He notes, for example, that there is no passage of time, nor does one dream during this peculiar state in which key cognitive functions appear to be suspended. I can vouch for that having experienced both aspects while having a tonsillectomy in 1977. One minute I was counting backwards from 100, and then the next I was awake (okay, almost ..) and nurses were pulling a tube from my throat as I gagged. 'Where did I 'go?' - to use Hameroff's phrase. Who knows?
Anyway, 35 years of anaesthetizing patients and seeing the same results over and over led Hameroff to postulate that small structures in the brain called "microtubules" are at the root of apparent "escaped" consciousness and that they hold the key to what happens. He also surmises, in the same documentary, that at putative death (or even "near death") essential energy associated with the microtubules disperses out from the brain and becomes "entangled" in a larger, undifferentiated whole.
If the person returns then those earlier dispersed, energy- entangled wave forms are "sucked back" into the body and the person's consciousness is again localized. Hameroff cites certain aspects of quantum mechanics to explain his reasoning though, he leaves some ends open.
In the brain, information persists through a phenomenon called quantum coherence. This means that a multitude of quantum wave states are stored in a multitude of microtubules. Precisely how this is done remains a topic on the frontier of current research, but the point is that if one is aware and conscious there is a high degree of locality. When one dies, those wave states presumably evacuate and one's consciousness enters the domain of non-locality.
Hameroff's basic argument then, is that death doesn't mean the final termination of consciousness, so much as the end of its localization. If that is so, you cease to be a "person" or an individual identity and instead merge with other dispersed quantum wave forms (I have called them "B-waves" or de Broglie waves) to enter an "oceanic" state.
Physicist David Bohm, in his superb book 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order', refers to this oceanic state as the "implicate order" and its being a higher dimensional reality into which we are subsumed. Another term he used is the "Holomovement". Another term often used is "the Dirac Ether". The relation of previously (living- biological) individualities to the Dirac Ether might be depicted as I show below:
INDIVIDUALITY:
DIRAC ENERGY SEA (IMPLICATE ORDER)
___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___
DIRAC ENERGY SEA (IMPLICATE ORDER)
This then gives a nice analogy, say between the ocean and individual waves. The “ripples” on this Dirac sea are the distinct material forms or assorted biological individualities perceived as separate entities in the universe - because (in our explicate order) we are generally unaware of the implicate order. Nonetheless, the remarkable insight is that within this order separate forms (individualities) emerge as purely illusory. By analogy, the separate waves one sees on the ocean surface are illusions - at least in the sense they cannot be removed and placed on the beach one by one for inspection! So also, material forms cannot be abstracted from the energy background of the Dirac Ether. We are all basically hostage to separable perception and locality.
An interesting aspect of the above is that people, live current manifestations of individuality, don't have to die in order to enter the Dirac Sea. They can also attain this nonlocal entry temporarily via meditation. In an interview with Renee Weber (The Holographic Universe, p. 213) , Bohm himself (before his death) acknowledged the feasibility, noting (ibid.)
An interesting aspect of the above is that people, live current manifestations of individuality, don't have to die in order to enter the Dirac Sea. They can also attain this nonlocal entry temporarily via meditation. In an interview with Renee Weber (The Holographic Universe, p. 213) , Bohm himself (before his death) acknowledged the feasibility, noting (ibid.)
"Perhaps meditation will lead you deep into this ocean of physical and mental energy which is universal."
From this remark, quantum physicist Bohm (see also his great book 'Quantum Theory', Dover, 1951) regards meditation as a possible "channel" by which the individual mind can access the Dirac Ether. I have dealt with similar conjectures before, in terms of the 'quantum potential".
In general, VQ= { - ħ2/ 2m} [Ñ R]2 / R
Where ħ is the Planck constant of action h divided by 2π , m is the mass, and R a phase amplitude. Assume the total set of one's thoughts contains waves of frequencies ranging from f' (highest) to f, then the quantum potential ( VQ) can be expressed:
VQ = h(f' - f), where h is Planck's constant.
Thus, VQ has units of energy as the other potential functions in physics, e.g. gravitational and electrostatic. On average, the greater the number of possible states, the greater the difference (f' - f) and the greater the quantum potential.
