Advertisement

No-Collapse Physics and Consciousness

  • Chris Clarke
Chapter
Part of the Mindfulness in Behavioral Health book series (MIBH)

Abstract

This chapter first reviews strands of work in philosophy, psychology and physics which, taken together, undermine the world-views of both the Cartesian duality of body and soul, and the mechanistic picture of a system governed only by universal deterministic law. Starting from an alternative polarity suggested by recent work in psychology and using established ideas from modern quantum physics, a provisional structure is presented for an alternative world view. The consequences of this for future research are indicated.

Keywords

Quantum State Quantum Theory Pineal Gland Classical Logic Explicit Consciousness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander, S. (1920). Space, time, deity. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Batthyany, A. (2009). Mental causation and free will after Libet and Soon: Reclaiming conscious agency. In A. Batthyany & A. C. Elitzur (Eds.), Irreducibly conscious: Selected papers on consciousness (p. 135ff). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
  3. Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2, 200–219.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, C. J. S. (2001). The histories interpretation: Stability instead of consistency? Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(2), 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, C. J. S. (2007). The role of quantum physics in the theory of subjective consciousness. Mind and Matter, 5(1), 45–81.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, C. J. S. (2008). A new quantum theoretical framework for parapsychology. European Journal of Parapsychology, 23(1), 3–30.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, C. J. S., & King, M. (2006). Laszlo and McTaggart – in the light of this thing called Physics, Network Review (pp. 6–11). Winter 2006.Google Scholar
  8. Clayton, P. D. (2004). Emergence: Us from it. In J. D. Barrow, C. W. Davies, & C. L. Harper Jr. (Eds.), Science and ultimate reality (pp. 577–606). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Quincey, C. (2002). Radical nature: Rediscovering the soul of matter. Montpelier: Invisible Cities Press.Google Scholar
  10. Donald, M. (1990). Quantum Theory and the Brain, Proceedings of the Royal Society Series A, 427 (pp. 43–93). LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Döring, A., & Isham, C. (2011). “What is a thing?” Topos theory in the foundations of physics. In B. Coecke (Ed.), New structures for physics, lecture notes in physics (Vol. 813, pp. 753–941). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Dowker, F., & Kent, A. (1996). On the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 82, 1575–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  14. Giulini, D., Joos, E., Kiefer, C., Kupsch, J., Stamatescu, I.-O., & Zeh, H. D. (1996). Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Goddard, L., & Routley, R. (1973). The logic of significance and context (Vol. 1). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Griffiths, R. B. (1984). Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 36, 219–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (1996). Conscious events as orchestrated space-time selections. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(1), 36–53.Google Scholar
  18. Hartle, J. (1991). The quantum mechanics of cosmology. In S. Coleman, P. Hartle, T. Piran, & S. Weinberg (Eds.), Quantum cosmology and baby universes. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  19. Hawking, S. W., & Ellis, G. F. R. (1973). The large scale structure of space-time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heidegger, M. (1967). What is a Thing? (W. B. Barton Jr. & V. Deutsch, Trans.). Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.Google Scholar
  21. Ho, M.-W. (1998). The rainbow and the worm: The physics of organisms (2nd ed.). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  22. Hoyle, F. (1957). The black cloud. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
  23. Leibfried, D., Blatt, R., Monroe, C., & Wineland, D. (2003). Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75, 281–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lockwood, M. (1989). Mind brain and the quantum: the compound ‘I’. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. London, F., & Bauer, E. (1939). La théorie de l’observation en mécanique quantique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  26. London, F., & Bauer, E. (1983). The theory of observation in quantum mechanics (translation of the above). In J. A. Wheeler & W. H. Zurek (Eds.), Quantum theory and measurement (pp. 217–259). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Magyar, G., & Mandel, L. (1963). Interference fringes produced by superposition of two independent maser light beams. Nature, 198, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mathews, F. (2003). For love of matter: A contemporary panpsychism. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Matte Blanco, I. (1998). The unconscious as infinite sets: An essay in bi-logic. London: Karnac Books.Google Scholar
  30. McFee, G. (2000). Free will. Teddington: Acumen.Google Scholar
  31. McGilchrist, I. (2009). The master and his emissary: The divided brain and the making of the Western world. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Page, D. N. (2001). Mindless sensationalism: A quantum framework for consciousness. In Q. Smith & A. Jokic (Eds.), Consciousness: New philosophical essays (pp. 468–506). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Penrose, R. (2004). The road to reality: A complete guide to the laws of the universe (pp. 846–856). London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  35. Premack, D. G., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Radin, D. (1997). The conscious universe. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  37. Routley, R., Plumwood, V., Meyer, R. K., & Brady, R. T. (1982). Relevant logics and their rivals, part 1, the basic philosophical and semantical library. Atascadero: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
  38. Savile, A. (2005). Kant’s critique of pure reason: An orientation to the central theme. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Schlosshauer, M. (2006). Experimental motivation and empirical consistency in minimal no-­collapse quantum mechanics. Annals of Physics, 321, 112–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skrbina, D. (2005). Panpsychism in the west. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  41. Squires, E. J. (1994). Quantum theory and the need for consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1(2), 201–204.Google Scholar
  42. Steiner, G. (1989). Real presences. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  43. Teasdale, J. D., & Barnard, P. J. (1993). Affect, cognition and change: Remodelling depressive thought. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. van Atten, M. (2009). The development of intuitionistic logic. In N. Edward Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition). Retrieved, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/intuitionistic-logic-development/.
  45. Van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  46. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The embodied mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Velmans, M. (2000). Understanding consciousness. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wheeler, J. A. (1994). At home in the universe. New York: AIP.Google Scholar
  49. Whitehead, A. N. (1920). The concept of nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Zeh, H. D. (1970). On the interpretation of measurements in quantum theory. Foundations of Physics, 1, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of MathematicsUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations