminism arises. The tolerances specified in the table are not fixed. They depend on how we choose to look at the particle. I f theinitia niti al tole tolerance is sma small, the“sprea “spreading tim time” is i s al also dimi diminished, nished, varying varying as the square of that that tolera tolerance. nce. A larger arger tolera tol erance nce enabl ables one to make predicti predictions ons farthe fartherr in in the future about the particle’s location. This effect of allowing a larger tolerance in the initial location of a particle in order to gain predictability is the cornerstone of Heisenberg’s
8 principle of indeterminism. By giving up location, we gain knowledge about the future, i.e., predictability.
How and Why there is a Profound Connection between Human Consciousness and Quantum Physics D²/ħ lies the first indication of how human consciousness acting With formula T = 2mD²/ through observation affects the material universe. The tolerance ( D) depends on how and with with what we chooseto mea measure a particl rti cle, e, whether it i t is is a pea or an electron. Even a pea held to a tolerance of zero will become unpredictable in no time at all.
The The choice ice of toler lerance thus affects our knowled ledge of the fut future of matter. Nor Normal operating tolerances of a few microns (10-6 m) within the world of peas, baseballs, and automobiles provide the illusion of a stable solid universe acting independent of human consciousne consciousness because with with such macroscopi croscopic c tolera tol erance nces, s, large masses asses possess exceedingly long “spreading times.” Since nobody ever attempts to resolve the location of a pea within anything but a few microns, at best, a pea remains a good solid object and is capab capable of bei being predi predicted cted to move move as such. But But such “norm “normal” al” tolera tol erances nces are inoperative rative as as soon as as we begin gin to look look at small aller objects, objects, such as as molecul olecules, es, atoms, and electrons. Here I wish wish to sugge suggest that the act of obtaining ning knowl knowle edge dge of the outsi outside de world world invol involves ves the movements of such microscopic objects as molecules, atoms, and electrons within our brain, nervous system, and, perhaps, in our muscle cells as well. Thus, setting tolerances for what we observe in the outside world alters the tolerances of our “inside neural worlds.” worlds.” Thi This s setting tting of tole tolerance rance is, I believe, the fundam undamental acti action of consciousn consciousne ess or awareness of the outside outside worl world. Thi This s acti action on alters our brain brain and nervous nervous systemby changing the tolerances for locating certain molecules acting within them. Thu Thus, to lea learn anything ing, each of us must in some manner, change the toler lerances determining the locations of molecules within our neurons. Possibly, the differences between long- and short-term memory can be explained by different sets of tolerances for certain molecules. The wipeout of memory effect through debilitating diseases, such as A lzhei zheimer’s r’ s dise disea ase, se, may be due due to the inabil bility to adjust tole tolerance rances. s. Much M uch as an olde older person begins to lose the ability to focus on objects within the near optical field (farsightedness), our brain may lose the ability to adjust tolerances sufficiently, making it dif difficult cult to le learn or remember new infor inform mati ation. Ve V ery long l ong--term term memory may exist exist or remain ain becausethe tolera tolerances nces are wide wider, all allowing owing longe longer predicti prediction on tim times and, thus, stability for long-term memory storage. Human memory is not computer-perfect simply becausethere there must always always be a tolera tolerance nce--uncertai uncertainty nty in in storing stori ng any mol molecu ecullar arrangement. A nothe nother wa way to descri describe be the chang change e in in tole tolerance rance associa ssociated ted with with a pa particl rticle e’s loca locati tion on is is to refer to the wave-particle duality. This duality is an oversimplified way to describe how the world world can can be picture pictured d in in two compl complem ementary gui guises. ses. I n reality, the world world is is never never
9 composed of particles or waves, but of something else that evades description. The changeover from wave into particle and back again is really a question of changes in tolerance, resulting in uncertainty of material knowledge. Thus, because we must set tolera tolerances nces with with each and and every observ observati ation, on, there is is no worl world of matter separate separate or distinct in any manner from the world of mind. Tolerance setting occurs so naturally in our everyday observati rvations, ons, much as we focus focus our eyes to see anything, nything, that we usua usuallly never notice notice we are doing doing it. it. I t is is only only in in al altered awareness states states that that we becom become aware of the use of different tolerances. The There is really no duality lity at all. The There is only unity ity that appears as duality lity, depending ing on what tolerance tolerancewe allow in in our our observati rvationa onal actions ctions.. Eve Even n thi this is is a sim simplif pli ficati cation on.. What What is realized is synonymous with what is observed. What is not realized is not observed and remains pote potenti ntia ally real real. Me M eaningful ningful observation rvation is is only possi possibl ble e throug through h repe repeated ted observation or predictability, or both, and that in turn depends on how much or how little tolerance we use in determining the location of objects in the world.
The Obs Observe rver Effec Effect—How t—How Huma Human Choic Choice es Affec Affect the Compl omple ementari ntar ity betwe betwee en L ocati ocation on and Ene Enerr gy I f we consi conside der a sim simple ple example ple, known as as the “parti “particl cle e-in-a-box,” n-a-box,” we can see see how observation rvation changes a physi physical cal system. A ccording ccording to qua quantum ntum physi physics, cs, specifi specif ical cally the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is not possible to specify in the future or present both the energy and location of the particle confined within the box. I f we take take the parti particl cle e to be a channel protein protein molecul olecule e embedde bedded in in the neuron neuron membrane, its i ts mass (m) wil wi ll be approxi approxim mately: -21 kg m=10 =10-21
[2].
Typ Typica ically, lly, these proteins ins are spaced apart at a dist istance (D) (D) of approximately: ly: D =10 =10-8 m
The The lipid lipid molec lecules les of the membrane act as boundaries ies for for each “boxed” protein molecul olecule. e. Thus, Thus, we assum assume that that these protei protein n molecules olecules are each in in tiny tiny boxes of the the order of 10 nm wide, separated by molecules of closely packed lipids constituting the membrane wall wall. Following from the uncertainty principle and Table 1, the protein molecules will not have well defined positions within the membrane, but will spread out in a time of the order of 2 ms within the tolerance of the width of the box. Each particle will take the
[3].
