Colorized
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of a neuron (orange)
interfaced with the nanowire array (green). (credit: Integrated
Electronics and Biointerfaces Laboratory, UC San Diego)
A research team* led by engineers at the University of California San Diego has developed nanowire technology that can non-destructively record the electrical activity of neurons in fine detail.
The new technology, published April 10, 2017 in Nano Letters,
could one day serve as a platform to screen drugs for neurological
diseases and help researchers better understand how single cells
communicate in large neuronal networks.
A brain implant
The researchers currently create the neurons in vitro (in
the lab) from human induced pluripotent stem cells. But the ultimate
goal is to “translate this technology to a device that can be implanted
in the brain,” said Shadi Dayeh, PhD, an electrical engineering professor at the UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering and the team’s lead investigator.
The technology can uncover details about a neuron’s health, activity,
and response to drugs by measuring ion channel currents and changes in
the neuron’s intracellular voltage (generated by the difference in ion
concentration between the inside and outside of the cell).
The researchers cite five key innovations of this new nanowire-to-neuron technology:
It’s nondestructive (unlike current methods, which can break the cell membrane and eventually kill the cell).
It can simultaneously measure voltage changes in multiple neurons and in the future could bridge or repair neurons.**
It can isolate the electrical signal measured by each individual
nanowire, with high sensitivity and high signal-to-noise ratios.
Existing techniques are not scalable to 2D and 3D tissue-like structures
cultured in vitro, according to Dayeh.
It can also be used for heart-on-chip drug screening for cardiac diseases.
The nanowires can integrate with CMOS (computer chip) electronics.***
A
colorized scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of the
silicon-nickel-titanium nanowire array. The nanowires are densely packed
on a small chip that is compatible with CMOS chips. The nanowires poke
inside cells without damaging them, and are sensitive enough to measure
small voltage changes (millivolt or less). (credit: Integrated
Electronics and Biointerfaces Laboratory, UC San Diego)
* The project was a collaborative effort between researchers at
UC San Diego, the Conrad Prebys Center for Chemical Genomics at the
Sanford Burnham Medical Research Institute, Nanyang Technological
University in Singapore, and Sandia National Laboratories. This work was
supported by the National Science Foundation, the Center for Brain
Activity Mapping at UC San Diego, Qualcomm Institute at UC San Diego,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, the National Institutes of Health, the
March of Dimes, and UC San Diego Frontiers of Innovation Scholar
Program. Dayeh’s laboratory holds several pending patent applications for this technology.
** “Highly parallel in vitro drug
screening experiments can be performed using the human-relevant iPSC
cell line and without the need of the laborious patch-clamp … which is
destructive and unscalable to large neuronal densities and to long
recording times, or planar multielectrode arrays that enable long-term
recordings but can just measure extracellular potentials and lack the
sensitivity to subthreshold potentials. … In vivo targeted
modulation of individual neural circuits or even single cells within a
network becomes possible, and implications for bridging or repairing
networks in neurologically affected regions become within reach.” — Ren
Liu et al./Nanoletters
*** The researchers invented a new wafer bonding approach to fuse
the silicon nanowires to the nickel electrodes. Their approach involved
a process called silicidation, which is a reaction that binds two
solids (silicon and another metal) together without melting either
material. This process prevents the nickel electrodes from liquidizing,
spreading out and shorting adjacent electrode leads. Silicidation is
usually used to make contacts to transistors, but this is the first time
it is being used to do patterned wafer bonding, Dayeh said. “And since
this process is used in semiconductor device fabrication, we can
integrate versions of these nanowires with CMOS electronics, but it
still needs further optimization for brain-on-chip drug screening.”
Abstract of High Density Individually Addressable Nanowire
Arrays Record Intracellular Activity from Primary Rodent and Human Stem
Cell Derived Neurons
We report a new hybrid integration scheme that offers for the first
time a nanowire-on-lead approach, which enables independent electrical
addressability, is scalable, and has superior spatial resolution in
vertical nanowire arrays. The fabrication of these nanowire arrays is
demonstrated to be scalable down to submicrometer site-to-site spacing
and can be combined with standard integrated circuit fabrication
technologies. We utilize these arrays to perform electrophysiological
recordings from mouse and rat primary neurons and human induced
pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)-derived neurons, which revealed high
signal-to-noise ratios and sensitivity to subthreshold postsynaptic
potentials (PSPs). We measured electrical activity from rodent neurons
from 8 days in vitro (DIV) to 14 DIV and from hiPSC-derived neurons at 6
weeks in vitro post culture with signal amplitudes up to 99 mV.
Overall, our platform paves the way for longitudinal
electrophysiological experiments on synaptic activity in human iPSC
based disease models of neuronal networks, critical for understanding
the mechanisms of neurological diseases and for developing drugs to
treat them.
In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created.
While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that
God is greater than the universe. Some versions of panentheism suggest
that the universe is nothing more than the manifestation of God. In
addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the Kabbalah concept of tzimtzum. Also much Hindu thought – and consequently Buddhist philosophy – is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[3][4] The basic tradition however, on which Krause's concept was built, seems to have been Neoplatonic philosophy and its successors in Western philosophy and Orthodox theology.
In philosophy
Ancient Greek philosophy
The religious beliefs of Neoplatonism can be regarded as panentheistic. Plotinus taught that there was an ineffable transcendent God ("the One", to En, τὸ Ἕν) of which subsequent realities were emanations. From "the One" emanates the Divine Mind (Nous, Νοῦς) and the Cosmic Soul (Psyche, Ψυχή). In Neoplatonism the world itself is God (according to Plato's Timaeus 37). This concept of divinity is associated with that of the Logos (Λόγος), which had originated centuries earlier with Heraclitus (c. 535–475 BC). The Logos pervades the cosmos,
whereby all thoughts and all things originate, or as Heraclitus said:
"He who hears not me but the Logos will say: All is one." Neoplatonists
such as Iamblichus attempted to reconcile this perspective by adding another hypostasis above the original monad of force or Dunamis (Δύναμις). This new all-pervasive monad encompassed all creation and its original uncreated emanations.
Modern philosophy
Baruch Spinoza later claimed that "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived."[5]
"Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of
God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed
and definite manner."[6] Though Spinoza has been called the "prophet"[7] and "prince"[8] of pantheism, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg
Spinoza states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify
god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are
quite mistaken".[9] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers,
when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" (God or Nature) Spinoza did not
mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather
that God's transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes,
and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension,
signified God's immanence.[10] Furthermore, Martial Guéroult
suggested the term "panentheism", rather than "pantheism" to describe
Spinoza's view of the relation between God and the world. The world is
not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Yet, American
philosopher and self-described panentheist Charles Hartshorne referred to Spinoza's philosophy as "classical pantheism" and distinguished Spinoza's philosophy from panentheism.[11]
In 1828, the German philosopher Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832) seeking to reconcile monotheism and pantheism, coined the term panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally "all in god"). This conception of God influenced New England transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson. The term was popularized by Charles Hartshorne in his development of process theology and has also been closely identified with the New Thought.[12]
The formalization of this term in the West in the 19th century was not
new; philosophical treatises had been written on it in the context of Hinduism for millennia.[13]
Philosophers who embraced panentheism have included Thomas Hill Green (1839–1882), James Ward (1843–1925), Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison (1856–1931) and Samuel Alexander (1859–1938).[14] Beginning in the 1940s, Hartshorne examined numerous conceptions of God. He reviewed and discarded pantheism, deism, and pandeism
in favor of panentheism, finding that such a "doctrine contains all of
deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations". Hartshorne
formulated God as a being who could become "more perfect": He has
absolute perfection in categories for which absolute perfection is
possible, and relative perfection (i. e., is superior to all others) in
categories for which perfection cannot be precisely determined.[15]
In religion
Hinduism
Earliest reference to panentheistic thought in Hindu philosophy is in a creation myth contained in the later section of Rig Veda called the Purusha Sukta,[16] which was compiled before 1100 BCE.[17]
The Purusha Sukta gives a description of the spiritual unity of the
cosmos. It presents the nature of Purusha or the cosmic being as both
immanent in the manifested world and yet transcendent to it.[18] From this being the sukta holds, the original creative will proceeds, by which this vast universe is projected in space and time.[19]
The most influential[20] and dominant[21] school of Indian philosophy, Advaita Vedanta, rejects theism and dualism by insisting that "Brahman [ultimate reality] is without parts or attributes...one without a second."[22]
Since Brahman has no properties, contains no internal diversity and is
identical with the whole reality it cannot be understood as an
anthropomorphic personal God.[23] The relationship between Brahman and the creation is often thought to be panentheistic.[24]
By Me all this universe is pervaded through My unmanifested form. All beings abide in Me but I do not abide in them.
Many schools of Hindu thought espouse monistic theism, which is thought to be similar to a panentheistic viewpoint. Nimbarka's school of differential monism (Dvaitadvaita), Ramanuja's school of qualified monism (Vishistadvaita) and Saiva Siddhanta and Kashmir Shaivism are all considered to be panentheistic.[25]Caitanya's Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which elucidates the doctrine of Acintya Bheda Abheda (inconceivable oneness and difference), is also thought to be panentheistic.[26] In Kashmir Shaivism, all things are believed to be a manifestation of Universal Consciousness (Cit or Brahman).[27] So from the point of view of this school, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Cit).[28] Thus, Kashmir Shaivism is also propounding of theistic monism or panentheism.[29]
Shaktism, or Tantra, is regarded as an Indian prototype of Panentheism.[30]Shakti
is considered to be the cosmos itself – she is the embodiment of energy
and dynamism, and the motivating force behind all action and existence
in the material universe. Shiva is her transcendent masculine aspect,
providing the divine ground of all being. "There is no Shiva without
Shakti, or Shakti without Shiva. The two ... in themselves are One."[31] Thus, it is She who becomes the time and space, the cosmos, it is She who becomes the five elements,
and thus all animate life and inanimate forms. She is the primordial
energy that holds all creation and destruction, all cycles of birth and
death, all laws of cause and effect within Herself, and yet is greater
than the sum total of all these. She is transcendent, but becomes
immanent as the cosmos (Mula Prakriti). She, the Primordial Energy,
directly becomes Matter.
Taoism
Taoism says that all is part of the eternal tao, and that all interact through qi.
Buddhism
The Reverend Zen Master Soyen Shaku was the first Zen Buddhist Abbot to tour the United States in 1905–6. He wrote a series of essays collected into the book Zen For Americans.
In the essay titled "The God Conception of Buddhism" he attempts to
explain how a Buddhist looks at the ultimate without an anthropomorphic
God figure while still being able to relate to the term God in a
Buddhist sense:
At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not
atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God,
the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe
exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God,
for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always
exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious
experience. Again, Buddhism is not pantheistic in the sense that it
identifies the universe with God. On the other hand, the Buddhist God is
absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation,
is necessarily fragmental and imperfect. To define more exactly the
Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the
term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, "panentheism,"
according to which God is πᾶν καὶ ἕν (all and one) and more than the
totality of existence.[32]
The essay then goes on to explain first utilizing the term "God" for
the American audience to get an initial understanding of what he means
by "panentheism," and then discusses the terms that Buddhism uses in
place of "God" such as Dharmakaya, Buddha or AdiBuddha, and Tathagata.
In Christianity, creation is not considered a literal "part of" God, and divinity is essentially distinct from creation (i.e., transcendent).
There is, in other words, an irradicable difference between the
uncreated (i. e., God) and the created (i. e., everything else). This
does not mean, however, that the creation is wholly separated from God,
because the creation exists in and from the divine energies. In Eastern Orthodoxy,
these energies or operations are the natural activity of God and are in
some sense identifiable with God, but at the same time the creation is
wholly distinct from the divine essence.[citation needed] God creates the universe by His will and from His energies. It is, however, not an imprint or emanation of God's own essence (ousia), the essence He shares pre-eternally with His Word and Holy Spirit.
Neither is it a directly literal outworking or effulgence of the
divine, nor any other process which implies that creation is essentially
God or a necessary part of God. The use of the term "panentheism" to
describe the divine concept in Orthodox Christian theology is problematic for those who would insist that panentheism requires creation to be "part of" God.
God is not merely Creator of the universe, as His dynamic
presence is necessary to sustain the existence of every created thing,
small and great, visible and invisible.[34] That is, God's energies
maintain the existence of the created order and all created beings,
even if those agencies have explicitly rejected him. His love for
creation is such that He will not withdraw His presence, which would be
the ultimate form of annihilation,
not merely imposing death, but ending existence altogether. By this
token, the entirety of creation is fundamentally "good" in its very
being, and is not innately evil either in whole or in part. This does not deny the existence of spiritual or moral evil in a fallen universe, only the claim that it is an intrinsic property of creation. Sin results from the essential freedom of creatures to operate outside the divine order, not as a necessary consequence of having inherited human nature.
