How deep is Rene Descartes' cut? How am I related to the paperweight on my table?(relation of matter and consciousness)

Abstract

How am I related to the paperweight on my table? The paperweight is matter and I am a conscious being. The question is a simplified version of a profound question, how is matter related to consciousness?

Introduction

Rene Descartes (1596-1650), a French mathematician, was the first to recognize consciousness in his publication, "Discourse on Methods." Cogito ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am," Descartes said. However, to keep the Church from interfering with scientific pursuits, he divided substances of the world into two categories, the Mind and the Matter. This cut is popularly known as the Cartesian cut.

There are various responses to this cut. The spiritualists, mystics and introspective philosophers do not accept this cut at all. The orthodox scientists and the communists, the followers of material monism, sense a great relief by almost eliminating mind/consciousness from their vision. The followers of consciousness-monism acknowledge it as a correct step since they think that consciousness could never be the domain of scientific research. Since then the disinterested scientific pursuit kept on working on this dualistic model of the Reality. However, the matter and mind (read consciousness) remain still unconnected. Larry Dossey, a medical doctor from the United States who envisions a unified paradigm, said in his Gandhi Peace Foundation address in India in 1987, "the greatest violence the human kind has ever done to its species is to separate mind from the body."

This 'cut' needs a critical reappraisal. The question "Is the cut deep enough?" has not been addressed. Because of this cut, consciousness and matter appear separated, not merely ontologically, but epistemologically, as well. One can have all relevant knowledge about matter without knowing consciousness at all. On the reverse, it is possible to learn about consciousness without knowing anything about the matter. Therefore, matter and mind are not only independent ontologically, but also epistemologically. That could be the reason why scientists often say that they can manage all in science without bringing this superfluous consciousness within it. On the other side of the token, the mystics rarely bother about what is happening in the matter front. Even if something has been there, it does not influence or affect their operational mechanics and experience on consciousness.

For further discussion of the issue, let us come to the original question, the relation between the paperweight on my table and myself. One may know all about the paperweight without knowing anything about me. One may learn all about me without knowing anything about this paperweight. Rene Descartes was right to that extent. Ontologically and epistemologically, the paperweight and I are completely independent like matter and mind anywhere, anytime (anywhere anytime. Probably not.). In a given space-time co-ordinate, the paperweight and I are independent entities, much like Mind and Matter are independent in the co-ordinates of ontology and epistemology. However, our independence is not true for anywhere anytime. The reasons are as follows.

I have been using this paperweight on my table for the past 20 years; it has been on my table since I joined this office. Everyday so many papers land on my table and this lovely paperweight sits on each of them at least once before or after my signature. This paperweight has witnessed all events that I have performed in the office. I can recall a few of the events when both of us felt attached to some important documents. Could the paperweight recall some of these events? When I say the paperweight has been witnessing my day-to-day activity for the past 20 years, I assume that it has gained a 'witness-consciousness.' The only difference is that it cannot express the way we conscious beings do. The paperweight and I are phenomenologically related, although a cognitive barrier exists between us. The phenomena that bind us are examples of surface phenomenology.

When my body falls apart, my space time-constrained life will no longer exist Similarly, the paperweight will one day be crushed into dust. The being and the thing experience similar existential lyses. The matter from my body and the matter of the paperweight may share or exchange electrons in their atomic shells. Our conditioned existence is demolished. Our existence is then reconditioned for a different new existence. Here my body and the paperweight occupy the same status in nature. We are again related, now at the level of elementary phenomenology.

Still there is another level of relationship, perhaps, the deepest aspect of our relations, at the level of depth phenomenology where the matter in my body and the matter in the paperweight might have transcended interstellar and intergalactic space to reach the inter-universal 'void' that exists between several universe(s). Suggestions of existence of such multiple universe(s) come from Black hole theory, Inflation theory and String theory. (1, 2) In the center of multiverse, the paperweight and I look identical. Some call us inter-universal essence; others call us consciousness.

The paperweight and I are related at another domain called axiology, the domain of mutual belongingness where we respect each other for the valued relationship. Values are the mutually agreed upon rules followed in a relationship for a mechanics for the sake of the game in which the members are engaged. When there is no play and no game, mutually agreed values are not required. Axiology is constituted by the spectrum of these systems of values connecting across the layers between matter and consciousness. In a stratified nature, the mutually-agreed value system between different layers of nature is reflected as laws of conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. Possibly there exist a law of conservation of information and a law of conservation of life, as well.

Axiology could be of two kinds: Surface axiology and depth axiology. Surface axiology is the system of values we treasure for surface (sensory) attachment. It is in the same sense we value ornaments used by Queen Victoria, the pen used by President Kennedy, or the furniture used by India's first Prime Minister in Teen Murti Bhavan, New Delhi. Deep within at the level of depth axiology, the paperweight and I are connected across the layers of nature, through the valued mechanics therein. There could be a bridge connecting the rules of the games to which, as a conscious being, I adhere, and the rules of mechanics to which as an inert matter the paperweight is bound. To be more explicit, the matter comprising the paperweight obeys some rules and follows a mechanics; the consciousness in me obeys some different rules and follows a different kind of mechanics. This mechanics of consciousness, which is not yet clearly known, and the mechanics of matter as we understand at the classical and quantum levels, are presumed to be connected at the deeper levels of Nature.

