Metaphysics Paper 3 from Tunky's blog

Metaphysics Paper 3Jason Shane

As Descartes claimed with his famous statement “I think therefore I am. . .”, I too find that I must be conscious.  If I am questioning my consciousness, then I am surely conscious since there is an “I” that is identifying that particular term “consciousness” with myself.  I can only assure that I fit into this label in my subjective-view and nothing else.  For the purpose of my argument, I will have to assume that I am conscious and that the general population of humans around me are conscious in a similar fashion to myself.  Without this assumption, there is little that we can say since perhaps I am the only conscious being in existence.  

We live in this reality, this world, in a subjective point-of-view.  Our subjectivity restricts us in our ability to understand many things in an objective way.  While this is very limiting, it seems to intrinsically create the consciousness or awareness that we in essence are.  There is much difficulty in defining many of the terms needed to communicate the ideas of consciousness due to the difficulty in identifying or separating an objective definition for each term.  There are two common ways that I have come to understand consciousness.  Consciousness is perhaps solely the awareness of the body and its processes.  In this way, awareness is simply observing all of the inputs, outputs, and processing of our brain while retaining only a casual connection with the functions of the body.   Consciousness is also described as a range of awareness that includes emotions, perceptions, sensations, and all of the inputs that we are involved with throughout life. I tend to take the definition of  consciousness in the first, more simplistic term, as it seems to be the only aspect of a general consciousness that cannot be perhaps explained by biology.   We are not always fully aware of our emotions and sensations which leads me to believe that there is some separation.  I know of no classification for my view on consciousness.  Though it may fit into numerous categories or none, it is not really of my concern what title should be used. 

 Biology seems to be able to explain a lot of the functions of a person.  We can reduce our sensations, emotions, and our reasoning down to biological action in the brain.  Our brain is like a machine.  Input comes in, is processed,  selectively stored, and some sort of output is made.  The more research we do on the brain, the more we can imagine that a brain’s functions can be reproduced by a man-made machine such as a computer.  A computer can process information in the same input, store, output method that our brain uses. A parallel processor can emulate the brain even further by processing multiple data at the same time.  A well designed computer program can even modify itself to make changes as the program assimilates more data and more adjust for it.  The computer program, though, needs input from an outside source.  The computer can learn and grow, but it does not seem to have any sort of consciousness.  This consciousness is the major difference between a computer and the brain.  It is the aspect of the mind that we cannot seem to figure out or reproduce with a machine.    How can we explain consciousness, at the fundamental level, biologically?  This is where the simple biological standpoint seems to falter.  Philosophers suggest that we will understand this in the future, but is there perhaps a more fundamental level of the universe to which we can attribute consciousness?  Perhaps, and that is my view of how consciousness exists.

 Albert Einstein revolutionized the world of physics when his General Relativity and Atomic Theories gained acceptance by the scientific world.  E=mc² is the most fundamental concept in today’s general physics.  Energy is mass, and mass is energy; they are one in the same.  This led scientists to investigate the atom itself and attempt to understand its structure and processes.  The development of Quantum Physics has led us into a whole new world of understanding how the universe works.  According to  atomic theory, the atom is made up of a nucleus of protons and neutrons.  Around each nucleus is a field of electrons that orbit at different distances.  We step ahead into quantum physics and see that when examining these subatomic particles we find they too are made up of yet smaller particles.  The quarks themselves are thought to be made of smaller yet particles.  As we move down to the fundamental levels of the structures within the atom, we discover that there is really nothing there.  This is the void that is noted in our research.  The matter that we perceive is really electromagnetic fields that are rotating at high velocities in a non-matter form.    I don’t mean to give an extended lesson on physics, yet it is very relevant in my understanding of consciousness and the universe as a whole.  In essence, Einstein discovered what mystics and Eastern wisdom have known for hundreds of years.  The entire universe is a single, organized, and expanding field of energy.   According to The Unified Field Theory that is a currently accepted theory by most of the scientific community, the universe came about approximately 20 billion years ago and continues to expand and will continue to expand indefinitely.  The difficult idea to understand is that it all came forth from nothingness.  The whole Unified Field is a very difficult concept for me to understand.  Physicists describe this field, the universe, as infinitely: knowing, evolving, dynamic, correlating, and creative. This is often associated with what religions term as God.  The theories of Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Edward Hubble, Arno Penzias have all come to show that Unified Field Theory is correct.  The more interesting, fact to me, is that scientists have found  (including Einstein and Tesla) that the breakthroughs we are finding today are recorded in many ancient texts including the Indian Vedas.   In essence, the universe is a field of energy in various forms.  Energy exists in various frequencies and concentrations.  These variations create everything from matter and what is called anti-matter, to light, to sound, to any form or process that we find in the universe. This energy is not a simple wave that normal physics describes energy as, but a “particle-wave”.  When physicists measure this they find that it acts as a wave and a particle simultaneously depending on which aspect they are measuring.  In seeing this, we lose the dichotomy of matter and energy.  There is a formula called the wave function that is used to determine a relationship between the wave and the probability that a material body would be found in a particular location relative to another.  This suggests that our body, or more precisely all of the particles that make up our body remain in their place by mere probability.    Many contemporary physicists such as Nadeau, Goswami, and Wigner have been quoted claiming that the laws discovered in quantum mechanics cannot be understood without the direct interaction of consciousness in the relationships.  There are phenomena that occur in quantum physics that do not obey the conventional laws of physics, but act very differently.  Space and time seem to have little or no relevance to the actions at the subatomic level.  I find this a simple and straightforward solution to the question of material or non-material consciousness.   We have discussed in class the fact that we cannot not attribute consciousness to a certain location in the brain, though we feel that consciousness surely originates somewhere within the brain.  There is a scientific field of study called Intrinsic Data Fields (IDF) that has been researched and established by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.  This research found that if you separate two individual particles, measuring one particle will give information about the other particle.  This theory states that there are fields that occur around everything in the universe.  These fields contain information about what is inside of the field.  Using this understanding, we find a place that consciousness can easily be found.  An electromagnetic field exists around a motor only when the motor is working.  We can detect the field, but we have no way of knowing what patterns are in the field since it is constantly changing.  IDFs are analogous to the software  in a computer.  The computer will do very different tasks depending on what software is loaded.  Our body acts as a machine; we can reduce most of the things that we do to simple biology and to behaviorism.  There is one thing that seems to elude us in this description, and that is the aware self that controls or at least experiences these actions.  This IDF is a field that exists without a particle state at least above the subatomic level.  It is hypothesized that is it not bound by time and space since it seems to communicate instantaneously across spans of space.   Some scientists believe that our memory is setup like a hologram in that  every cell in the entire body has the ability to accept, store, and update information.  The IDF is what is responsible for transmitting and manipulating energy.  Our body functions entirely on waves of energy.  Our senses, our actions, our brain functions, everything is energy at different frequencies and concentrations.   We cannot even detect all of the energies around us as our senses are limited.  Only within the past century have we discovered x-rays, infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, etc.  The IDFs  are first seen as the electromagnetic fields found in subatomic particles.  When these fields are concentrated, the energies form electrical potential (charge).  This potential is what provides the “glue” in atoms, thus forming matter as we know it.  It is not the fact that consciousness cannot exist according to science, it is the mere fact that we must realize that there are energies in the universe which are not yet completely understood.  Any biologist will assure that there are electromagnetic fields surround all living things.  Any contemporary physicist will tell you that theses fields surround all matter.  The problem we run into once again is the technology.  We know that these fields exist, and science is bringing consciousness into the picture more and more.  With an understanding of the theories that are presented today it is hard to deny that intelligence is found within this arena. 

I have covered much material on he micro level of the universe.  I believe that this very relevant in how we understand consciousness.  There are many levels on which we understand how the universe works.  I feel that it is necessary to understand as much as we can about the microcosms and macrocosms of our reality.  Although, as a general population, we may not have to deal with the subatomic level, it can help us gain an understanding of the possibilities.  Of course we live on a further macro level in dealing with solid objects and energy in more material forms.  This is a very important point to see, but I feel that it rests on the back of the micro levels for out understanding of how things work.  Philosophy is generally discussed on a level of human to human or at least in the general idea of being to being.  It is difficult to cover much ground when discussing at a subatomic level because the language gaps are wide.   It is strange to attribute particles with emotions, and hard to see ourselves as simply systems of these energies.  When we take this whole point-of-view to a macro level, we seem to arrive somewhat at a materialistic view.  The major discrepancy is at the subatomic level and is the different views of what is really material.  The argument has been made that the consciousness cannot be material because we cannot find it.  Being a field surrounding our physical brain and our entire body, we find that there would really be no way to remove consciousness except by possibly removing the whole body.    Dualism seems to not even be a question any longer.  When we evolved physics into quantum physics, we have  found a place for consciousness to reside—or some suggest a place where it must reside.  By making a place in our physical reality for consciousness, dualism really has no ground to stand on.   When we jump back to the wave function, and the probability factors, it seems difficult to imagine that we have free will in an objective sense.  Free will obviously applies in an aspect opposing other people or even society, but when we speak of free will as an absolute relative to the universe it seems very unlikely to exist.  Our mere presence in the universe  position is relative to other things which is all based on probability of a wave.  This in itself tends to object any notion of free will.  In examining the question of life after death, I find that we can surely live after death—in some way.  It is very difficult to imagine any kind of reincarnation or rebirth into a physical body.  There seems to be only one way that any kind of permanence seems possible, and it also seems impossible not to exist.  When we die we are leaving behind the same sub-atomic structures, though dissolved out of a system.  The information held in the intrinsic data fields would remain as it is theorized to be unaffected by energy.  This is not any life as we might imagine, but a retention of our energies.  So as religion views life after death, I see no way to explain or even suggest why it would occur.

