“Triangles’ eye”. Lennart Rohde (1948).
Abstract: The article discusses developments in modern science that are
relevant to Platonic philosophy as well as Jungian concepts of ‘unus mundus’, the psychoid archetype,
and synchronicity.
Keywords: Orch OR, quantum brain, archetype, insect intelligence, Plato, Hameroff, Penrose, Jung.
Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has in “The Emperor’s New Mind – Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics” (1989)
sketched a model of mind as intrinsic to nature. According to the
Platonic viewpoint, mathematical ideas have an existence of their own. They inhabit an ideal Platonic world, accessible via the intellect.
Penrose believes that consciousness, via a non-algorithmic procedure, is
“closely associated with the sensing of necessary truths — and thereby [achieves] a direct contact with Plato’s world of mathematical concepts.” (p.556).
Penrose suggests that the human brain has access to the Platonic stratum
through a quantum process of ‘superposition’, similar to the workings of
a quantum computer (cf. p.568). Quantum superposition means that a physical
system (such as an electron) may remain in all its theoretically
possible states simultaneously. Yet, when observed, it collapses and
gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations.
In a quantum computer, a qubit (quantum bit) can exist in its two
possible states — one or zero — simultaneously. This allows for a very
powerful parallel computation capacity, even if the processor has
recourse only to few qubits.
It is at the very moment of superpositional collapse that conscious
awareness is momentarily created, in the sense of a realization of a
solution. Since quantum phenomena of superposition and ‘entanglement’
(when particle states are interdependent over distance) occur
spontaneously in nature, the phenomenon of mind is independent of a
neural network. From an evolutionary perspective, both ‘mind’ and
primitive calculative ability have existed prior to the emergence of
biological neurons.
Note that the choices resulting from the quantum state reduction are not
random, but are influenced by Platonic information embedded at the
Planck scale of space-time, which is today viewed as foundational to the
fabric of the universe. Thus, the evolution of the material universe and
the biological systems, including consciousness, is informed by Platonic
rules that reside at the most fundamental space-time level of ‘quantum
foam’ (‘space-time foam’). At the Planck scale, according to the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, energy may momentarily decay into any
kind of particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without
violating physical conservation laws. Thus, ‘creatio ex nihilo’ occurs
uninterruptedly at the smallest scale, following the embedded Platonic
rules.
According to the Copenhagen theory, what causes the reduction of the
quantum state (that is, the collapse of the wave function), is the
intervention of a conscious observer. However, this gives rise to
serious logical difficulties, such as the “Schrödinger’s cat” paradox.
Penrose instead postulates an ‘objective reduction’ (OR), which means
that the quantum state may spontaneously collapse without any form of
interaction or conscious measurement activity. Reduction, as a
non-random and non-algorithmic process, instead depends on a certain
factor of space-time geometry. It functions very much like the half-life
principle in radioactive decay. Since the reduction of the quantum state
can give rise to a moment of ‘proto-conscious experience’ (yet is not
caused by a mind-event), the Copenhagen interpretation is stood on its
head, in a sense.
The question is whether the brain can harbour superpositional states at
biological temperatures. Stuart Hameroff has suggested that the
‘microtubules’, inbuilt in each neuron in great numbers, could serve the
function of supporting and protecting the quantum phenomenon, thus
turning the brain neuron into a quantum computer, in a sense.
Microtubules, which are microscopic nanotubes made of the protein
tubulin, contain sectors where electrons move at close proximity to each
other. Theoretically, these electrons could become quantum entangled.
Recent research at the National Institute for Materials Science in Japan
has revealed that quantum vibrations occur in microtubules, a fact which
seems to strengthen the quantum computation hypothesis (cf. Hameroff &
Penrose, 2014).
Microtubule quantum states can extend by entanglement between adjacent
neurons, whereas the quantum computation is “orchestrated” by a feedback
process. Thus, the process has been termed “Orchestrated Objective Reduction” (Orch OR). Since the particular type of non-random and
non-computable selection, pertaining to objective quantum reduction, is
characteristic of choices made in consciousness, it serves to explain
our capacity of free will. Accordingly, the two choices of sushi and
pasta exist in a superpositioned quantum state, which will result in a
collapse not determined beforehand.