10 form of a wave function, and can be visualized as a wave motion of a rope or string bound at two ends. ends. The There re are an inf infiinite nite num number ber of such wave modes, odes, known as standi standing ng wave patterns. A ssociate ssociated with with each each standi standing ng wave wave mode are an energy energy (E) (E) and an oscil oscillation ation frequency (f) related by Planck’s formula: E = hf
[4]
Each mode or harm harmoni onic c is is cal called an an energy state state.. For For sim simpli plicity, city, I wil will assum ssume that there are only only two two energy energy states, E(1) and E(2)—the first and second harmonics, respectively. Thu Thus, each particle icle will exist ist in eith ither the firs first or second energy state and, corresp correspondi ondingl ngly, y, have have a matching atching qua quantum ntumwave function. function. The T he square of the wave function is interpreted to be the probability of locating the particle somewhere in the box. I n contrast, contrast, when the the pa particl rticle e is is in in any any of these energy states, it i t is is not possi possibl ble e to say on which side of the box the particle exists. Each wave is distributed through the box so that the probability of locating the particle on the right or left side of the box is equal. The probability pattern remains constant or stationary in time. Thus, once a particle is in one of these states, it it rem remains ains there so long long as one does not attempt to measure the actual location of the particle within the box. A measurement can also also be perf performe ormed, locati locating ng the the parti particl cle e either ther on the left or right ri ght side side. I n so doing, the energy stateis disturb disturbed ed so that the pa particl rti cle e no no long longe er has a specif cific energy. The particle now takes on a different quantum wave function. When such a location measurement is carried out, for example, by observing the particle either on the left (L) or right (R) side of the box, the particle no longer exists in either stationary energy state. Rather, it is found to be in a position state that is a linear superpositi rposition on of the two ene energy rgy quantum quantumwave functi function on states (eithe (eitherr a sum or difference). The The probability ility of loc locating ing the particle icle on the left left or righ ight side ide of the box now no lon longer remains consta constant nt in in tim time. It I t oscil oscillates ates with with a freque requency given given by the dif difference rence in the frequencies of the two energy states. This means that the particle location states change in time. During a half-cycle of oscillation, the particle is more likely to be found on the right side of the box while a half-cycle later it is more likely to be found on the left side. Under these these circums circumstan tances ces the parti particl cle e cannot be said said to have have a defi defini nite te energy. I f one attempts to determine the energy at any time, the probability will be 50% that the particle will be found in in state state 1 or in in state state 2. 2. The The ina inability ility to know both the loc location ion of the particle icle in the box and its its energy simultaneously means simply that the particle is either in a position wave function pattern or in an energy wave function pattern. Observation of the particle location implies knowledge of the position wave function which requires that both energy wave functions be present simultaneously Observation of the particle energy implies knowledge of the
11 energy wave function. function. If I f either harmonic onic wave is present present al alone, the energy of the particl rticle e will be specified, but the location of the particle will, correspondingly, be uncertain or undetermi undetermined. ned. Herein lies the reason for the complementarity of location in time and energy of a particle. Observation of position “collapses” the energy wave function, much as the observation rvation of “he “heads” coll collapses the everyday probabi probabillity fun functi ction on of observi observing ng a coi coin’s n’s side.
A Simple Quantum uantum Physi hysical cal M ode odel of Fe F eelings ngs and and Thou T houg ghts I llustra lustrating ting the Obs bse er ver Effe ff ect I propose that a sim similar complem plementari entarity ty exists exists betwee between n hum human feelings and thoughts. thoughts. Of Of course, such a primitive “cell” as a particle-in-a-box will not possess anything like a human fee feeling or thought. I n much the same manner, an atom does not show anythi anything ng like the range rangeof energi energies es expressed xpressed by the hum human nervous nervous system. Y et, without wi thout atom atomic energy level l evels s present, present, the hum human nervous system systemwould would not operate the way way it it does. I n a sim similar fashion, shion, I propose propose that that our our emotions otions or fe feelings ngs and and though thoughts ts are composed of basic sic fe feelings ngs and and though thoughtt states occurring occurri ng at some some qua quantum ntum microscopic croscopic le l evel. I t now seems evi evide dent that that emergent patterns of corti cortical cal excitati excitation on can can depend pend criti critical callly on chemical processes. The rates for these processes depend on sensitive interactions involvi nvolving ng processes processes such such as quantummechanical nical barr barriier pene penetration, tration, whi which ch may occur at synapses synapses.. Thus, it it would would appe appear plau plausibl sible e that that changes in in quantumstates of molecu oleculles, such as the energy position states of protein gates within the neural wall, could give rise to fee feelings or thoughts thoughts in in much the same way that that neural neural firing ri ng gi gives rise rise to muscular uscular movements. To date, this has not been postulat lated. What is needed at this point int is a simple corresp corresponde ondence betwee between n energy nergy states states and and “atomic” fee f eelings. Base Based on Jung’ J ung’s s discovery discovery of the complementarity between certain basic personality functions, such as feeling and thinki thinking ng or sensi sensing ng and intui intuiti ting, ng, I propose that that there there is is a one to one corres corresponde pondence between tween “atomic” fee f eeling and energy, with with a concomi concomitant tant relati relation on between tween spatial tial-temporal locations of molecules, such as protein molecules involved in gating function, and primitive thought processes. Thu Thus, basic feeling lings are expressed with ithout any words attending ing them. Certainly inly,, deeds of the outside outside world, worl d, such as someone eone shaki shaking ng a finger or shouting shouting some obscen obsceniity at us, can cause us to fee feel anger ger or hatred. hatred. Aga A gaiin, these feelings seemto appea appear to arise arise out out of nowhere. nowhere. I propose that that these feeli feelings do do arise arise as charges in in ene energy rgy states of sets of more primitive “atoms.” such as given above by the particle-in-the-box model. I ascribe scribeto the particl rticle e-in-then-the-box box two basi basic c “f “feeling” ng” states, tes, F(1) and F(2), which are exactly exactly the same as the energy state states, E(1) and E(2), previously describe scribed. I also ascribe scribe T(1) and T(2 T(2), associated with the to the particle-in-the-box two basic “thought” states, T(1 two possible position states, L and R. The lower “feeling” state, F(1), is i s the ground state
12 feeling end, as such, produces “no feeling” in the system. F(1) acts much as a drone state of vibra vibrati tion on cha characterizi rizing ng Indian Indian music and symboli bolizing zing the funda undamental tal vibra vibrati tion on or zero-point motion of me void or universal harmony of Eastern mysticism. The The firs first excite ited state, F(2), corresponds to a state of aroused feeling in the particle-inthethe-box system. Al A lthough aroused, it it is is not expressed until until the systemde-excites excites and energy is is tran transmittal along along the neural membraneas a surf surface ace wave wave carryi carrying the ene energy of the dif difference rence between the the state states s with with it. This, his, then, then, is is the the expressi xpression on of “f “feeling eli ng.” .” I f a number ber of sim similarly arly excited excited systems transmit energy energy in in the brain brain al along theneural neural membrane, a feeling or emotion will be felt or expressed. Without thought occurring, feelings would simply arise spontaneously and disappear to arise arise again. ain. However, However, introspecti introspection on may take place place. Introspecti I ntrospection on may be be nothing nothing more than than consciousne consciousness attempting pting to “rea “reason” through through thefeelings by changi changing ng the tole tolerances rances of the particl rticle es confi confined withi within n the boxe boxes, s, A ttem ttempting pting to reduce reduce the tol tolerance rance by observing the particle to be either on the left or right side of the box will give rise to a T(1) or T(2 T(2). Suppose the particle, initially in the ground state E(1) is later thought state state, T(1 found to be on the left side (L). This act of observation sets up an internal oscillating state within the box. No longer is the system in one particular energy state. Correspondingly, the system will no longer possess a well defined feeling. This state is a temporary holding pattern of oscillation—a simple state of transitory memory. The internal vibration in the probability associated with attempted reduction in tolerance corresponds to a thought pattern within the primitive cell, which will only last until that pattern is read, probably only a few milliseconds.