Of course, in a real human brain, we have a "many-particle" field (especially since we're looking at neuronal complexes) so that the quantum potential must be taken over a sum such that:
VQ= { - ħ2/ 2m} å i [Ñ Ri]2 / R
The velocity of an individual B-wave is expressed by:
v(B)= Ñ S/ m
Where m is the mass of the particle associated with the B-wave, and S is a phase function obtained by using:
U = R exp( iS/ħ)
The last discloses the "phase-locking mechanism" that Hameroff believes operates for a localized consciousness - but which he describes as a "resonance with the EEG". The point is we have the basis for a bifurcation between localized waves in the microtubules, and those dispersed outside (for which we have non-locality and the phase exponential approaching infinity.
As I said before (in other blogs) this isn't really any kind of recognizable "after life". Indeed, it is impossible to even remotely describe what a nonlocal consciousness might perceive, if it perceives at all. It also leaves a decided negative slant on the question of preserving any sense of self. How can one, if the "self" is no longer separable? But it might be at least one step removed from the atheist's state of total obliteration and nothingness.
Where ħ is the Planck constant of action h divided by 2π , m is the mass, and R a phase amplitude. Assume the total set of one's thoughts contains waves of frequencies ranging from f' (highest) to f, then the quantum potential ( VQ) can be expressed:
VQ = h(f' - f), where h is Planck's constant.
Thus, VQ has units of energy as the other potential functions in physics, e.g. gravitational and electrostatic. On average, the greater the number of possible states, the greater the difference (f' - f) and the greater the quantum potential.
Of course, in a real human brain, we have a "many-particle" field (especially since we're looking at neuronal complexes) so that the quantum potential must be taken over a sum such that:
VQ= { - ħ2/ 2m} å i [Ñ Ri]2 / R
The velocity of an individual B-wave is expressed by:
v(B)= Ñ S/ m
Where m is the mass of the particle associated with the B-wave, and S is a phase function obtained by using:
U = R exp( iS/ħ)
The last discloses the "phase-locking mechanism" that Hameroff believes operates for a localized consciousness - but which he describes as a "resonance with the EEG". The point is we have the basis for a bifurcation between localized waves in the microtubules, and those dispersed outside (for which we have non-locality and the phase exponential approaching infinity.
As I said before (in other blogs) this isn't really any kind of recognizable "after life". Indeed, it is impossible to even remotely describe what a nonlocal consciousness might perceive, if it perceives at all. It also leaves a decided negative slant on the question of preserving any sense of self. How can one, if the "self" is no longer separable? But it might be at least one step removed from the atheist's state of total obliteration and nothingness.
18 comments:
Hameroff in the documentary "science of the soul" says that quantum information that envolves consciousness can remain entangled in the universe. You say that "energy associated with the microtubules disperses out from the brain and becomes "entangled" in a larger, undifferentiated whole." but he doesn't say an "undifferentiated whole" he just says "entangled in the universe". Why do you think he means an "undifferentiated whole"(even tho he didn't say it), or is that just your interpretation or theory?
I have a question related to naturalistic afterlife, there is a book by David Harmon called "A Naturalistic Afterlife: Evolution, Ordinary Existence, Eternity" in chapter 5 he talks about his thoughts of possible naturalistic afterlifes. I don't know if you are familiar with this book but if you are, could you please explain what he proposes? Because I only had access to parts of the chapter and not the full one, so I'm having problems understanding what he proposes.
"Why do you think he means an "undifferentiated whole"(even tho he didn't say it), or is that just your interpretation or theory?"
Look, if quanta or phenomena are *sufficiently* entangled then essentially - by my logic and inference- you'd have an undifferentiated whole. Once again, this reflects the problems of using a fragmented language to try to describe something in a distinct (implicate) order. Bohm's option was to develop a language process called rheomode that he explained thus, in 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' p. 39:
"Suddenly to invent a whole new language implying a radically
different structure of thought is, however, clearly not practicable.
