http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/skunk.htm
Being the skunk at an atheist convention
Most scientists and philosophers assume consciousness emerges from
complex computation among brain neurons and synapses acting as
indivisible bits, or information states. Penrose and I suggest that
consciousness involves processes at deeper levels, specifically
sequences of quantum computations (~40 per second) in structures
called microtubules inside brain neurons. The quantum computations we
propose link to neuronal-level activities, and are also ripples in
fundamental spacetime geometry, the most basic level of the universe.
One implication of our model relates to a possible scientific basis
for secular spirituality (unrelated to any organized religious
approach). I should say that Roger avoids discussion of such
implications, but I’ve been willing to raise this possibility.
For me, spirituality implies:
Interconnectedness among living beings and the universe
A ubiquitous reservoir of cosmic intelligence/Platonic values in
touch with our conscious choices and perceptions
Existence of consciousness after death
Can these issues be accounted for scientifically? I believe they
possibly can.
Interconnectedness – Conscious minds and unconscious processes may be
quantum entangled.
Cosmic intelligence/Platonic values – Penrose suggested in his 1989
book The emperor’s new mind that Platonic values including
mathematical truth, ethical values and beauty were embedded in the
fine structure of the universe, specifically in fundamental spacetime
geometry at the inifinitesimally tiny (and ubiquitous) Planck scale.
In a 1996 paper, Penrose and I further suggested that the precursors
of conscious experience were also embedded in Planck scale geometry.
In our theory, conscious choices and perceptions are affected by this
universal Platonic information which Penrose termed non-computable
influence. I liken such proposed influence on conscious choices to
“following the way of the Tao”, or “Divine guidance”.
Conscious existence after death – In my view, consciousness occurs at
the level of Planck scale geometry amplified to quantum coherence/
computation in brain microtubules. When metabolic requirements for
quantum coherence in brain microtubules are lost (e.g. death, near-
death), quantum information pertaining to that individual may persist
and remain entangled in Planck scale geometry.
Taken as a whole, these ideas may be considered a plausibility
argument for scientific, secular spirituality.
In November 2006 I was invited to a meeting at the Salk Institute in
La Jolla, California called “Beyond Belief” (http://
beyondbelief2006.org/). Other speakers and attendees were
predominantly atheists, and harshly critical of the notion of
spirituality. They included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Patricia
Churchland, Steven Weinberg (the least venal), Neil deGrasse Tyson
and others who collectively vilified creationists and religious
warriors. But the speakers also ragged on the notion of any purpose
or meaning to existence, heaped ridicule on the very possibility of a
God-like entity (and those who believed in such an entity), declared
that scientists and philosophers should set society’s moral and
ethical standards, and called for a billion dollar public relations
campaign to convince the public God does not exist.
Near the end of the first day came my turn to speak. I began by
saying that the conference to that point had been like the Spanish
Inquisition in reverse - the scientists were burning the believers.
And while I had no particular interest in organized religion, I did
believe there could be a scientific account for spirituality.
After pointing out faulty assumptions in conventional brain models
for consciousness and summarizing the Penrose-Hameroff theory, I laid
out my plausibility argument for scientific, secular spirituality,
suggesting cosmic connections and influence in our conscious thoughts
occurred via quantum interactions in microtubules. I closed with a
slide of the DNA molecule which emphasized it’s internal core where
quantum effects rule, suggesting a Penrose non-computable influence
in genetic mutations and evolution (aimed at Dawkins in the form of a
quantum-based intelligent design).
At the end a few people clapped loudly, but most sat in steely
silence. The moderator and conference organizer Roger Bingham said I
had enraged nearly everyone in the room. Indeed, I had raised a
stink, and felt (happily) like the skunk at an atheist convention.
Comments from the audience were negative, but off base. Physicist
Lawrence Krauss said my suggestion of backward time effects in the
quantum unconscious (indicated by experiments, and required to rescue
consciousness from its unfortunate characterization as epiphenomenal
illusion) were impossible. He was apparently unaware of the
verification of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiments which precisely
prove such backward time effects. Krauss also questioned the
possibility of biological quantum computation at brain temperature,
but I pointed to evidence for warm quantum coherence in biological
photosynthesis. Neuroscientist Terry Sejnowski attempted to criticize
my view, but floundered, unable to explain how his conventional
approach could explain 40 Hz gamma synchrony EEG (the best measurable
correlate of consciousness) without quantum effects.
Our theory also chafes proponents of artificial intelligence (“AI”,
including advocates of the so-called Singularity) who assume
consciousness results from interactions among neurons with no
consideration of deeper activities or quantum mechanisms. Along these
lines I recently spoke at Google in Silicon Valley, my talk being
titled A new marriage of brain and computer – Why the Singularity is
bogus. That talk is at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2069501759514424839
I am not by nature confrontational, but am happy to debate scientists
and philosophers who oppose our theory. Atheism does not hold the
scientific high ground. Secular spirituality based on quantum biology
and the physics of spacetime geometry is a viable and important idea.
I am not offering or suggesting any proof, just a plausibility argument.
(Stuart Hameroff)