I mplica pli cati tions ons and Dir Directions for F uture utur e Research arch I should should cauti caution on the reade readerr that what is is being proposed proposed here here is not a reductioni reductionisti stic c model odel. A lthough though I have de describe scribed an extrem extremely sim si mple ple syste system m of a single single particl rticle e-in-a-box, n-a-box, I hope that that the reader der rea realizes that that I amnot attem attempting pting to explai explain n consciousne consciousness reductionistically. I t is is not not aques questi tion on of whi which ch molecu olecules are responsible onsible for which which process process.. I nstead, it it is is a recognition that thinking and feeling will not be discovered in terms of molecular identifi ntificati cation on or typica typicall physi physica call proce process invo invollving ving ne neurotransm nsmitter release or cal calcium cium ion modulation. What I am proposi proposing is that consci consciousn ousnes ess s itse itsellf cannot cannot be be de defined in in such such reducti reductioni onisti stic c terms as such, such, but can be defi define ned in in quantumphysical physical terms. Much the sam same is is true in in describi scribing ng an el electron. We We onl only know what an an el electron does does and and not what it it is. is. In I n my model, consciousness “collapses” the quantum wave function by restricting the knowle knowledgeof the location location of mole olecules cules acting cting withi within n a neuron’s uron’s mem membrane brane. These molecules exist in stationary energy quantum wave states without well-specified locati ocations. ons. Any Any atte attem mpt to loca locate te,, by reducti reductioni onisti stic c expe experi rim mentati tation, on, the positions positi ons of the
13 molecul olecules es withi within n the neuron wall wall may disturb disturb them them enough to wipe wipe out the effect eff ect oneis looking for. I ndeed, it it is is the the act of introspe ntrospective ctive observing-di rvi ng-disturbing sturbing that is is respon responsi sibl ble e for changing changing thoughts thoughts into into fee feelings and vice vice verse. verse. Thus, Thus, a thought thought is is created created on a tim time scal scale e of the same order (≅ 1 ms) as the period of oscillation of the quantum wave for a protein molecule acting within the confines of a neural membrane. Of course, the words we speak speak take take much longe longer to pronounce th than an a few milliseconds. seconds. However, However, I propose that that our thoughts have al already ready been registere registered d well well bef before we speak them them. I n other other words, words, the words we speak are, more or less less,, nothing nothing but but scripts scripts of thought thought patterns patterns already ready written wri tten on a time scale of just a few milliseconds. The actual process of speaking or writing the words words is is sim similar to the process that occurs occurs when a computer “rea “reads ds out” its its own memory on a scree screen. The The exist istence of “prescribe ibed” script ipts on a millise illisecond-na -nanometer time-sp -space scale could explain how we can speak at all. We are “reading” the scripts. Errors in reading or the possibility of the existence of “multi-scripts” could result in simple confusion or, perhaps, speech speech im impai pairments such as stuttering stuttering or stammering. ering. Inte I ntellligence may be associ associate ated with with the persistence of such scripts over longer periods of time or the use of groups of molecul olecules es acting cting in in a correl correlate ated manne anner. r. I t appea appears evide evident that our words words and and senten sentences ces foll ollow a log logiical cal pattern. It I t see seems qui quite di difficult, howe howeve ver, r, to explai explain n how how a grammatica ticallly correct correct sentence sentencecould could be expresse expressed d without wi thout havi having ng phrases phrases or words words stored stored ahead head of time, This storage possibility may exist at the level or protein molecules in lipid bounded nanometer-si r-sized zed boxes havi having ng the thickness thickness of neural neural membranes. Perhaps fee feeling patterns of energy energy seen as waves waves on the li living ving membranesurface surface can be objecti objectivel vely y observ observed ed and and contrasted contrasted with with dif different wave wave patte patterns associ associate ated with with thought. thought. However, owever, such experim ri ments ents should should be unde undertaken with with extreme cauti caution. on. Each attempt to observe such wave forms will introduce uncontrollable factors associated with the quantumof the measurement ent process. process. The T he fri frighte ghteni ning ng prospect prospect tha that emotiona otional or thought thought states can be controlled by an outside influence now rears its head. The notion that a wave of feeling or of thought overcome overcomes a person rson may be more ore than a metaphor. Thu Thus, consciou iousness in my simple model is ide identified ified with ith the process of wave transformation through setting tolerances for observing either energies or locations of protei protein n gate gate molecul olecules es embedded bedded in the neural neural membranes, and nothi nothing ng el else. I n my book (4), (4), I presented many any of these these ideas in grea greater ter detail tail. I also also expl explored ored another interpretation of quantum physics, known as the parallel world interpretation, and its impact on psychol psychological ogical fun functi ctioni oning. ng. I n afuture uture report, I hope hope to show show how how basic sic feelings, such as love, love, hate, sexual desire desire and expression, xpression, and depressi depression on associ associate ated with with Freudian reudian analysi alysis s may be describe scri bed d in in terms terms of quantum quantum correl correlati ations ons between tween molecules. olecules. Such correl correlati ations ons can extend extend over much much greater greater distan distances ces than than just just a few few nanom nanometers. I also also hope to show how quantumobserv observati ations ons performe performed in in the future future can determine the stateof consciousne consciousness of the prese present nt and and off offer a quan quantum tummodel odel of the unconsci unconscious. ous. I t is is expected that that thewide wi de rangeof feelings and thegreat great capacity city for for thought that mark the hum human conditi condition on can be be explai xplaine ned d by such conside considerations rations as I have have pursued here. here. It It
14 may be that that such li lines of research research wil will enab enable us us to understand understand oursel ourselves ves as as quantum biopsychosocial beings. The prospect now exists for observing the influence of mind on matter and for a new quantum psychol psychology.
Refer ences nces 1. Am A mong the many any supporters of the view view that that consciousne consciousness coll collapses the the wave wave function are are Nobel prize prize winne winners, Bri Brian an J osephs osephson on and Euge ugene Wign Wi gne er. Al A lso include ncluded are physi physici cists sts Even ven Harris Harris Walke Walker and and Henry Henry Pi Pierce Stapp. pp. Phys Physiicist cist Lud Ludvi vik k Ba Bass ha has described a specific neurological model of quantum consciousness in which consciousness collapses the wave function. See: Stapp, H. P. Found Phys 1985:15:35-47. The Scien ientist ist Walker, E. H. Math Biosci. 1970 1970;; 7:131. 7:131. Wign Wigner, E. E. In: I n: Good I . J ., ed. ed. Th Specul Speculates. ates. L ondon ound Phy Phys s. 1975:5:159-172. ondon:: W H. He Heinemann. nn. 1962 1962.. Bass L. L. F ound 2. The main proponents of “clarifying the picture” by use of “hidden” parameters are David Bohm and his coworkers. See: Bohm D. Phys Rev 1952:85:166 1952:85:166.. 180. 180. Al A lso see see othe other refe references ces to Boh Bohm m’s work in: in: Boh Bohm m D. J . et al al. Nature 1985:315:297. 3. DeWitt DeWitt B. S. Phys Today Today 1970 1970:23:30 :23:30--35. 35. Al A lso see see: Ba Ballentine, ntine, L. L . et et al. Phys Today Today 1971:24:36-44. 4. Wolf, F. A. Star Wave: Mind, Consciousness, and Quantum Physics. New Y ork: ork: Macmillan, 1984. Also published in Great Britain as: Wolf, F. A. Mind and the New Physics. Lon Taking ing the Quantum L ondo don: n: W. H. H. He Heinemann. nn. 1985 1985.. Al A lso se see: Wolf Wolf,, F. F. A. A . Tak Leap. San Francisco: Harper and Row. 1981.