What can be done is provisionally and experimentally to introduce
a new mode of language. Thus, we already have, for example,
different moods of the verb, such as the indicative, the subjunctive,
the imperative, and we develop skill in the use of language
so that each of these moods functions, when it is required,
without the need for conscious choice. Similarly, we will now
consider a mode in which movement is to be taken as primary in
our thinking and in which this notion will be incorporated into
the language structure by allowing the verb rather than the noun
38 wholeness and the implicate order
to play a primary role.
As one develops such a mode and works
with it for a while, one may obtain the necessary skill in using it,
so that it will also come to function whenever it is required,
without the need for conscious choice.
For the sake of convenience we shall give this mode a name,
i.e. the rheomode (‘rheo’ is from a Greek verb, meaning ‘to flow’).
At least in the first instance the rheomode will be an experiment
in the use of language, concerned mainly with trying to find out
whether it is possible to create a new structure that is not so
prone toward fragmentation as is the present one. Evidently,
then, our inquiry will have to begin by emphasizing the role of
language in shaping our overall world views as well as in
expressing them more precisely in the form of general philosophical
ideas. For as suggested in the previous chapter these
world views and their general expressions (which contain tacit
conclusions about everything, including nature, society, ourselves,
our language, etc.) are now playing a key role in helping
to originate and sustain fragmentation in every aspect of life.
So we will start by using the rheomode mainly in an experimental
way. As already pointed out, to do this implies giving a kind of
careful attention to how thought and language actually work,
which goes beyond a mere consideration of their content"
----
The chapter gives a fascinating insight into Bohm's mind and how he wrestled with the issue of describing a holistic entity via a fragmented language. At root, the takeaway I got was that even talking about "awareness" in an implicate order reality implies the ability to actually think in the rheomode. Not that any of us - as explicated beings - have achieved anything thus far. (And even Bohm admitted the limitations)
Btw, no I have not read Harmon's book on the "natural afterlife".
I found this summary of chapter 5 of Harmon's book : "Having dealt with the emotional and rational underpinnings of the conventional notion of an afterlife, we turn to building the argument for a naturalistic alternative. The first order of business is to specify the base characteristics of a naturalistic afterlife: for example, it must not involve the survival of consciousness or claims of transcendence while at the same time being continuous with the mortal life that preceded it. To flesh this out, the possibility of a naturalistic afterlife is examined under the two principal philosophies of time: the standard view of time as flowing from past to future, or the block universe view, in which past, present, and future coexist as part of spacetime. If the block universe concept of time is correct, we find at least two plausible forms of a naturalistic afterlife: tenseless immortality and eternal recurrence. But that still leaves us with the question of whether such possibilities, scientifically defensible but divorced from our lived experience, can satisfy us emotionally as well."
Do you think the author doesn't believe that an afterlife could exist in a "standard view of time as flowing from past to future, or the block universe view, in which past, present, and future coexist as part of spacetime" or maybe this summary just doesn't talk about other possibilities?
I found this info in this link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318823293_The_Varieties_of_Posthumous_Experience
I'm sorry to be bothering but I can't find the full chapter and I'm just interested to know other people's opinion on what Harmon says.
"I'm sorry to be bothering but I can't find the full chapter and I'm just interested to know other people's opinion on what Harmon says."
From the summary you provided, what I would infer is that Harmon himself isn't sure what he regards as a "natural afterlife". If he insists:
"It must not involve the survival of consciousness or claims of transcendence while at the same time being continuous with the mortal life that preceded it"
Then he is espousing a contradiction. Because as I pointed out in my blog post on the natural afterlife concept, e.g
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-concept-of-natural-afterlife-is.html
Any natural afterlife worth considering must have consciousness as a necessary condition. As I wrote therein:
"The conscious state is then dictated and defined by fluctuating levels of neurotransmitter activity. "
It is the latter which on which any mortal life is contingent, at least human life. So Harmon basically wants to "have his cake and eat it too." He wants to preserve the mortal life as embodied in neurotransmitters etc, but not have any consciousness attendant upon it. This is kind of like saying you want to build a fire in your fireplace but with no energy involved. It just makes no sense.
Do you know what does an afterlife by immanente causation (what eric olson is talking about) means?