Panentheism in other Christian confessions
Many Christians who believe in universalism – mainly expressed in the Universalist Church of America, originating, as a fusion of Pietist and Anabaptist
influences, from the American colonies of the 18th century – hold
panentheistic views of God in conjunction with their belief in apocatastasis, also called universal reconciliation.[citation needed] Panentheistic Christian Universalists
often believe that all creation's subsistence in God renders untenable
the notion of final and permanent alienation from Him, citing Scriptural
passages such as Ephesians 4:6 ("[God] is over all and through all and
in all") and Romans 11:36 ("from [God] and through him and to him are
all things") to justify both panentheism and universalism.[citation needed] Panentheism was also a major force in the Unitarian church for a long time, based in part on Ralph Waldo Emerson's concept of the Over-soul (from the synonymous essay of 1841).[citation needed]
Panentheistic conceptions of God occur amongst some modern theologians. Process theology and Creation Spirituality, two recent developments in Christian theology, contain panentheistic ideas. Charles Hartshorne
(1897–2000), who conjoined process theology with panentheism,
maintained a lifelong membership in the Methodist church but was also a Unitarian. In later years he joined the Austin, Texas, Unitarian Universalist congregation and was an active participant in that church.[35] Referring to the ideas such as Thomas Oord’s ‘theocosmocentrism’
(2010), the soft panentheism of open theism, Keith Ward’s comparative
theology and John Polkinghorne’s critical realism (2009), Raymond
Potgieter observes distinctions such as dipolar and bipolar:
The former suggests two poles separated such as God influencing creation
and it in turn its creator (Bangert 2006:168), whereas bipolarity
completes God’s being implying interdependence between temporal and
eternal poles. (Marbaniang 2011:133), in dealing with Whitehead’s
approach, does not make this distinction. I use the term bipolar as a
generic term to include suggestions of the structural definition of
God’s transcendence and immanence; to for instance accommodate a present
and future reality into which deity must reasonably fit and function,
and yet maintain separation from this world and evil whilst remaining
within it.[36]
Some argue that panentheism should also include the notion that God
has always been related to some world or another, which denies the idea
of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). NazareneMethodist theologian Thomas Jay Oord
(* 1965) advocates panentheism, but he uses the word
"theocosmocentrism" to highlight the notion that God and some world or
another are the primary conceptual starting blocks for eminently
fruitful theology. This form of panentheism helps in overcoming the
problem of evil and in proposing that God's love for the world is
essential to who God is.[37]
Gnosticism
"Gnosticism" is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious
ideas and systems prevalent in the first and second century AD. The
teachings of the various gnostic groups were very diverse. In his Dictionary of Gnosticism, Andrew Phillip Smith has written that some branches of Gnosticism taught a panentheistic view of reality,[38]
and held to the belief that God exists in the visible world only as
sparks of spiritual "light". The goal of human existence is to know the
sparks within oneself in order to return to God, who is in the Fullness
(or Pleroma).
Gnosticism was panentheistic, believing that the true God is
simultaneously both separate from the physical universe and present
within it.[citation needed] As Jesus states in the Gospel of Thomas,
"I am the light that is over all things. I am all ... . Split a piece
of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."[39] This seemingly contradictory interpretation of gnostic theology is not without controversy, since one interpretation of dualistic theology holds that a perfect God of pure spirit would not manifest himself through the fallen world of matter.
Manichaeism,
being another gnostic sect, preached a very different doctrine in
positioning the true Manichaean God against matter as well as other
deities, that it described as enmeshed with the world, namely the gods
of Jews, Christians and pagans.[40]
Nevertheless, this dualistic teaching included an elaborate
cosmological myth that narrates the defeat of primal man by the powers
of darkness that devoured and imprisoned the particles of light.[citation needed]
Valentinian Gnosticism taught that matter came about through emanations of the supreme being, even if to some this event is held to be more accidental than intentional.[citation needed] To other gnostics, these emanations were akin to the Sephirot of the Kabbalists and deliberate manifestations of a transcendent God through a complex system of intermediaries.[citation needed]
Judaism
While mainstream Rabbinic Judaism is classically monotheistic, and follows in the footsteps of Maimonides
(c. 1135–1204), the panentheistic conception of God can be found among
certain mystical Jewish traditions. A leading scholar of Kabbalah, Moshe Idel[41] ascribes this doctrine to the kabbalistic system of Moses ben Jacob Cordovero (1522–1570) and in the eighteenth century to the Baal Shem Tov (c. 1700–1760), founder of the Hasidic movement, as well as his contemporaries, Rabbi Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezeritch
(died 1772), and Menahem Mendel, the Maggid of Bar. This may be said of
many, if not most, subsequent Hasidic masters. There is some debate as
to whether Isaac Luria (1534–1572) and Lurianic Kabbalah, with its doctrine of tzimtzum, can be regarded as panentheistic.
According to Hasidism, the infinite Ein Sof is incorporeal and exists in a state that is both transcendent and immanent. This appears to be the view of non-Hasidic Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, as well. Hasidic Judaism merges the elite ideal of nullification
to a transcendent God, via the intellectual articulation of inner
dimensions through Kabbalah and with emphasis on the panentheistic divine immanence in everything.[42]
Many scholars would argue that "panentheism" is the best single-word description of the philosophical theology of Baruch Spinoza.[43] It is therefore no surprise, that aspects of panentheism are also evident in the theology of Reconstructionist Judaism as presented in the writings of Mordecai Kaplan (1881–1983), who was strongly influenced by Spinoza.[44]
Islam
Several Sufi saints and thinkers, primarily Ibn Arabi, held beliefs that have been considered panentheistic.[45] These notions later took shape in the theory of wahdat ul-wujud (the Unity of All Things). Some Sufi Orders, notably the Bektashis[46] and the Universal Sufi movement, continue to espouse panentheistic beliefs. NizariIsmaili follow panentheism according to Ismaili doctrine. Nevertheless, some Shia Muslims also do believe in different degrees of Panentheism.
Al-Qayyuum is a Name of God
in the Qur'an which translates to "The Self-Existing by Whom all
subsist". In Islam the universe can not exist if Allah doesn't exist,
and it is only by His power which encompasses everything and which is
everywhere that the universe can exist. In Ayaẗ al-Kursii God's throne
is described as "extending over the heavens and the earth" and "He feels
no fatigue in guarding and preserving them". This does not mean though
that the universe is God, or that a creature (like a tree or an animal)
is God, because those would be respectively pantheism,
which is a heresy in traditional Islam, and the worst heresy in Islam,
shirk (polytheism). God is separated by His creation but His creation
can not survive without Him.
In Pre-Colombian America
The Mesoamerican empires of the Mayas, Aztecs as well as the South American Incas (Tahuatinsuyu) have typically been characterized as polytheistic, with strong male and female deities.[47] According to Charles C. Mann's history book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus,
only the lower classes of Aztec society were polytheistic. Philosopher
James Maffie has argued that Aztec metaphysics was pantheistic rather
than panentheistic, since Teotl
was considered by Aztec philosophers to be the ultimate
all-encompassing yet all-transcending force defined by its inherit
duality.[48]
Native American beliefs in North America
have been characterized as panentheistic in that there is an emphasis
on a single, unified divine spirit that is manifest in each individual
entity.[49] (North American Native writers have also translated the word for God as the Great Mystery[50] or as the Sacred Other[51]) This concept is referred to by many as the Great Spirit. Philosopher J. Baird Callicott has described Lakota theology as panentheistic, in that the divine both transcends and is immanent in everything.[52]
One exception can be modern Cherokee who are predominantly monotheistic but apparently not panentheistic;[53]
yet in older Cherokee traditions many observe both aspects of pantheism
and panentheism, and are often not beholden to exclusivity,
encompassing other spiritual traditions without contradiction, a common
trait among some tribes in the Americas.
Sikhism
The Sikh gurus have described God in numerous ways in their hymns included in the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy scripture of Sikhism, but the oneness of the deity is consistently emphasized throughout. God is described in the Mool Mantar, the first passage in the Guru Granth Sahib, and the basic formula of the faith is:
(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1)
— ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
Ik Oankar Satnaam KartaaPurakh Nirbhau Nirvair AkaalMoorat Ajooni Saibhan GurPrasad
One primal being who made the sound (oan) that expanded and created
the world. Truth is the name. Creative being personified. Without fear,
without hate. Image of the undying. Beyond birth, self existent. By
Guru's grace~
Guru Arjan, the fifth guru of Sikhs, says, "God is beyond colour and form, yet His/Her presence is clearly visible" (Sri Guru Granth Sahib,
Ang 74), and "Nanak's Lord transcends the world as well as the
scriptures of the east and the west, and yet He/She is clearly manifest"
(Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 397).