15 Commentary by Larry Larry Dossey Dossey M.D M.D..* *Dallas Diagnostic Association, Dallas, TX.
“·. . . the greatest mystery in all of science to this day is consciousness or, if you please, individual awareness of existence. Other concepts, like elementary particles, matter, have been reduced to more ore funda fundam mental ental ones or are on the verge of being being so reduced, and they are thereby thereby deprived prived of perma permanence nence.. C Consci onsciousne ousness—i ss—in spi spite of the operati operationa onalist and and the occasional behaviorist who laugh it off as a trivial accompaniment of organized matter—has atter—has never been reduced to anything nythi ng more fundam fundamental.” (1) (1) Prof Profe essor He Henry Ma M argena rgenau For most physicians and bioscientists, entering the world of quantum physics is an unsettling experience. One quickly encounters a new set of rules describing the behavior of the world worl d that has no counterpart counterpart in in everyday everyday experi experien ence ce or in in the descripti scri ptions ons that are part of the tradi traditiona tional, scie scientif ntific, medical dical educat educatiion. Al A lthough though these strange strange, counterintuitive ideas have been part of modern physics for 85 years, they have yet to penetrate netrate the dayday-toto-da day knowled knowl edge of most medi edical scien scientists. tists. Fred A lan Wolf Wolf’s report report is is one one of many sign signals als that that this situa situation tion may be be changing. changing. In In medicine, we are being forced to come to terms with the physics of this century in the models of how human bodies bodies may functi function. on. But But we shoul should d not delude ourselves ourselves that the confrontation with modern physical views will be easy because they stand in stark violation of many hallowed assumptions of our traditional science, such as the proclam procl amation ation by the great spokesman for molecular molecular scien science, ce, J acques acques Monod, that an objective world is the very backbone of science, without which the scientific endeavor woul would be be imposs impossiible. Y et this issu i ssue of of obj objectivi ctivity ty is is onl only a single are area a in which which the the “ne “new physics” conflicts with the old. Other conflicts exist as well, such as the basic meanings of tim time, space, space, mass, ass, energy, and causation. tion. For decade decades, intim ntimations ations have have come come from from physici physicists sts themselves selves that that quantum quantummechanics nics and modern biological concepts must eventually unite. For example, the physicist, Niels Bohr, stated that the eventual additi dition on of biol biologi ogical cal concepts to quantummechan echaniics was a foregone oregone conclusi conclusion on (2). A ddi dditiona tionally, several several physi physici cists sts ha have propose proposed that that the mindmatter duali dualismthat that has dominated tradi traditiona tionall scien science since since Descartes Descartes mi might best best be resolved by invoking a principle that permeates modern physics, that of complementarity. I n addi additi tion, on, many physici physicists sts have sugge suggested that that human thought thought processes require require such small degrees of energy that quantum principles would eventually prove necessary to describe describe them. But these sorts of predictions, which have come from within physics for decades, have largel argely gone unnoti unnoticed, ced, and for a good reason. reason. It I t has sim simply ply seem seemed unnecessary to employ this body of knowledge. Newton’s physics work quite well in the relatively large-
16 scale scale worlds worlds of medicine cine and physiol physiology, ogy, we have sai said, and we have been able to do our our job job and do it quite ite well with ith the traditio ition nal tools. ls. Y et the dich ichotomy between these two systems of thought is glar laring ing. Thu Thus, Ehr Ehrenwald was led led to observe, “It “I t is is paradoxi radoxical cal that more than than one half century after the advent of rela relativi tivisti stic c physics and the formulation of quantum mechanics ... our neurophysiological models of the organism, our psychological and psychoanalytical concepts about “the Mind,” are located in Euclidian space, and conform essentially to mechanistic, Newtonian, causal-reductive concepts.” (3) One of the major misconceptions of many bioscientists—and this is a crucial point in understan understandi ding ng Wolf Wol f’s proposals— proposals—iis the assum assumption ption that the deep deeper we pene penetrate nature, the more accurate our our knowled knowl edge becomes comes and and the more control control we stand stand to gain. This his assum assumption ption li lies at the the heart of our fai faith th in in current methodol ethodology ogy and and theory in i n attem attempting pting to understand the workings of mind and consciousness. Certainly at certain levels of investigation, delving deeper into nature does yield greater information; as we go “downward” from organ systems to individual organs and, eventually, to the molecular level itself, we are rewarded with increasingly finer details of information. However, as the physicist, Freeman Dyson, observed, beyond this level there is a bottoming-out effect where further investigation yields not greater information but less-for in reaching the subatomic world, we encounter the pesky principle of uncertainty, which which set sets s lim li mits on what what we can can know know (4). This his lim li mitati tation on comes about, bout, physicists physici sts tel tell us, nor as a consequence of the clumsiness of our techniques, but as a built-in quality of the world world that that we can neve never exorci exorcise. se. The The eventual hopes, then, of bios ioscien ientist ists, of endles lessly probing ing nature mechanist istica ically and garnering increasingly finer knowledge, are flawed because of an actual failure to appreciate the limits of such efforts that have been known to physicists for the greater part of this this centu century. ry. Y et this this misconception ption lure lures s us on, on, and the the faith faith which which it it enge engenders, nders, it see seems to me, hide hides us from fromthe limitati tations ons of the science on which we rely. rely. Most importantly, it hinders us against considering alternative models of human function, such as those off offered by Wol Wolff and others who have suggeste suggested d quantum-based models odels of physiological processes. To reason, therefor fore, that the body and brain are objec jects that can be endles lessly diss issected, however however remotel remotely, y, leads to dee deep phi philosophical osophical probl problem ems we have not not appreci appreciate ated. Thi This s disturbing disturbing point point has been clea clearly rly mad made by by Morowi M orowitz: tz: “[We assume that] first, the human mind, including consciousness and reflective thought, can be explained by activities of the central nervous system, which, in turn, can be reduced to the biological structure and function of that physiological system. Second, biological phenomena at all levels can be totally understood in terms of atomic physics,
17 that is, through the action and interaction of the component atoms. Third and last, atomic physics, physics, which which is is now understood most full ful ly by means of quantummechanics, nics, must be formulate ormulated with with mind as a pri prim mitive tive component ponent of the system system. We We have have thus, in in sepa separate steps, Bone around an epistemological circle.” (5) I t is is therelat relatiionshi onship be between what we call consciousness-by which which I refer to the felt sensation of thought, emotion, and awareness--and the material stuff of the brain that Wolf Wol f is probing. In I n so doi doing, ng, he invokes the most wide widely supported supported (though not unanim nimous) interpretati nterpretation on of quantummechanics, nics, the so called call ed Copenhag Copenhagen I nterpretation, tion, which which hol holds that that the act of observation rvation (and, (and, thus, thus, it i t is is said, the intrusion of human conscious activity) is required before an actual, recognizable event can occur at the subatomic level. A s Wolf Wolf puts puts it, it, this this acti action on of consciousne consciousness in obtaining knowl knowle edge dge of of the the worl world d outside “involves the movements of such microscopic objects as molecules, atoms, and electrons within our brain, nervous system, and, perhaps, in our muscle cells as well.” Wolf invokes the concept of tolerance, by which he means a kind of “fuzziness” or less than than perf perfect ect degree degree of accuracy of our knowl knowled edge of a subatom subatomic happen happeniing and and states states that the “setting [of] tolerances for what we observe in the outside world alters the tolerance toleranceof our our ‘i ‘ insi nsideneural worlds worlds’’.” This setting setting of tolerance tolerance, he sa says, “is, “i s, I believe, ve, the fundamental action of consciousness or awareness of the outside world.” This process then then alters our brain brain and and nervous nervous system, he proposes, by aff affecting ecting certain rtain protein protein molecul olecules es embedded in in neural neural membranes. The inte interpl rplay ay betwee between n fee feelings is is relate related by Wolf olf to changes changes in in energy energy states of sets sets of atoms, and he invokes a complem plementari entarity ty between tween the energy and and positi position on states of certain certain mol molecules ecules and feeli feelings and and thoughts. thoughts. Eventually, however, the origin of feelings is deeper and they “arise as changes in energy states of sets of more prim primitive tive ‘atom ‘atoms’,” s’,” and introspecti introspection on “may “may be be nothing nothing more than consciousne consciousness attem attempting pting to ‘rea ‘reason’ son’ through the the feelings feeli ngs by by changi changing ng thetolera tolerance nce of the particl rticles es.” .” What are are we to make of Wolf Wol f’s proposa proposals abou aboutt how fe feelings ngs and and consciousness origi origina nate? te? Is I s this this not a comple plex form form of reducti reductioni onism sm, a mecha echanism nismwith with a vengeance vengeance,, rel relyi ying ng as it it does on a worl world even more ore remote than that probed by most molecu olecular-thi r-thinki nking ng neurophysi urophysiol ologi ogists? sts? Inste I nstead of of neurotransm urotransmitters, tters, have we not not mere merely substi substitute tuted el electrons? The The answer, I believe, is i s a decisi cisive ve “no,” and thereason that Wolf’s model escapes the charge of reductionism lies once again in the findings of modern physici physicists sts themselves. selves. The T he more remotely otely one pene penetrates trates thelevels of nature, nature, the less accurate one’s knowled knowl edge ge becom becomes, and not not vice vi ce versa as the ordina ordinary ry brand of reductionism assumes. This difference is more than philosophical; it lies at the very heart of the way quantum physics is actually “done.” Consciousness, then, in Wolf’s model is identified with the process of wave transformation “through setting tolerances for either observing energies or locations of protein protein gate gate molecu oleculles embedded in in the neural membranes and nothi nothing ng el else.” But Wol Wolf f does not stop here. here. El E lsewhere, sewhere, he has has proposed proposed model odels to account, not jjust ust for for consciousness, but for specific emotions such as joy, hate, love, and sexual arousal. His
18 quarry is larger than generic mind; it includes its various qualitative expressions as well (6). Does Wolf Wolf’s model deliver what it it promises? ses? Can Can it accoun accountt for for the most ine ineluctable ble fact of anyone’s experience—the fact of being conscious and the experiences of various emotions? There are reasons to suppose that it cannot. The philosopher of religion, Huston Smith, has stated (7) that there are four categories in which science is limited, “four things science cannot get its hands on”: 1) intrinsic and normative values; 2) purposes; 3) ultimate and existential meanings; and 4) quality. These limitations come about, bout, Sm Smith claims claims,, as a resul result of scien science’ ce’s helples plessne sness in in the the face of the qualitati tativel vely y unmeasurable. I t may al also be argued that it it is is the qua qualitativel tatively y unmeasureable— ble— consciousness and its vari various ous qualitati tative ve expressi xpressions—that ons—that is the the obje object of Wolf Wol f’s model. A nothe nother obje objection ction has to do with with what what is is meant by mi mind and consci consciousn ousne ess. Thi This s point point of disag disagree reem ment is is expresse expressed d by by the physici physicist, st, J ere erem my Haywa Hayward: rd: “Mi “M ind is not not a ‘something thing’’ sepa separate from nature. ture. It I t is is ide identica nticall at vari various ous levels of order order with with all of nature, ture, not sol sole ely with with indivi individu dua al brai brains. It It emerges rges as a characte characteristi ristic c of processes of nature at a certa certaiin le level vel of evolution. volution. It I t is is therefore futil futile e to look for f or evidence of mental processes as located purely in the brain of an individual organism. We must look for such evidence in the entire network of patterns of interaction which that organism has with its environment . . .” (8) This This view iew is essentially ially that of Gr Gre egory Bateson: “The “The indivi ndividual mind is im i mmanent but but not not only in the the body. It I t is is im immanent also in in the the pathways and and messag essages es outsi outside de the the body; body; and there there is is a large larger Mi M ind of which which the individual mind is only a subsystem.” (9) L ikewise kewise,, the eminent physi physici cist, st, Erwi Erwin n Schrödi Schrödinge nger, who who formul ormula ated ted the the wave mechanics nics that unde undergirds rgirds quantum quantumphysics, physics, went so far as to suggest suggest that, that, in in fact, fact, there is is only only one mind that is is somehow ehow partici participa pated ted in by everyone ryone, and that that the ide idea of indivi ndividual mind is il illusory (10). I n spi spite of the fact that such an ide idea may see seem fatuous tuous to Western Western scie scientists, ntists, it it would would see seem improper to dism dismiss it it out of hand for the reason that that it, it, and others similar to it, were advanced by serious physicists who laid the framework for the most accurate accurate science science we have have ever ever had, and because these conclusi conclusions ons were were reached reached as a consequence of the implications of the physical theory itself. I t must must bestate stated, d, too, that it it is is possi possible ble to form formul ulat ate e inte interpretations tions of modern physics physics that that do not invoke invoke consciousne consciousness as a necessa necessary operator. operator. This his has has been been done done,, for example, ple, by Davi David d Bohm Bohm, who who denies nies that that hum human observ observati ation on is is necessa necessary to bring bring a subatomic event to completi pletion on (11). A machine could could perform rform the the act of observation, observation, says Bohm, and store such information for later use by an observer; and, continues Bohm, one would would not want to attri attribute bute consciousne consciousness to such a machine achine.
19 Even am among those physi physici cists sts who do agree that that present present day, day, modern physical physical theory theory does does require require human consciousne consciousness, there there is is profound profound disag disagree reem ment ent whether or not this this very physics can account for consciousness, feelings, and emotions. Perhaps the most outspoken physicist in this regard is the Nobelist, Eugene Wigner, who has said, “ . . . the most im important phenomena not dealt alt with wi th by our physical physical theori theories es are those of life and consciousness. ... Even if the physical theories could completely describe the motions of the atoms in our bodies, they would not give a picture of the content of our consciousnesses, they would not tell us whether we experience pain or pleasure, whether we are thinking of prime numbers or of our granddaughters. This fact is, in my opinion, the most obvious obvious but but also the most convinci convincing ng evide vidence nce that life and and consciousne consciousness are are outside outside the area area of pres presen entt day day physics. physics.” ” (12) (12) A side side from the diverse diverse opini opinions ons of physici physicists sts them themsel selves about bout the role role of of consciousness in modern physics, for me, the most problematic aspect of Wolf’s theory lies with the philosophical problem that has traditionally been called “the mind-body problem.” Crudely put, it is this: How does the material world-whether neurons, neurotransmitter molecules, electrons, or anything else--give rise to something that feels like consciousne consciousness? I ngenious nious attempts have, have, of course, been made through the ages to solve solve this question. But many thoughtful persons throughout history have considered this an utter utter epistem epistemologi ological cal impasse passe.. I number myself among them in the sense sense of not believing eving that there is any logical way of penetrating this barrier, even within the context of modern physics. One of of thediff dif ficultie culties I have in Wol Wolff’s atte attempt at defining consci consciou ousn sne ess is is the the identicality he proposes between consciousness and the process of wave transformation. Tru True, many physicis icistts hold to the notion ion that consciou iousness is necessary to effect this process. But a major problem, as Wolf himself tells us, is how to interpret the wave function itse itsellf. Is I s it it “a real physi physica call field exi existi sting ng in spa space and time or ... ... a mathe athematical tical artif rtifact ne needed to cal calculat culate e the the propertie rties of real physi physical cal matter?” tter?” I f the latter, tter, then consciousness is identified with a symbol, which does not leave us with a satisfying definition or feeling of what conscious is. On the other hand, if consciousness is identified with something “real” and “physical,” then we are back to the enigma that has dogged the various various ide identi ntity ty theories theories of consciousne consciousness that that have emerged for for hundreds of years. How does the concrete stuff of the world give rise to something that has the feel of consciousne consciousness? Thus, T hus, regardl regardless ess of whether whether the qua quantum ntumwave functi function on is is seen as as symbolic or real, problems seem to arise. A n alterna ternative tive vie view to Wolf Wolf’s ef effort (as well as the the efforts of other physi physicists cists,, such as Walker, alker, whom he cites) cites) to get consci consciousne ousness out of the qua quantum ntumdomain ain would would be to regard consciousne consciousness itsel itselff as astarting starting point, point, a given, given, a pri prim mary phenom phenomenon, enon, and to work toward matter and not out of it. This would seem appropriate, especially in view of the conclusi conclusion on of many any physici physicists sts that a suba subatomic event event cannot come come to compl complete eteness ness
20 and enter our perceived reality without human observation of some sort. This “top-down” (inste (i nstead ad of the usua usuall “bottom-up”) “bottom-up”) approach approach has actually been proposed proposed by the Nobel physi physici cist, st, Bri Bria an Jose J osephson, phson, and and it is is cohe coherent rent with with most of the views views on the the origi origin n of consciousness that have come down through a diversity of cultural, prescientific traditions (13). Many years ago, the Am American rican hum humorist, orist, Am A mbrose Bierce, made an observation rvation in in his his The The Devil’s Dict Diction ionary that may appl apply y to Wol Wolff’s and and our our efforts efforts at thi thinking nking about bout consciousness quantum mechanically. The mind, Bierce facetiously stated, is a mysterious substance located deep within the brain, its chief preoccupation lying in thinking about itself, the folly of which is that it has only itself to think about itself with. Bierce’s erce’s observati rvation on may prov prove e trenchantly ntly appropri appropriate ateto our concerns here here for for two reasons, reasons, Fi First, if consciousne consciousness does does depe depend on such small all energy states that that quantum quantum principles apply, then we may be frustrated in observing this process in all its facets because of the principle of uncertainty, which limits what we can know. Second, there are problem problems that have been been found to apply apply to logical ogical systems, such as thoseemployed ployed by our minds in thinking about our minds, if these systems are at least as logically complicated as simple arithmetic. The work of Gödel, Tarski, and Church has explicated these these probl problem ems, and Gödel’ Gödel’s theorem theorem is, perhaps, perhaps, the most well well known warning warning that logical systems can become self-referential and, thus, limited as they begin to “talk about themsel selves” ves” (14). A lthough though the the consci conscious ous brain thinki thinking ng about bout itse itsellf may be a prim prime example ple of the dil dilemma posed by Göde Gödell, these these issue issues s are too compl complex ex to explore explore here. here. Nevertheless, rtheless, they they suggest we take Bi Bierce’s erce’s humor seriousl seriously; y; the mind may forever forever be stymied in thinking fully about itself regardless of whether the model we use is Wolf’s quantum-based based model odel or some other other clas classi sical callly based one. What of Wolf’s belief that the origin of consciousness can be found below the level of the atom? Perhaps most persons in medical science would agree with this approach, if not in the detail tails, at lea least about about where where to look. look. I t can be said, however, however, that that most cultures cultures and traditions have seen it the other way around; it is consciousness that gives rise to matter, and not vice versa. The Hindu tradition, for example, exemplifies the idea that mind, not matter, is primary, and that “the lower” (i.e., the material world) precipitates from the high highe er, from the the dom domains of consciousne consciousness, spiri spirit, t, or God. L est we di dismiss thes these e views views as fanciful productions of primitive, prescientific cultures, it might perhaps be well to swallow the obvious and prickly fact that our own reductionistic science has been unsuccessful in solving this basic conundrum that is essentially the mind-body problem mentioned above. Our failure might suggest a humility in the face of this difficult task and that we shoul should d not di dismiss non-Wes non-Western tern views views out out of hand. hand. Might ght consci consciou ousn sne ess be be accounte ccounted for, for, not by by looki looking ng for its origins origins as as Wolf Wol f does in in the the small world world of the suba subatomic, but but in in the“high “higher” er” reache reaches s that the world’ world’s s grea great reli religious gious and mystical ystical traditi traditions ons have al always pointe pointed d to? The T he que questi stion on at at lea least deserves deserves a modern odern hearing. aring. If I f this this were were thecase, it i t would would matter li little ttle whether whether once focused on a quantum based, sed, nonreductioni nonreductionisti stic c scheme, such as as Wol Wolf does, does, or on an an expl explan anation ation based on macromolecul olecules, es, neurotr neurotran ansm smitters, or even on some as yet undiscovered undiscovered chem chemical or physiological process describable in reductionistic, mechanical terms. For both approaches would fail and for the same reason. Their starting point is off base. From the