"
Do you know what does an afterlife by immanente causation (what eric olson is talking about) means?"
I really have no idea, but suspect - again - this is became of the language problems in trying to describe something that is holistic in terms of a fragmented language -- i.e. which splits the universe of entities into objects.
I really don't see how I can add any more to this discussion, so this will be my last response (regrettably) on this issue. What I would suggest is reading Bohm's book which is also available as a pdf.
Im very sorry for all the questions but I am just really confuse and you sound like someone who seems to be very logical and someone who could help me with these questions.
If you prefer you can answer my questions via email ( barbara2001vieira@gmail.com ) instead of on this posts comments.
Once again I would really appreciate if you could help me. Thank you
Im very sorry for all the questions but I am just really confuse and you sound like someone who seems to be very logical and someone who could help me with these questions.
If you prefer you can answer my questions via email ( barbara2001vieira@gmail.com ) instead of on this posts comments. Once again I would really appreciate if you could help me. Thank you"
i have no problems answering your questions, provided you can streamline them. The reason is I have a number of projects I am working on including a book, and a paper for 'Physics Today'. I used to answer questions on astrophysics and astronomy for 'All Experts- before that site closed down four years ago. I would suggest that the same rules I applied then apply now (I do not do email exchanges, sorry!).
- Keep focus on exactly what it is you wish to ask, no rambling, other opinionating etc. Just the question, please!
- Make the question as clear and as short (brief) as possible, and to the point.
- Do not introduce or interject other books for me to go to, or authors - as I said I do not have the time for such.
- When you have assembled no more than 5 questions, then list them in your next post. Again, no other references, works etc. Just the questions, then I will get back to them and answer either all at once or one at a time (if requiring a longer answer)>
- Last but not least,make sure none of these are repeat questions you might have asked before in some form.
If you can do all of this, I am happy to help!
Thank you
1_Have you ever heard of doctrine of spacetime plenitude?
2_I only saw about plenitude in Eric Olson's paper, do you know any other place where this is talked about?
3_My biggest fear related to death, is that when we die we are in a black void conscious of everything and alone, do you think this is possible?
1. No.
2. No.
3. Since no one knows for a fact anything about death, almost anything is possible. But if holistic reality (implicate order) and B waves are valid - and I believe they are- it will be more like a transition to greater consciousness, though not individual.
If that makes any sense. In any case one should not fear that outcome!
Thank you
I guess I feared the question 3 because I associate with being stuck in a dark box with only your thoughts for eternity. But this doesn't make much sense, right?
Being "stuck in a dark box" is an individualized fear- experience. But in a nonlocal or implicate reality - such as will occur at death - no individualized experiences or events are possible. So as far as I can determine, it is an unwarranted fear.
Thank you very much
1_How do you think the end of time and the end of the universe affect the afterlife proposed by Bohm and Hamerrof?
2_Do you think quantum mechanics(or anything that is quantum) can survive the end of time or the end of the universe? If yes why do you think so?
3_ I found out photons(light) have an estimated lifetime of one billion billion (10^18) years. In the same article it said "That looks a little something like this: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000. For comparison, the universe is only 13,800,000,000 years old. Notice the great disparity in those numbers? Well, this excessive gap means that, for all intents and purposes, the photon lives forever."
My question is when they say live forever does it mean beyond the end of the universe or it says forever because it lives till the universe ends and then photons die with the universe?
"My question is when they say live forever does it mean beyond the end of the universe or it says forever because it lives till the universe ends and then photons die with the universe?"
The latter interpretation is the more valid one, so for all practical purposes, given the cosmos ends before photons - they literally survive "forever".
"1_How do you think the end of time and the end of the universe affect the afterlife proposed by Bohm and Hamerrof?
2_Do you think quantum mechanics(or anything that is quantum) can survive the end of time or the end of the universe? If yes why do you think so?"
This would take way too much time to answer. Your best bet is to get hold of the 'ook by Andrew McLaughlin: 'What Really Happens When You Die? - Cosmology, Time and You."
If you have the patience to read it it ought to supply all the answers you need!
Post a Comment