Knowledge of the ultimate Reality is not a matter for reason; it
comes by revelation of the ultimate reality through nadar (grace) and by
anubhava (mystical experience). Says Guru Nanak; "budhi pathi na paiai bahu chaturaiai bhai milai mani bhane."
This translates to "He/She is not accessible through intellect, or
through mere scholarship or cleverness at argument; He/She is met, when
He/She pleases, through devotion" (GG, 436).
Guru Nanak prefixed the numeral one (ik) to it, making it Ik
Oankar or Ek Oankar to stress God's oneness. God is named and known only
through his Own immanent nature. The only name which can be said to
truly fit God's transcendent state is SatNam ( Sat Sanskrit, Truth), the
changeless and timeless Reality. God is transcendent and all-pervasive
at the same time. Transcendence and immanence are two aspects of the
same single Supreme Reality. The Reality is immanent in the entire
creation, but the creation as a whole fails to contain God fully. As
says Guru Tegh Bahadur, Nanak IX, "He has himself spread out His/Her Own
“maya” (worldly illusion) which He oversees; many different forms He
assumes in many colours, yet He stays independent of all" (GG, 537).
Bahá'í Faith
In the Bahá'í Faith,
God is described as a single, imperishable God, the creator of all
things, including all the creatures and forces in the universe. The
connection between God and the world is that of the creator to his creation.[54] God is understood to be independent of his creation, and that creation is dependent and contingent on God. Accordingly, the Bahá'í Faith
is much more closely aligned with traditions of monotheism than
panentheism. God is not seen to be part of creation as he cannot be
divided and does not descend to the condition of his creatures. Instead,
in the Bahá'í understanding, the world of creation emanates from God, in that all things have been realized by him and have attained to existence.[55] Creation is seen as the expression of God's will in the contingent world,[56]
and every created thing is seen as a sign of God's sovereignty, and
leading to knowledge of him; the signs of God are most particularly
revealed in human beings.[54]
Konkōkyō
In
Konkōkyō God is named “Tenchi Kane no Kami-Sama” which can mean “Golden
spirit of the universe” Kami(God) is Also seen as infinitely loving and
powerful.
“This spirit creates new galaxies, winks out brilliant stars, and
allowes our hearts to beat.”- “Shine From Within, an introduction to the
Konko Faith”
It’s the year 2021. A quadriplegic patient has just had one
million “neural lace” microparticles injected into her brain, the
world’s first human with an internet communication systemusing a wireless implanted brain-mind interface — and empowering her as the first superhuman cyborg. …
No, this is not a science-fiction movie plot. It’s the actual first
public step — just four years from now — in Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s
business plan for his latest new venture, Neuralink. It’s now explained for the first time on Tim Urban’s WaitButWhy blog.
Dealing with the superintelligence existential risk
Such a system would allow for radically improved communication
between people, Musk believes. But for Musk, the big concern is AI
safety. “AI is obviously going to surpass human intelligence by a lot,”
he says. “There’s some risk at that point that something bad happens,
something that we can’t control, that humanity can’t control after that
point — either a small group of people monopolize AI power, or the AI
goes rogue, or something like that.”
“This is what keeps Elon up at night,” says Urban. “He sees it as
only a matter of time before superintelligent AI rises up on this planet
— and when that happens, he believes that it’s critical that we don’t
end up as part of ‘everyone else.’ That’s why, in a future world made up
of AI and everyone else, he thinks we have only one good option: To be AI.”
Neural dust: an ultrasonic, low power solution for chronic brain-machine interfaces (credit: Swarm Lab/UC Berkeley)
To achieve his, Neuralink CEO Musk has met with more than 1,000 people, narrowing it down initially to eight experts, such as Paul Merolla,
who spent the last seven years as the lead chip designer at IBM on
their DARPA-funded SyNAPSE program to design neuromorphic
(brain-inspired) chips with 5.4 billion transistors (each with 1 million
neurons and 256 million synapses), and Dongjin (DJ) Seo,
who while at UC Berkeley designed an ultrasonic backscatter system for
powering and communicating with implanted bioelectronics called neural dust for recording brain activity.*
Mesh
electronics being injected through sub-100 micrometer inner diameter
glass needle into aqueous solution (credit: Lieber Research Group,
Harvard University)
Becoming one with AI — a good thing?
Neuralink’s goal its to create a “digital tertiary layer”to
augment the brain’s current cortex and limbic layers — a radical
high-bandwidth, long-lasting, biocompatible, bidirectional
communicative, non-invasively implanted system made up of micron-size
(millionth of a meter) particles communicating wirelessly via the cloud
and internet to achieve super-fast communication speed and increased
bandwidth (carrying more information).
“We’re going to have the choice of either being left behind and being
effectively useless or like a pet — you know, like a house cat or
something — or eventually figuring out some way to be symbiotic and
merge with AI. … A house cat’s a good outcome, by the way.”
Thin,
flexible electrodes mounted on top of a biodegradable silk substrate
could provide a better brain-machine interface, as shown in this model.
(credit: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
But machine intelligence is already vastly superior to human
intelligence in specific areas (such as Google’s Alpha Go) and often
inexplicable. So how do we know superintelligence has the best interests
of humanity in mind?
“Just an engineering problem”
Musk’s answer: “If we achieve tight symbiosis, the AI wouldn’t be ‘other’ — it would be you
and with a relationship to your cortex analogous to the relationship
your cortex has with your limbic system.” OK, but then how does an
inferior intelligence know when it’s achieved full symbiosis with a superior one — or when AI goes rogue?
Brain-to-brain
(B2B) internet communication system: EEG signals representing two words
were encoded into binary strings (left) by the sender (emitter) and
sent via the internet to a receiver. The signal was then encoded as a
series of transcranial magnetic stimulation-generated phosphenes
detected by the visual occipital cortex, which the receiver then
translated to words (credit: Carles Grau et al./PLoS ONE)
And what about experts in neuroethics, psychology, law? Musk says
it’s just “an engineering problem. … If we can just use engineering to
get neurons to talk to computers, we’ll have done our job, and machine
learning can do much of the rest.”
However, it’s not clear how we could be assured our brains aren’t
hacked, spied on, and controlled by a repressive government or by other
humans — especially those with a more recently updated software version
or covert cyborg hardware improvements.
NIRS/EEG
brain-computer interface system using non-invasive near-infrared light
for sensing “yes” or “no” thoughts, shown on a model (credit: Wyss
Center for Bio and Neuroengineering)
In addition, the devices mentioned in WaitButWhy all require some form of neurosurgery, unlike Facebook’s research project to use non-invasive near-infrared light, as shown in this experiment, for example.** And getting implants for non-medical use approved by the FDA will be a challenge, to grossly understate it.
“I think we are about 8 to 10 years away from this being usable by
people with no disability,” says Musk, optimistically. However, Musk
does not lay out a technology roadmap for going further, as MIT Technology Review notes.
