SciAm: Beyond Physicalism

Beyond Physicalism: Philosopher Hedda Hassel Mørch defends the idea that consciousness pervades the cosmos

John Horgan interviews

Horgan: I’ve argued that we will never find a single solution to the mind-body problem. What do you think?

Mørch: I think we already found it, the problem is just to convince more people!

Horgan: What about quantum mechanics? Does it have anything to do with consciousness?

Mørch: As I said, science only captures the physical world “from the outside”, or more precisely, in terms of its relational structure, and this also holds for quantum mechanics. Some seem to think quantum structure is more likely to be connected to consciousness than classical structure, perhaps because features such as indeterminism and non-locality are perceived as distinctively mentalistic. But as I see it, any kind of physical structure is equally in need of an “inside” or an intrinsic, and therefore conscious, basis. 

One might think quantum entanglement has something to do with mental combination, that is, with how simple particle consciousness combines into complex human and animal-type consciousness. This is roughly because an entangled system is irreducible to the sum of its parts similarly to how combined consciousness seems to be, and perhaps also because, within a conscious mind, information seems to be shared instantly between all its parts, which can also be seen as similar to how entanglement works. One problem with this idea, though, is that our combined consciousness is confined to the brain, but entanglement is not, insofar as evidence suggests that the whole universe is an entangled system.

To paraphrase Hugh Hefner of Playboy fame, mainstream philosophers and survival metaphysicians are talking about the same concepts. One of them is very wrong.

This paragraph from the article tells it all: "Dualism implies that consciousness doesn’t matter. Physical science shows no sign of any non-physical forces causally influencing the brain or body—everything seems explainable in neurological, electrochemical, or other physical terms. So if consciousness is wholly distinct from the physical world, as dualism says, it probably doesn’t influence our actions at all; it’s purely epiphenomenal."

Sciborg, the last sentence in your quote also betrays a body-0centric perspective: "One problem with this idea, though, is that our combined consciousness is confined to the brain, but entanglement is not, insofar as evidence suggests that the whole universe is an entangled system."

Before panpsychism was monism. I think the difference is that monism assumes that the arrow of creation is from the greater reality into the physical in much the same sense of the "Big Bang." Panpsychism can be seen as equivalent to monism but perhaps more a mechanism than the fundamental concept. As it is used, panpsychism is seen by mainstream philosophers as the arrow of creation pointing from the physical.

From the perspective of survival metaphysics I study, dualism requires that consciousness is primary and brain is ... well, it is incidental. To begin to explain any aspect of consciousness with "Physical science shows ... " reveals a physicalist point of view. That is like the proverbial blind man trying to define the elephant by holding its nose.

From the perspective of survival metaphysics I study, dualism requires that consciousness is primary and brain is ... well, it is incidental. To begin to explain any aspect of consciousness with "Physical science shows ... " reveals a physicalist point of view. That is like the proverbial blind man trying to define the elephant by holding its nose.

I pretty much agree with your criticism but I do have to hesitate at the idea of the brain being incidental. At the least the brain is coming out of the rules/regularities we find ourselves in, but beyond that it seems consciousness - in this life at the least - is very tied to structure, so much so it's hard to see the brain as incidental. [I'm also more partial to Neutral Monism than Idealism, but not sure it really matters...]


I'm curious about survival metaphysics, do you mean the kind of essays in Beyond Physicalism, the book put out by Esalen?

First "survival metaphysics." I began using the term in my writing after spending a lot of time trying to explain the dominant points of view represented in parapsychology. All parapsychologists study things paranormal such as psi functioning and mediumship but some do so as skeptic physicalists. Those are simply debunkers.

Some parapsychologists accept that some experiences reported as paranormal are likely mundane, but that some are better explained using the Psi Field Hypothesis. In that, they speculate that there is a subtle field of influence (they still use energy) permeating the physical. This is a concept similar to Bohm's Implicate Order. Psi = psychic-like mental functioning and the Psi Field is modeled as the medium for the propagation of psi.

Parapsychologists do not name themselves very well, so to discuss their work, I have pinned these names on them but cannot speak for them. Certainly, I am not one, as I have a BS in engineering and not a Ph.D.

A very few parapsychologists also accept the possibility of postmortem survival of consciousness. However, consciousness is usually discussed by them in terms of physical energy and consciousness arising from the brain. Thus, they use the survival hypothesis in terms of the conservation of energy. Deciding the elephant is a tree.

Very few parapsychologists even give Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC) a thought. An exception being Mark Leary Ph.D. who invited me to co-author a piece for the Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century. The characteristics of ITC represent part of the elephant paranormal.

To differentiate between biological consciousness and consciousness that existed prior to this lifetime and will continue to exist after in a self-aware sentient form, I have recently begun referring to my work as survival metaphysics.

My comments in the previous post were from the perspective that dualism means a non-biological origin of consciousness. A few reasonably well-established characteristics of consciousness need to be addressed by any theory:

• One is that its effects are nonlocal. In effect, everywhere is here. This is evident in ITC and is part of the Psi Field Hypothesis.
  
• There is no apparent way to shield physical space from conscious perception.
  
• Life appears in an apparent nested hierarchy that is organized external to the biological organism.
  
• Most importantly, there is good evidence that postmortem consciousness is sentient and self-aware.
  

I have tried to delineate the characteristics of survival in the Trans-Survival Hypothesis essay. 

If a philosopher or a scientist is to speculate about the nature of consciousness, nonphysical characteristics must be addressed. Nonlocality and inability to shield consciousness, at the very least, are not explained by currently understood physical concepts. 

The only viable model I am aware of that does address those characteristics is duality in the sense of non-biological consciousness. For that to make sense, it is necessary to develop the model from the perspective of consciousness. I expect better-qualified metaphysicians will have other models, but the one I have found most useful is that a person is an immortal personality entangled with a human for a lifetime. That is also the Spiritualist point of view, although they would use different words.

In that model, our human sends sensory signals to our conscious awareness by way of a mostly unconscious perceptual process. We send movement commands to the body. In that sense, the brain is a transceiver and the body is a drone. Except ... it is clear that entanglement also means we share worldview with our human and are mostly directed by human instincts unless we gain the self-awareness to impose conscious control. But then, that is a different story.

I think I have addressed these theories here before. I have a sense that they did not pass the smell test before and will likely not this time. I apologize for being so wordy. It is just that the concepts are specific and not intuitive.