Thus, according to the Orch OR theory, consciousness is a process that
cannot be described algorithmically since the quantum wave function
collapse is non-computable as a fundamental physical process. The
conclusion is that consciousness does not arise from neural
computational activity as an epiphenomenon. In fact, consciousness is an
intrinsic feature of the action of the universe. The elementary acts of
human consciousness ought to be realized as an objective wave function
collapse, which implies the reduction of coherent superposition states
in microtubules. These occur throughout the biological kingdom, but are
especially prevalent in the human brain.
Penrose’s suggestion of a non-computable ingredient required for human
consciousness and understanding, belongs to the archetypal or Platonic
conception. Since the quantum phenomenon is relevant to the scales that
are pertinent to the operation of our brains, there is a connection
between the unconscious psyche and the Platonic stratum. This connection
is postulated by Jung.
Physicist Shan Gao has augmented the superposition concept with a notion
of quantum superpositions of definite conscious perceptions (cf. Gao,
2011). He says that it leads to a stronger unified quantum theory of
matter and consciousness, akin to panpsychism. A conscious process that
involves quantum computation would invoke parapsychological phenomena,
such as telepathy, in the way of a non-local quantum process of
information transference between two entangled brain systems (cf. Gao,
2006, pp.167ff). Yet, it is problematic that the notion of
‘consciousness’ is used in a context where psychologists would prefer
‘psyche’ or ‘mind’. To a psychologist, ‘consciousness’ denotes merely a
minor part of the psyche, since the unconscious harbours most of the
mental activity. Confusion sometimes occurs, because we do not know if
the authors mean ego consciousness or the psyche as a whole.
Carl Jung has formulated a theory of similar Platonic hue in his concept
of the ‘unus mundus’ — a ‘psychoid’ layer of ‘objective knowledge’ that
underlies both matter and psyche. It means that the psychic element is
equally fundamental to the universe as the material element. He has,
however, confounded the theory by recourse to Kantian notions of
absolute transcendence. It neither makes sense nor accords with the
Platonic conception. However, mathematical truths are of central
importance, especially the natural numbers. M-L von Franz (1974) analyzes the
mathematical Platonic forms in terms of their qualities and not their
logical properties. Thus, the qualities of the whole numbers are
believed to be the most fundamental archetypes — a notion that we also
find in Proclus (412-485 C.E.). Neoplatonic thought, it seems, favoured
a more ‘psychic’ interpretation of the Platonic forms. For instance, in
Diogenes Laërtius, book 6, Plato engages Diogenes the Cynic:
When Plato was discoursing about his “ideas,” and using the nouns “tableness” and “cupness;” “I, O Plato!” interrupted Diogenes, “see a table and a cup, but I see no tableness or cupness.” Plato made answer, “That is natural enough, for you have eyes, by which a cup and a table are contemplated; but you have not intellect, by which tableness and cupness are seen.”
Perhaps mathematical truths could also be viewed as qualitative. It
implies that the dynamical collapse theories (such as Orch OR) would be
able to account for qualitative mental experience (such as colour),
since the foundational qualities (but not their combinations) are
determined by quantum interaction with the very fabric of the universe.
Thus, it is not only the collective source of truth and ‘meaning’ — it is
the collective source of perceptive qualities, too. After all, it is
mysterious that insects have the same exquisite taste for colour and
perfume as humans. They like Lily of the valley and roses, too.
It is remarkable what insects can do with their minuscule brains. In
some ways their perceptive capacity even exceeds ours. Insects can, in
fact, change their behaviour depending on the circumstances. “According to a growing number of studies, some insects can count, categorize objects, even recognize human faces — all with brains the size of pinheads” (Sohn, 2009, here).
Thrips are extremely small wasps. Megaphragma mymaripenne has one of the
smallest nervous systems of any insect, consisting of just 7,400
neurons, 4,600 of which are located in the brain. 95 percent of the
wasp’s neurons don’t even have a nucleus, which is the command centre of
the cell. They shouldn’t work, but they do. These wasps are perfectly
able to orientate themselves in space while flying. They have fine sense
organs with which they locate insect eggs of other species, in which to
lay their own eggs. It is very hard to explain how their brains are able
to build a representation of the outer world in real time and to make
computations as to how to cope with it. Yet, the calculative capacity of
the insect brain could be accounted for by microtubule quantum
calculation.