Nonetheless, Neuralink sounds awesome — it should lead to some
exciting neuroscience breakthroughs. And Neuralink now has 16 San
Francisco job listings here.
* Other experts: Vanessa Tolosa, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the world’s foremost researchers on biocompatible materials; Max Hodak, who worked on the development of some groundbreaking BMI technology at Miguel Nicolelis’s lab at Duke University, Ben Rapoport, Neuralink’s neurosurgery expert, with a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT; Tim Hanson, UC Berkeley post-doc and expert in flexible Electrodes for Stable, Minimally-Invasive Neural Recording; Flip Sabes,
professor, UCSF School of Medicine expert in cortical physiology,
computational and theoretical modeling, and human psychophysics and
physiology; and Tim Gardner,
Associate Professor of Biology at Boston University, whose lab works on
implanting BMIs in birds, to study “how complex songs are assembled
from elementary neural units” and learn about “the relationships between
patterns of neural activity on different time scales.”
** This binary experiment and the binary Brain-to-brain (B2B) internet communication system
mentioned above are the equivalents of the first binary (dot–dash)
telegraph message, sent May 24, 1844: ”What hath God wrought?”
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness group of hypotheses propose that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could contribute to form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.
Hypotheses have been proposed about ways for quantum effects to
be involved in the process of consciousness, but even those who advocate
them admit that the hypotheses remain unproven, and possibly
unprovable. Some of the proponents propose experiments that could
demonstrate quantum consciousness, but the experiments have not yet been
possible to perform.
Terms used in the theory of quantum mechanics can be
misinterpreted by laymen in ways that are not valid but that sound
mystical or religious, and therefore may seem to be related to
consciousness. These misinterpretations of the terms are not justified
in the theory of quantum mechanics. According to Sean Carroll, "No
theory in the history of science has been more misused and abused by
cranks and charlatans—and misunderstood by people struggling in good
faith with difficult ideas—than quantum mechanics."[2] Lawrence Krauss says, "No area of physics stimulates more nonsense in the public arena than quantum mechanics."[3]
Some proponents of pseudoscience use quantum mechanical terms in an
effort to justify their statements, but this effort is misleading, and
it is a false interpretation of the physical theory. Quantum mind
theories of consciousness that are based on this kind of
misinterpretations of terms are not valid by scientific methods or from
empirical experiments.
History
Eugene Wigner developed the idea that quantum mechanics has something to do with the workings of the mind. He proposed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. Freeman Dyson argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron."[4]
Other contemporary physicists and philosophers considered these arguments to be unconvincing.[5]Victor Stenger
characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific
basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and
dragons."[6]
David Bohm viewed quantum theory and relativity as contradictory, which implied a more fundamental level in the universe.[10]
He claimed both quantum theory and relativity pointed towards this
deeper theory, which he formulated as a quantum field theory. This more
fundamental level was proposed to represent an undivided wholeness and
an implicate order, from which arises the explicate order of the universe as we experience it.
Bohm's proposed implicate order applies both to matter and
consciousness. He suggested that it could explain the relationship
between them. He saw mind and matter as projections into our explicate
order from the underlying implicate order. Bohm claimed that when we
look at matter, we see nothing that helps us to understand
consciousness.
Bohm discussed the experience of listening to music. He believed
the feeling of movement and change that make up our experience of music
derive from holding the immediate past and the present in the brain
together. The musical notes from the past are transformations rather
than memories. The notes that were implicate in the immediate past
become explicate in the present. Bohm viewed this as consciousness
emerging from the implicate order.
Bohm saw the movement, change or flow, and the coherence of
experiences, such as listening to music, as a manifestation of the
implicate order. He claimed to derive evidence for this from Jean Piaget's[11]
work on infants. He held these studies to show that young children
learn about time and space because they have a "hard-wired"
understanding of movement as part of the implicate order. He compared
this "hard-wiring" to Chomsky's theory that grammar is "hard-wired" into human brains.
Bohm never proposed a specific means by which his proposal could
be falsified, nor a neural mechanism through which his "implicate order"
could emerge in a way relevant to consciousness.[10] Bohm later collaborated on Karl Pribram's holonomic brain theory as a model of quantum consciousness.[12]
According to philosopher Paavo Pylkkänen, Bohm's suggestion "leads naturally to the assumption that the physical correlate of the logical thinking
process is at the classically describable level of the brain, while the
basic thinking process is at the quantum-theoretically describable
level."[13]
Penrose and Hameroff
Theoretical physicist Roger Penrose and anaesthesiologistStuart Hameroff collaborated to produce the theory known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR).
Penrose and Hameroff initially developed their ideas separately and
later collaborated to produce Orch-OR in the early 1990s. The theory was
reviewed and updated by the authors in late 2013.[14][15]
Penrose's argument stemmed from Gödel's incompleteness theorems. In Penrose's first book on consciousness, The Emperor's New Mind (1989),[16]
he argued that while a formal system cannot prove its own consistency,
Gödel’s unprovable results are provable by human mathematicians.[17]
He took this disparity to mean that human mathematicians are not formal
proof systems and are not running a computable algorithm. According to
Bringsjorg and Xiao, this line of reasoning is based on fallacious equivocation on the meaning of computation.[18]
In the same book, Penrose wrote, "One might speculate, however, that
somewhere deep in the brain, cells are to be found of single quantum
sensitivity. If this proves to be the case, then quantum mechanics will
be significantly involved in brain activity."[16]:p.400
Penrose determined wave function collapse
was the only possible physical basis for a non-computable process.
Dissatisfied with its randomness, Penrose proposed a new form of wave
function collapse that occurred in isolation and called it objective reduction.
He suggested each quantum superposition has its own piece of spacetime
curvature and that when these become separated by more than one Planck length they become unstable and collapse.[19] Penrose suggested that objective reduction represented neither randomness nor algorithmic processing but instead a non-computable influence in spacetime geometry from which mathematical understanding and, by later extension, consciousness derived.[19]
Hameroff provided a hypothesis that microtubules would be suitable hosts for quantum behavior.[20] Microtubules are composed of tubulinprotein dimer subunits. The dimers each have hydrophobic pockets that are 8 nm apart and that may contain delocalized pi electrons.
Tubulins have other smaller non-polar regions that contain pi
electron-rich indole rings separated by only about 2 nm. Hameroff
proposed that these electrons are close enough to become entangled.[21] Hameroff originally suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Bose–Einstein condensate, but this was discredited.[22]
He then proposed a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent
oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was experimentally
discredited.[23]
However, Orch-OR made numerous false biological predictions, and is not an accepted model of brain physiology.[24] In other words, there is a missing link between physics and neuroscience,[25]
for instance, the proposed predominance of 'A' lattice microtubules,
more suitable for information processing, was falsified by Kikkawa et al.,[26][27] who showed all in vivo microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam. The proposed existence of gap junctions between neurons and glial cells was also falsified.[28] Orch-OR predicted that microtubule coherence reaches the synapses via dendritic lamellar bodies (DLBs), however De Zeeuw et al. proved this impossible,[29] by showing that DLBs are located micrometers away from gap junctions.[30]
In January 2014, Hameroff and Penrose claimed that the discovery
of quantum vibrations in microtubules by Anirban Bandyopadhyay of the National Institute for Materials Science in Japan in March 2013[31] corroborates the Orch-OR theory.[15][32]
Although these theories are stated in a scientific framework, it is
difficult to separate them from the personal opinions of the scientist.
The opinions are often based on intuition or subjective ideas about the
nature of consciousness. For example, Penrose wrote,
my
own point of view asserts that you can't even simulate conscious
activity. What's going on in conscious thinking is something you
couldn't properly imitate at all by computer.... If something behaves as
though it's conscious, do you say it is conscious? People argue
endlessly about that. Some people would say, 'Well, you've got to take
the operational viewpoint; we don't know what consciousness is. How do
you judge whether a person is conscious or not? Only by the way they
act. You apply the same criterion to a computer or a computer-controlled
robot.' Other people would say, 'No, you can't say it feels something
merely because it behaves as though it feels something.' My view is
different from both those views. The robot wouldn't even behave
convincingly as though it was conscious unless it really was — which I
say it couldn't be, if it's entirely computationally controlled.[33]
Penrose continues,
A lot of what the brain does you
could do on a computer. I'm not saying that all the brain's action is
completely different from what you do on a computer. I am claiming that
the actions of consciousness are something different. I'm not saying
that consciousness is beyond physics, either — although I'm saying that
it's beyond the physics we know now.... My claim is that there has to
be something in physics that we don't yet understand, which is very
important, and which is of a noncomputational character. It's not
specific to our brains; it's out there, in the physical world. But it
usually plays a totally insignificant role. It would have to be in the
bridge between quantum and classical levels of behavior — that is, where
quantum measurement comes in.[34]
In response, W. Daniel Hillis
replied, "Penrose has committed the classical mistake of putting humans
at the center of the universe. His argument is essentially that he
can't imagine how the mind could be as complicated as it is without
having some magic elixir brought in from some new principle of physics,
so therefore it must involve that. It's a failure of Penrose's
imagination.... It's true that there are unexplainable, uncomputable
things, but there's no reason whatsoever to believe that the complex
behavior we see in humans is in any way related to uncomputable,
unexplainable things."[34]
Lawrence Krauss is also blunt in criticizing Penrose's ideas. He
said, "Well, Roger Penrose has given lots of new-age crackpots
ammunition by suggesting that at some fundamental scale, quantum
mechanics might be relevant for consciousness. When you hear the term
'quantum consciousness,' you should be suspicious.... Many people are
dubious that Penrose's suggestions are reasonable, because the brain is
not an isolated quantum-mechanical system."[3]
Umezawa, Vitiello, Freeman
Hiroomi Umezawa and collaborators proposed a quantum field theory of memory storage.[35][36] Giuseppe Vitiello and Walter Freeman proposed a dialog model of the mind. This dialog takes place between the classical and the quantum parts of the brain.[37][38][39] Their quantum field theory models of brain dynamics are fundamentally different from the Penrose-Hameroff theory.
Pribram, Bohm, Kak
Karl Pribram's holonomic brain theory (quantum holography) invoked quantum mechanics to explain higher order processing by the mind.[40][41] He argued that his holonomic model solved the binding problem.[42]
Pribram collaborated with Bohm in his work on the quantum approaches to
mind and he provided evidence on how much of the processing in the
brain was done in wholes.[43] He proposed that ordered water at dendritic membrane surfaces might operate by structuring Bose-Einstein condensation supporting quantum dynamics.[44]
Although Subhash Kak's
work is not directly related to that of Pribram, he likewise proposed
that the physical substrate to neural networks has a quantum basis,[45][46] but asserted that the quantum mind has machine-like limitations.[47]
He points to a role for quantum theory in the distinction between
machine intelligence and biological intelligence, but that in itself
cannot explain all aspects of consciousness.[48][49] He has proposed that the mind remains oblivious of its quantum nature due to the principle of veiled nonlocality.[50][51]
Stapp
Henry Stapp
proposed that quantum waves are reduced only when they interact with
consciousness. He argues from the Orthodox Quantum Mechanics of John von Neumann
that the quantum state collapses when the observer selects one among
the alternative quantum possibilities as a basis for future action. The
collapse, therefore, takes place in the expectation that the observer
associated with the state. Stapp's work drew criticism from scientists
such as David Bourget and Danko Georgiev.[52] Georgiev[53][54][55] criticized Stapp's model in two respects:
Stapp's mind does not have its own wavefunction or density matrix, but nevertheless can act upon the brain using projection operators.
Such usage is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics because
one can attach any number of ghostly minds to any point in space that
act upon physical quantum systems with any projection operators.
Therefore, Stapp's model negates "the prevailing principles of physics".[53]
Stapp's claim that quantum Zeno effect is robust against environmental decoherence directly contradicts a basic theorem in quantum information theory that acting with projection operators upon the density matrix of a quantum system can only increase the system's Von Neumann entropy.[53][54]
Stapp has responded to both of Georgiev's objections.[56][57]
David Pearce
British philosopher David Pearce
defends what he calls physicalistic idealism (""Physicalistic idealism"
is the non-materialist physicalist claim that reality is fundamentally
experiential and that the natural world is exhaustively described by the
equations of physics and their solutions [...]," and has conjectured
that unitary conscious minds are physical states of quantum coherence (neuronal superpositions).[58][59][60][61]
This conjecture is, according to Pearce, amenable to falsification
unlike most theories of consciousness, and Pearce has outlined an
experimental protocol describing how the hypothesis could be tested
using matter-wave interferometry to detect nonclassical interference patterns of neuronal superpositions at the onset of thermal decoherence.[62] Pearce admits that his ideas are "highly speculative," "counterintuitive," and "incredible."[60]
Criticism
These
hypotheses of the quantum mind remain hypothetical speculation, as
Penrose and Pearce admitted in their discussion. Until they make a
prediction that is tested by experiment, the hypotheses aren't based in
empirical evidence. According to Lawrence Krauss, "It is true that
quantum mechanics is extremely strange, and on extremely small scales
for short times, all sorts of weird things happen. And in fact we can
make weird quantum phenomena happen. But what quantum mechanics doesn't
change about the universe is, if you want to change things, you still
have to do something. You can't change the world by thinking about it."[3]
The process of testing the hypotheses with experiments is fraught
with problems, including conceptual/theoretical, practical, and ethical
issues.
Conceptual problems
The
idea that a quantum effect is necessary for consciousness to function
is still in the realm of philosophy. Penrose proposes that it is
necessary. But other theories of consciousness do not indicate that it
is needed. For example, Daniel Dennett proposed a theory called multiple drafts model that doesn't indicate that quantum effects are needed. The theory is described in Dennett's book, Consciousness Explained, published in 1991.[63]
A philosophical argument on either side isn't scientific proof,
although the philosophical analysis can indicate key differences in the
types of models, and they can show what type of experimental differences
might be observed. But since there isn't a clear consensus among
philosophers, it isn't conceptual support that a quantum mind theory is
needed.
There are computers that are specifically designed to compute using quantum mechanical effects. Quantum computing is computing using quantum-mechanicalphenomena, such as superposition and entanglement.[64] They are different from binarydigital electronic computers based on transistors. Whereas common digital computing requires that the data be encoded into binary digits (bits), each of which is always in one of two definite states (0 or 1), quantum computation uses quantum bits, which can be in superpositions of states. One of the greatest challenges is controlling or removing quantum decoherence.
This usually means isolating the system from its environment as
interactions with the external world cause the system to decohere.
Currently, some quantum computers require their qubits to be cooled to
20 millikelvins in order to prevent significant decoherence.[65]
As a result, time consuming tasks may render some quantum algorithms
inoperable, as maintaining the state of qubits for a long enough
duration will eventually corrupt the superpositions.[66]
There aren't any obvious analogies between the functioning of quantum
computers and the human brain. Some of the hypothetical models of
quantum mind have proposed mechanisms for maintaining quantum coherence
in the brain, but they have not been shown to operate.
Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon often invoked for quantum mind models. This effect occurs when pairs or groups of particles interact so that the quantum state
of each particle cannot be described independently of the other(s),
even when the particles are separated by a large distance. Instead, a
quantum state has to be described for the whole system. Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, and polarization, performed on entangled particles are found to be correlated.
If one of the particles is measured, the same property of the other
particle immediately adjusts to maintain the conservation of the
physical phenomenon. According to the formalism of quantum theory, the
effect of measurement happens instantly, no matter how far apart the
particles are.[67][68] It is not possible to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds[69] (see Faster-than-light § Quantum mechanics). Entanglement is broken when the entangled particles decohere through interaction with the environment; for example, when a measurement is made[70]
or the particles undergo random collisions or interactions. According
to David Pearce, "In neuronal networks, ion-ion scattering, ion-water
collisions, and long-range Coulomb interactions from nearby ions all
contribute to rapid decoherence times; but thermally-induced decoherence
is even harder experimentally to control than collisional decoherence."
He anticipated that quantum effects would have to be measured in
femtoseconds, a trillion times faster than the rate at which neurons
function (milliseconds).[62]
Another possible conceptual approach is to use quantum mechanics
as an analogy to understand a different field of study like
consciousness, without expecting that the laws of quantum physics will
apply. An example of this approach is the idea of Schrödinger's cat. Erwin Schrödinger
described how one could, in principle, create entanglement of a
large-scale system by making it dependent on an elementary particle in a
superposition. He proposed a scenario with a cat in a locked steel
chamber, wherein the cat's life or death depended on the state of a radioactive
atom, whether it had decayed and emitted radiation or not. According to
Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead
until the state has been observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote
the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the
contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the
existing view of quantum mechanics.[71] However, since Schrödinger's time, other interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been advanced by physicists, some of which regard the "alive and dead" cat superposition as quite real.[72][73] Schrödinger's famous thought experiment poses the question, "when
does a quantum system stop existing as a superposition of states and
become one or the other?" In the same way, it is possible to ask
whether the brain's act of making a decision is analogous to having a
superposition of states of two decision outcomes, so that making a
decision means "opening the box" to reduce the brain from a combination
of states to one state. But even Schrödinger didn't think this really
happened to the cat; he didn't think the cat was literally alive and
dead at the same time. This analogy about making a decision uses a
formalism that is derived from quantum mechanics, but it doesn't
indicate the actual mechanism by which the decision is made. In this
way, the idea is similar to quantum cognition.
This field clearly distinguishes itself from the quantum mind as it is
not reliant on the hypothesis that there is something micro-physical
quantum mechanical about the brain. Quantum cognition is based on the
quantum-like paradigm,[74][75] generalized quantum paradigm,[76] or quantum structure paradigm[77]
that information processing by complex systems such as the brain can be
mathematically described in the framework of quantum information and
quantum probability theory. This model uses quantum mechanics only as
an analogy, but doesn't propose that quantum mechanics is the physical
mechanism by which it operates. For example, quantum cognition proposes
that some decisions can be analyzed as if there are interference
between two alternatives, but it is not a physical quantum interference
effect.
Practical problems
The
demonstration of a quantum mind effect by experiment is necessary. Is
there a way to show that consciousness is impossible without a quantum
effect? Can a sufficiently complex digital, non-quantum computer be
shown to be incapable of consciousness? Perhaps a quantum computer will
show that quantum effects are needed. In any case, complex computers
that are either digital or quantum computers may be built. These could
demonstrate which type of computer is capable of conscious, intentional
thought. But they don't exist yet, and no experimental test has been
demonstrated.
Quantum mechanics is a mathematical model that can provide some extremely accurate numerical predictions. Richard Feynman called quantum electrodynamics, based on the quantum mechanics formalism, "the jewel of physics" for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.[78]:Ch1
So it is not impossible that the model could provide an accurate
prediction about consciousness that would confirm that a quantum effect
is involved. If the mind depends on quantum mechanical effects, the
true proof is to find an experiment that provides a calculation that can
be compared to an experimental measurement. It has to show a
measurable difference between a classical computation result in a brain
and one that involves quantum effects.
The main theoretical argument against the quantum mind hypothesis
is the assertion that quantum states in the brain would lose coherency
before they reached a scale where they could be useful for neural
processing. This supposition was elaborated by Tegmark. His calculations indicate that quantum systems in the brain decohere at sub-picosecond timescales.[79][80]
No response by a brain has shows computation results or reactions on
this fast of a timescale. Typical reactions are on the order of
milliseconds, trillions of times longer than sub-picosecond time scales.[81]
Daniel Dennett uses an experimental result in support of his
Multiple Drafts Model of an optical illusion that happens on a time
scale of less than a second or so. In this experiment, two different
colored lights, with an angular separation of a few degrees at the eye,
are flashed in succession. If the interval between the flashes is less
than a second or so, the first light that is flashed appears to move
across to the position of the second light. Furthermore, the light seems
to change color as it moves across the visual field. A green light will
appear to turn red as it seems to move across to the position of a red
light. Dennett asks how we could see the light change color before the
second light is observed.[63] Velmans argues that the cutaneous rabbit illusion,
another illusion that happens in about a second, demonstrates that
there is a delay while modelling occurs in the brain and that this delay
was discovered by Libet.[82]
These slow illusions that happen at times of less than a second don't
support a proposal that the brain functions on the picosecond time
scale.
According to David Pearce, a demonstration of picosecond effects
is "the fiendishly hard part – feasible in principle, but an
experimental challenge still beyond the reach of contemporary molecular
matter-wave interferometry. ...The conjecture predicts that we'll
discover the interference signature of sub-femtosecond
macro-superpositions."[62]
Penrose says,
The problem with trying to use quantum
mechanics in the action of the brain is that if it were a matter of
quantum nerve signals, these nerve signals would disturb the rest of the
material in the brain, to the extent that the quantum coherence would
get lost very quickly. You couldn't even attempt to build a quantum
computer out of ordinary nerve signals, because they're just too big and
in an environment that's too disorganized. Ordinary nerve signals have
to be treated classically. But if you go down to the level of the
microtubules, then there's an extremely good chance that you can get
quantum-level activity inside them.
For my picture, I need this quantum-level activity in the
microtubules; the activity has to be a large scale thing that goes not
just from one microtubule to the next but from one nerve cell to the
next, across large areas of the brain. We need some kind of coherent
activity of a quantum nature which is weakly coupled to the
computational activity that Hameroff argues is taking place along the
microtubules.
There are various avenues of attack. One is directly on the physics, on
quantum theory, and there are certain experiments that people are
beginning to perform, and various schemes for a modification of quantum
mechanics. I don't think the experiments are sensitive enough yet to
test many of these specific ideas. One could imagine experiments that
might test these things, but they'd be very hard to perform.[34]
A demonstration of a quantum effect in the brain has to explain this
problem or explain why it is not relevant, or that the brain somehow
circumvents the problem of the loss of quantum coherency at body
temperature. As Penrose proposes, it may require a new type of physical
theory.
Ethical problems
Can
self-awareness, or understanding of a self in the surrounding
environment, be done by a classical parallel processor, or are quantum
effects needed to have a sense of "oneness"? According to Lawrence
Krauss, "You should be wary whenever you hear something like, 'Quantum
mechanics connects you with the universe' ... or 'quantum mechanics
unifies you with everything else.' You can begin to be skeptical that
the speaker is somehow trying to use quantum mechanics to argue
fundamentally that you can change the world by thinking about it."[3]
A subjective feeling is not sufficient to make this determination.
Humans don't have a reliable subjective feeling for how we do a lot of
functions. According to Daniel Dennett, "On this topic, Everybody's an expert...
but they think that they have a particular personal authority about the
nature of their own conscious experiences that can trump any hypothesis
they find unacceptable."[83]
Since humans are the only animals known to be conscious, then
performing experiments to demonstrate quantum effects in consciousness
requires experimentation on a living human brain. This is not
automatically excluded or impossible, but it seriously limits the kinds
of experiments that can be done. Studies of the ethics of brain studies
are being actively solicited[84] by the BRAIN Initiative, a U.S. Federal Government funded effort to document the connections of neurons in the brain.
An ethically objectionable practice by proponents of quantum mind
theories involves the practice of using quantum mechanical terms in an
effort to make the argument sound more impressive, even when they know
that those terms are irrelevant. Dale DeBakcsy notes that "trendy
parapsychologists, academic relativists, and even the Dalai Lama
have all taken their turn at robbing modern physics of a few
well-sounding phrases and stretching them far beyond their original
scope in order to add scientific weight to various pet theories."[85]
At the very least, these proponents must make a clear statement about
whether quantum formalism is being used as an analogy or as an actual
physical mechanism, and what evidence they are using for support. An
ethical statement by a researcher should specify what kind of
relationship their hypothesis has to the physical laws.
Misleading statements of this type have been given by, for example, Deepak Chopra. Chopra has commonly referred to topics such as quantum healing
or quantum effects of consciousness. Seeing the human body as being
undergirded by a "quantum mechanical body" composed not of matter but of
energy and information, he believes that "human aging is fluid and
changeable; it can speed up, slow down, stop for a time, and even
reverse itself," as determined by one's state of mind.[86]Robert Carroll states Chopra attempts to integrate Ayurveda with quantum mechanics to justify his teachings.[87]
Chopra argues that what he calls "quantum healing" cures any manner of
ailments, including cancer, through effects that he claims are literally
based on the same principles as quantum mechanics.[88] This has led physicists to object to his use of the term quantum in reference to medical conditions and the human body.[88]
Chopra said, "I think quantum theory has a lot of things to say about
the observer effect, about non-locality, about correlations. So I think
there’s a school of physicists who believe that consciousness has to be
equated, or at least brought into the equation, in understanding quantum
mechanics."[89]
On the other hand, he also claims "[Quantum effects are] just a
metaphor. Just like an electron or a photon is an indivisible unit of
information and energy, a thought is an indivisible unit of
consciousness."[89] In his book Quantum Healing, Chopra stated the conclusion that quantum entanglement links everything in the Universe, and therefore it must create consciousness.[90]
In either case, the references to the word "quantum" don't mean what a
physicist would claim, and arguments that use the word "quantum"
shouldn't be taken as scientifically proven.
Chris Carter includes statements in his book, Science and Psychic Phenomena,[91]
of quotes from quantum physicists in support of psychic phenomena. In a
review of the book, Benjamin Radford wrote that Carter used such
references to "quantum physics, which he knows nothing about and which
he (and people like Deepak Chopra) love to cite and reference because it
sounds mysterious and paranormal.... Real, actual physicists I've
spoken to break out laughing at this crap.... If Carter wishes to posit
that quantum physics provides a plausible mechanism for psi, then it is
his responsibility to show that, and he clearly fails to do so."[92]
Sharon Hill has studied amateur paranormal research groups, and these
groups like to use "vague and confusing language: ghosts 'use energy,'
are made up of 'magnetic fields', or are associated with a 'quantum
state.'"[93][94]
Statements like these about quantum mechanics indicate a
temptation to misinterpret technical, mathematical terms like
entanglement in terms of mystical feelings. This approach can be
interpreted as a kind of Scientism, using the language and authority of science when the scientific concepts don't apply.
A larger problem in the popular press with the quantum mind
hypotheses is that they are extracted without scientific support or
justification and used to support areas of pseudoscience. In brief, for
example, the property of quantum entanglement refers to the connection
between two particles that share a property such as angular momentum.
If the particles collide, then they are no longer entangled.
Extrapolating this property from the entanglement of two elementary
particles to the functioning of neurons in the brain to be used in a
computation is not simple. It is a long chain to prove a connection
between entangled elementary particles and a macroscopic effect that
affects human consciousness. It is also necessary to show how sensory
inputs affect the coupled particles and then computation is
accomplished.
Perhaps the final question is, what difference does it make if
quantum effects are involved in computations in the brain? It is
already known that quantum mechanics plays a role in the brain, since
quantum mechanics determines the shapes and properties of molecules like
neurotransmitters and proteins, and these molecules affect how the brain works. This is the reason that drugs such as morphine
affect consciousness. As Daniel Dennett said, "quantum effects are
there in your car, your watch, and your computer. But most things — most
macroscopic objects — are, as it were, oblivious to quantum effects.
They don't amplify them; they don't hinge on them."[34]
Lawrence Krauss said, "We're also connected to the universe by
gravity, and we're connected to the planets by gravity. But that doesn't
mean that astrology is true.... Often, people who are trying to sell
whatever it is they're trying to sell try to justify it on the basis of
science. Everyone knows quantum mechanics is weird, so why not use that
to justify it? ... I don't know how many times I've heard people say,
'Oh, I love quantum mechanics because I'm really into meditation, or I
love the spiritual benefits that it brings me.' But quantum mechanics,
for better or worse, doesn't bring any more spiritual benefits than
gravity does."[3]
But it appears that these molecular quantum effects are not what
the proponents of the quantum mind are interested in. Proponents seem to
want to use the nonlocal, nonclassical aspects of quantum mechanics to
connect the human consciousness to a kind of universal consciousness or
to long-range supernatural abilities. Although it isn't impossible that
these effects may be observed, they have not been found at present, and
the burden of proof is on those who claim that these effects exist.
The ability of humans to transfer information at a distance without a
known classical physical mechanism has not been shown.