21 evidence that has accumulated thus far as to the origins of consciousness, it is probably safe to say that that this this question stion is is stil still an open open one and may not hinge hinge on whether whether quantum or classical explanations are utilized. Having ving gi given ven several veral reasons sons why I do not not fe feel autom utomatica ticallly align ali gne ed with with Wolf Wolf’s proposa proposals, I should should li like to to offe off er a more sup suppo porti rtive ve poi point of of vie view. I t is is urge urgent tha that his ideas deas be be given a serious serious hearing aring and that the theore theoreti tical cal framework in i n which which they they rest-that rest-that of modern physicsphysics---be entertained tertained in in medicine cine at la large. rge. I believe that the goa goall of a classically based, modern bioscience, that of providing a comprehensive view of the workings of man that is totally objective, has failed. The issue of consciousness that is raised by Wolf is only a single example of the deficiencies of method with which we are encumbered. red. I t is is deci decide dedly dly odd that that it it could could go al almost total totally unnoti unnoticed ced that that there there is is a veritable scientific schizophrenia at work in science today in which one group of scien scienti tists sts (modern (modern physi physici cists) sts) employs ploys one set of assum assumptions ptions of how the worl world d behaves, while another group (physicians, physiologists, bioscientists of every stripe) invokes a diff dif ferent rent vie view, that that of the traditi traditiona onal, cla classi ssical cal noti notions ons of re reality. A lthoug though h the these perspectives rspectives are not mutually exclusi exclusive ve by any means, the pi picture of the world worl d they give give us is radically and fundamentally different, and within the confines of the traditional perspective employed by orthodox medical science it has been virtually impossible to even entertain such daring proposals as those of Wolf. What is worse, the constraints of the classical approach have led to dehumanizing notions notions of what hum human bei beings are all about, about, vi views that are hard to defen defend from from the perspective of modern physics. Consider the orthodox view that is expressed by Carl Sagan, who who observed observed that that the “funda “fundamental ental premise about the brain brain is is that its its worki workings— ngs— what we sometim etimes call call ‘mind’— nd’—are a conseque consequence of its ana anatom tomy and and physi physiol ology ogy and and nothing nothing more” ore” (15). As A s Wolf Wol f’s perspective ctive ill il lustra ustrate tes, s, there there are poi points nts of of vie view that that fl flow from modern odern physics physics in in which which this this “fund “f undam amental ental premise” se” may not be as fundamental ental as it has seemed, and the “nothing “nothing more” ore” may hold hold some surpri surprises. The The clas lassica ical approach has led led us to view iew our own bodies ies as iso isolat lated objec jects, and we have lost, lost, as the nucl nucle ear physi physici cist, st, J eremy Ha Hayward, states, “ . . . our health-giving connection with the earth. We live as if we existed in dead, empty space; space; theref therefore, ore, all all our energy energy and and insight nsight must come from withi within, n, and we constantly ntly feel overcome with anxiety lest our energy run out. We live as if time did indeed flow from past to future; therefore, we do not rest in this moment at all.” (16) We have have assumed that that the class classiical view view of the world worl d that we employ ploy in in medi edicine cine is the only only one that that is is needed eded to appl apply y to li living ving beings, beings, such as ourselves, ourselves, and and that the alternative, relativistic, quantum mechanical ideas are fit only for extremely small objects, such as electrons, or for gigantic things, such as stars. That this is not so and that our world view is a crucial determinant of our physical and psychological health are the subjects of a previous work (17).
22 Much of the importance portance of Wol Wolff’s proposa proposals for me lies in in the the possi possibil bility that the they may help us escape our constricti constri cting ng views views on how the world worl d and, thus, our minds minds and bodi bodies es behave and what our relationship to this world is. Wolf is telling us that it is possible to formulate views of ourselves that are not reductionistic, and that it, indeed, cannot be only only a matter of anatom anatomy, chemistry, stry, and physi physiol ology. ogy. Most M ost im important, he has has put consciousness back in the melting pot when reductionistic science has done its best to take it out.
Refer ences nces 1. Margana rganau H. Ma Main Currents urrents in Modern Thought. Thought. 1967;3:23. 1967;3:23. 2. Bohr Bohr N. I n: Green Green J. J . P. P. We Weinste nstein, H, eds. ds. The T heScie Sciences. 1981 1981;; Sept: Sept: 27. 3. Ehrenwa Ehrenwalld J . Re ReV ision 198 1983; 3; 2:84. 2:84. 4. Dyson P. Di Disturbi sturbing ng theUniverse. niverse. Ne New Y ork: Ha Harper & Row, 1979 1979:248 :248.. 5. Morowitz, H. Psychol Today 1980:14:12-17. 6. Wolf Wolf, F. F. A. A . Starwave: ve: Mi M ind, nd, Con Consci sciou ousn sne ess, and and Quantu Quantum Physics. Physics. New York: Y ork: Macmillan, 1984. 7. Smi Smith H. Be Beyond thePost-Mode Post-M odern Mi Mind. nd. Whe Wheaten. ten. IL I L : The T heTheosoph osophiical cal Publish Publi shiing House, 1982:66-67. 8. Hayward Hayward J. J . Pe Percei rceiving ving Ordina Ordinary Ma M agic. Boston oston:: Ne New Scie ScienceL ibrary, 1984:21 1984:214. 4. 9. Ba Bateson teson G. Steps Steps to an Ecolog Ecology y of Mind. nd. Ne New Y ork: Ba B allantine Books, 1975 1975.. 10. 10. Schrödi Schrödinge nger, E. (Ce (Cecil cily Hasti Hasting ngs, s, trans). ns). My M y view of the World. Worl d. Woodbri Woodbridg dge e, CT: CT : Oxbow Press, 1983:31. 11. 11. BohmD. Whole Wholeness and and the the Im Impli plicate cate Order. Order. L ondon: ondon: Routl Routle edge dge and Ke Kegan Paul Paul, 1980. 12. 12. Wi Wigne gner E. E. In: I n: Ja J ahn R, ed. ed. The The Role ole of Con Consciousn sciousne ess in the thePhysica Physicall World. Worl d. Boulde Boulder; CO: Westview Press, 1981:13-14 13. 13. J oseph osephson, son, B. I n: Jose J oseph phson son B. D., D., Ramachand chandran ran,, V.S V .S., ., eds. Consciousn Consciousnes ess s and the Physica Physicall World. Worl d. Ne New Y ork: Pergamon Press, Press, 1980:11 1980:115-120 5-120.. 14. Na Nagel E, Ne Newman J.R J .R.. Göd Göde el’s Proof. Ne New Y ork: Ne New Y ork Unive University rsity Pre Press ss,, 1958 1958. 15. 15. Sa Sagan C. TheDra Dragons gons of of Eden. Ne New Y ork: Ballantine Books, 1978:7. 1978:7. 16. 16. Ha Hayward yward I. I. Pe Percei rceiving ving Ordina Ordinary Ma M agic. Boston: oston: Ne New Scie ScienceL ibrary, 1984:67 1984:67.. 17. 17. Dossey Dossey L. L . Space Space,, Time and Me Medicine dici ne. Boston: oston: Ne New Scie Sci enceL ibrary. 1982 1982..
23
Commentary by Richard M. Restak, M.D.* *Cli Cl inical Asso A ssoci ciate ateProfes Professor sor of Neurology, Georgetown etown University. Was Washington, hington, DC.