It seems that perceptual meaning is neither wholly subjective nor
transcends the environment, but that all species tap into a collective
source of meaning. It’s a great relief for the insects that they did not
have to invent a comprehensive representation of the world all by
themselves. References to research on insect intelligence can be found
on the following links. According to entomologist Lars Chittka, a few
thousand neurons could support consciousness.
Jung has suggested that the material and conscious actualization of the
unus mundus occurs through the acausal principle of ‘synchronicity’. It
implies that absolute ‘meaning’ underlies the event, in the form of a
meaningful coincidence, rather than meaningless causation. However,
according to Hameroff & Penrose actualization takes place as a result of
quantum state reduction. Thus, the Platonic layer can be attained by a
process of focusing and thinking, just as Plato said. The
non-algorithmic nature of the event means that the future is not
computable from the present, even though it might be determined by it
(cf. Penrose, 1989, p.558).
Martin et al. (2011) believe that causally inexplicable events really
exist and have suggested that the synchronistic phenomenon depends on
quantum entanglement. It has two aspects: either it involves the
unconscious of two persons having affective links or it occurs between
mind and matter. If two friends at a distance simultaneously buy two
identical neckties, it could be due to entanglement between the neurons
in their respective brains. Although this is less likely to occur than
quantum entanglement between neurons in the same brain (as per Orch OR),
it is not an implausible hypothesis.
Quantum entanglement, once it has been established, is independent of
distance (the current experimental record being 143 kilometers). It
leads the authors to postulate non-localized unconscious mental states
in space and time. “[Mental] states are not exclusively localized in the human brain. They are correlated to physical states of the brain (possibly via quantum entanglement) but they are not reducible to them” (ibid.).
If these theories are tenable, it amounts to a reinterpretation of
Jung’s controversial notion of unus mundus, including the psychoid
archetype and synchronicity, thus making the metaphysical edifice
compliant with science. The findings of mathematicians and physicists,
together with the discoveries of cognitive science (involving
‘unconscious metaphor’ and an unconscious form of cognition that is
characteristic of our species), appear to underpin the classic Jungian
notions of the collective unconscious and the autonomous archetype.
Thus, developments in science seem to contradict many post-Jungian
attempts to deflate central concepts of Jungian psychology in
concordance with phenomenology, post-structuralism, and Freudian
reductionism and operationalism.
© Mats Winther 2014.
References
Gao, S. (2011). ‘A Quantum Physical Effect of Consciousness’ in Kak, S. (ed.). Quantum Physics of Consciousness. Cosmology Science Publishers.
Gao S. (2006). Quantum Motion – Unveiling the Mysterious Quantum World.
Abramis.
Franz, M-L von. (1974). Number and Time. London: Rider & Company.
Hameroff, S. & Penrose, R. (2014). ‘Consciousness in the universe – A
review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory’. Physics of Life Reviews 11 (2014)
39-78. (here)
Hance, J. (2010). ‘Uncovering the intelligence of insects, an interview with Lars Chittka’. Mongabay. (here)
LiveScience Staff. (2009). ‘Bigger Brains Not Always Smarter’. LiveScience. (here)
Martin, F., Carminati, F. Galli Carminati, G. (2011). ‘Synchronicity,
Quantum Information and the Psyche’ in Kak, S. (ed.). Quantum Physics of
Consciousness. Cosmology Science Publishers.
Penrose, R. (1999). The Emperor’s New Mind – Concerning Computers, Minds
and The Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press. (1989).
Sohn, E. (2009). ‘Tiny insect brains can solve big problems’. NBCNEWS. (here).
University of Adelaide. (2010). ‘Tiny insect brains capable of huge feats’. ScienceDaily. (here)
See also:
Hameroff, S. Quantum Consciousness. (here)
Hameroff, S. ‘Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The
Penrose-Hameroff “Orch OR” model of consciousness’. (here)
Lewton, T. (2021). ‘Can quantum effects in the brain explain consciousness?’. NewScientist. (here)
Penrose, R. & Hameroff, S. (2011). Consciousness and the Universe:
Quantum Physics, Evolution, Brain & Mind. Cosmology Science Publishers.