One of the main problems that I find in the looking at a micro level is how we can separate ourselves from the rest of the universe.  If all is one field, how do we come about as having a separate consciousness?  This is the same basic way that we have a separate body.  The different focuses and frequencies make up the various types of matter.  This is easy to see in that aspect, but what makes it my body?  This is difficult for me to figure out and leads to more speculation.  The IDF is a field that is surrounding every object.  At a micro level it houses atoms, and molecules, and cells.  At our level it surrounds our body.  This is called a biomagnetic field in biology and is seen as a resonance occurring around the body.  This is often called an aura, but it is nothing mystical and simply resonating energies that we can capture with infrared photography.   This information field is where we would find our understanding of boundaries between ourselves and the rest of the world.  There are many questions that I am unable to answer in closing the gaps between the micro and macro levels.  This is very difficult due to language barriers and conceptual difficulties in the actual relationships that are present.   Perhaps when technology comes to a point that we can more readily understand the subatomic levels of nature, we will figure out the relationships between subtle energies and how our emotions and our consciousness are effected.

I believe that the main criticism for my argument would have to be argument against the theories of Quantum Physics, Atomic Theory, and the Unified Field Theory themselves.  The language is again a very difficult issue.  I have read many correlation’s between the Vedic teachings and the theories of contemporary physics.  The main difficulties seem to be simply in the language.  By looking at the emptiness or the Void in the Vedas, we find the same idea in quantum physics, yet some continue to insist that they are referring to different matters.  This will most likely continue as an argument until there is a common integration of respected individuals in the fields of contemporary physics and in metaphysical study.  

It can also be argued that subatomic level of the universe has no relevance when speaking of consciousness at a level of beings and humans.  I disagree as I feel that, though we are finding systems composed of these fundamental level and attributing features to them, these features must come forth from the subatomic level.  When we look at an object as a system, we are in essence looking at all levels of it.  We are seeing a creation composed of quarks, atoms, molecules, and larger systems.  Each one of these particles are “building” on top of each other into more complex systems.  All of these systems are created from the same material and logically would be reducible to the same material.  While in these systems we find differences in attributes, (I may see on object as red, one as blue, elastic, soft, etc.) all of these physical properties that we experience are the organization of energies into patterns.  The patterns are what we  label as attributes.   

The final argument that I see as a problem for my view is that, while most of the subatomic nature is taken as science, the consciousness issue is still not widely accepted as true.  This is a very difficult point to argue against, especially since my understanding of the subatomic world is not that in depth.  I see this as the same problem that many philosophies can run into.  When we do not understand this subatomic realm, it is difficult to attribute what we understand as ourselves to this alone.   As we reduce an argument to the fundamental levels, we have either already solved the question or we have not come to agree on definitions or concepts to the point that we can even have an argument.  The definitions that we use are mere labels to attach to concepts that we may or may not understand.  The idea of having an objective definition is almost absurd as we could not comprehend a truly objective term.  A truly objective term would- by definition- not rely on any circumstances or be relative to any other object.  Even out definition our red is really subjective except that we have come to general idea of what red is.  Regardless of our precision in measuring red in the electromagnetic spectrum, there is more effecting red than just an electromagnetic relationship between light and the object reflecting the light.  These external influences are so minute and relatively stable that we do not take them into consideration.  This does not remove the fact that they make even the measurement of red subjective to an environment in which red can exist as we understand it.

I have already touched on my difficulties in accepting some opposing views.  I feel that philosophy is generally a field in which we have not yet found answers and will only be able to find them as science and technology advance even further.  If we were to discover proof and definitive answers in philosophy, the answers that we find will be accepted by general science and no longer be considered philosophy.  This is the same thing that happened to the ancient philosophy of the stars, astronomy.