Quantum Quantumphysi physics, as propounde propounded by Fred Fred Al Alan Wolf Wol f, provide provides a uni unique queand powerful powerful metaphor by which which we can explore explore the nature of human consciousne consciousness. Consi Conside der Wol Wolff’s example ple of flippi pping a coin coin and and catching tching it. it. I f we or some other other observe observerr gla glances nces at the the coin as it lands, the probability of heads is either 100% or zero. But if no observation has been made, ade, the probabi probability rem remains ains at at 50%. In I n this this insta instance nce,, obse observati rvation on change changes probability without altering physical reality in any way, i.e., the coin is not altered, simply our knowledge about it. A t the level of thought thought and feel feeling, however, however, Wol Wolff sugge suggests tha that the act of observation rvation may have an effect on physical structure, in this instance, of the brain. “Inde “I ndeed, it it is is the the act of introspe ntrospective ctive observi observing-di ng-disturb sturbiing that is is respon responsi sibl ble e for changing thoughts into feelings and vice versa. Thus, a thought is created on a time scale of the same order as (≅ 1 ms) as the period of oscillation of the quantum wave for a protein molecule acting within the confines of a neural membrane.” Since Wolf provides no explanatory mechanism for this effect of thoughts and feelings on brai brain n structure, I conside considerr his his theory metaphori taphorical cal,, but a usef useful metaphor nonethel theless. Tak Take the time-ho -honored search for for “self-un lf-understanding ing.” Acc According ing to traditio ition nal approaches, the reas reasons ons for for our actions actions and and fee feelings can can be understood if i f we probe dee deeply ply enough into ourselves. Either through self-observation or some form of directed introspection (psychotherapy), we are encouraged that it is possible to “discover” hidden things things about bout oursel ourselves whi which wil will expla xplain why we feel feel and be behave the the way we do. I cal call this the Buried Treasure Paradigm. L ike all treasure hunts, hunts, the exact pa path to be be foll ollowed owed (ind (indiividua vidual efforts, psychothera psychotherapy, etc.) is les less s im important portant than ulti ultim mately ately discove discoveri ring ng the riche riches s (sel (self-unde understanding). rstanding). But the quantum model, as proposed by Wolf, calls all of these assumptions into question. Each of us has the potential for an almost infinite variety of behaviors. Further, trying to reach reach self-understa understandi nding, ng, eithe eitherr through introspecti introspection on alone (brooding brooding about matters, engaging in obsessive dialogue) or via some form of psychotherapy, dynamically alters the situa situati tion on al along the the sam same lines nes as as observati rvation on withi within n quan quantumphysics physics alters alters ei either momentum entumor mass. Whe When n it it comes to self self-understanding, rstanding, there is is no such thing thing as as an “objective” observer. Nor is there some mysterious thing (the buried treasure) waiting to be unearthed. Rather, the process of observation modifies present reality, our past interpretations, and our future prospects along lines which would not occur without our efforts. eff orts. We do not so much much discover discover something something about about ourselves ourselves as as we create “truths” about ourselves ourselves that, for f or the moment ent at least, we chooseto accept accept or reject. reject. To To inqui inquire re whether or not these “truths” discovered within ourselves correspond to the Truth, is no more meaning ningfful than to insi insist st than an an el electron in in its its orbit orbit can be be preci precise selly loca l ocate ted d righ rightt there.
24 Wolf’s introduction of complementarity also puts our efforts at self-understanding in a new li light. ght. If I f qua quantum ntum principl principle es are are valid, it it is is li likely that that the the brain, li like therest rest of re reality, is organized according to the principle of complementarity. For example, we picture to ourselves a certain course of action and speculate about how we will feel when we have achieved our objecti objective. ve. Late L ater, after that attainm ttainment, ent, we we discover discover to our dism dismay and disappointment that we feel very differently from our earlier expectation; “When the gods want to punish us they answer our prayers,” as Oscar Wilde once put it. The The complem lementarity ity of behavior ior and emotion ion can also lso work the other way around. We feel the need to sustai sustain a sense sense of calm calm and and inne inner security. security. To do this, this, we we organize organize our life in ways that reduce friction, conflicts, and stress. Eventually, we despair at the boredomwhich which results results from from the blea bleak inne i nner lan l andscape dscape that we have have created created for ourselves. ourselves. We cannot, it it seems, control control both our thoughts thoughts and and our emotions. otions. An A n em emphasis sis on one unbalances the other. Too much rigidity in our thinking (obsessiveness) leaves us bereft of joy. Too much emphasis on inner feelings (self-indulgence, hedonism, “doing our own thing”) thing”) leads to the creation tion of a world world withou withoutt mea meaning ning and val values. I nde ndeed, a person’s rson’s response to the complementarity of his own mind can provide, if one wishes, a kind of DSM DSM IV. I V. The The obsessive ive ind individ ividu ual attempts to encompass all of reality lity with ithin his or her mind ind by means of rumi ruminations tions and and fan fantasi tasies. es. The The paranoi paranoid d person, too, experien ri ences ces no need or inclination to test his or her explanations; he or she “knows” that others are out to get them them. At A t the other end end of the spectrum spectrum, the im impulsi pulsive ve character puts all all of thei their emphasis sis on spontaneous reaction (“if it feels good, do it”). Within thin this this fram framework, the mature ature person, person, it seems to me, me, recognizes recognizes that that thought thought coupled with interaction within the material and interpersonal world creates a uniquely experienced reality (the “qwiff” as Wolf puts it) which could not exist other than by the exercise of individual choice. This insight brings us, within the psychological sphere, very close to Wolf’s claim “That the world, the physical world of hard matter, light, and energy, sim simply ply does not and and cannot cannot exist exist inde independe pendent of human consciousne consciousness.” Whatever one may think of such a claim in regard to the fundamental units of reality, there there is is no doubt doubt of its truth at the macromol acromolecu ecullar leve level wherei wherein we have have a power power of choice in regard to the people, events, and situations that comprise our individual worlds. We choose one potential mate over another, move our consulting firm from Rye to Pale A lto, enter a second career in i n our mid-40s; in i n such such insta instances, whole whole worlds worlds are constructed on the basis of our decisions. These worlds do not exist independently of our actions. We could have chosen differently and, in each instance, would have created an entirely different world. Human consciousness, in short, is not simply just another compone ponent am among many, but, as Meister Meister Eckha Eckhart rt put it, it, the very “ful “f ulllness of tim time” exi exists sts withi within n our consciousne consciousness at at the moment ent that we make our choice. choice. “T “There everythi everything ng is is present and and new, new, every everythi thing ng which which is is there ... ... there is is no befor before e or after, after, there an eternity; ternity; everything verything is is prese present nt and and in in this this everever-pre prese sent nt visi vision on I posses possess s everything.” rything.” A ssimi ssimilation tion of of qua quantum principl principle es into into psychiatry psychiatry woul would le lead, I believe, ve, to a reemphasis on the importance of will and freedom of choice. “We are what we do,” as the
25 Zen people have insisted quite correctly for 2,000 years. The exercise of will, the selection of one course of action over another with all of the implications and conseque consequences that foll fol low from from that choice-choice--the these se are the the processe processes s by which which we create a world that is totally unique and inseparable from consciousness, our consciousness which has created it. This is an awesome, humbling, even fearful vision that Wolf presents for our consideration.