Nature is the domain scientists investigate. Consciousness is the domain for mystics. The scientists usually give up exploring the depth of nature, using excuses such as, "it is complexity," "this is self-organization," and "the cause is in information manifold." However, if we begin with the assumption that consciousness would be found at the deepest recess of nature and this "depth" is not endowed with mystical vagueness, and instead the depth could be measured by enumerating the number of layers/planes/nest in nature, we are contributing towards science.

The larger assumption in the present thesis is that nature has a multilevel organization and a nested hierarchy. Our understanding of nature as a space-time bound world (as perceived by our senses) is merely the classical world of Nature. Deeper within, nature has quantum characteristics. Coherent superposition, discontinuity and nonlocality characterize quantum behavior. Quantum energy/particle, though, cannot be recorded by senses; their effects are sensible in the classical plane. Scientists are still ignorant about what happens in the quantum discontinuity; they are also puzzled as from where all the particle/ wave/energy come. They call this quantum void. Quantum void and quantum discontinuity indicates that there could be a sub-quantum nest of nature. It is probably the nest where elementary phenomenology is engaged in deconditioning and reconditioning of existence of the being and the thing.

When as a conscious being, I lose my body and get into the terrain of elementary phenomena, I come across nature consciousness, which was embodied in the system as 'self.' I find 'self' as an extension of unconditional consciousness with three informational inputs: The self is (i) informed that it is an individualized unit of unconditional consciousness-as-such, (ii) informed that it is to behave this way or that way within the constrains of the given system/brain, and (iii) informed that, although it can behave independent of the system/brain, it could actually be the bridge between system/brain-bound and system/brain-independent consciousness. Deeper still is the true nature of consciousness, the nature of all natures, the creative nature, natura naturans, Mother Nature. Therefore, the rest of the nature could be called created nature, natura naturata. Creative nature (natura naturans) is connected with created nature (natura naturata) of classical and quantum nests through a transformative nature in the elementary plane/nest. The presumptive evidence for connection between elementary terrain (sub-quantum nest) and the nature of consciousness (a sub-sub-quantum nest) comes from experiments on A-life and genetic algorithm, which raise our expectation that there must be a 'programmer,' a prior information manifold that is responsible for the program executed by the genome. Michael Levin considers this evidence could be used to build a bridge between creationists and evolutionists. (3)

Numerically stated, different nests of nature could be classified as classical nest (I), quantum nest (II), elementary nest (III), nest of Mother nature (IV), and the nest of unconditional consciousness (V). These nests are the divisions of an indivisible and total Reality. These five divisions seem to be indissoluble wedded (Five in One, a Pentaune model of the Reality), although every nest independently could carry on their routine chore with specific currency (e.g. energy, field, information and form, etc.). For the transit of any event from one nest to another the 'currency' should be accordingly converted. (4)

Consciousness in nest III of nature is consciousness as it seems (phenomenal), while in nest IV, consciousness is as consciousness does (causal). Seeming consciousness remains incomplete excluding the causal consciousness. Causal consciousness remains incomplete if we ignore unconditional consciousness of nest V.

For both neurocentric and natureconsciousness, nests V and IV are jointly concerned with genesis of 'will,' nest IV deals with intent and purpose, and nest III with the context and meaning of the events observed in nests II and I. The 'meaning' and the 'purpose' at the level of philosophy boils down to information mechanics (depending on location, content, context, propensity and trajectory of information) at the level of scientific formulation. Conditioning of unconditional consciousness begins with informational corruption. The root of axiology could be found in the nest IV of nature.

At present, there is no concrete evidence to support the proposition of the Penatune model of natureconsciousness. However, a few examples can be cited where human minds have documented their visions in this direction. Frontier Perspectives, in its 'invited opinion' section, published an article by Ronald Pearson titled, Consciousness as a sub-quantum phenomenon. (5) Recently, Van Gulick has summarized the multi-revolutionary view of consciousness proposed by Roger Penrose, Colin McGinn and Michael Lockwood by stating that we fall short of doing enough both in matter and mind fronts, which could enable us to connect the two. (6) The proposed Pantaune model extends matter front from nest II to nest III, and pulls down unconditional consciousness (nest V) into nest IV. Noble Laureate Brian D. Josephson draws a correspondence between physical reality and subjective experience. (7) According to him, classical physics corresponds to sensory experience, quantum physics corresponds to celestial experience and an unmanifest order corresponds to transcendental experience. This unmanifest order of Josephson could be what we describe as nests III, IV and V of nature. If not exactly the same, the proposed model has many similarities with Pancha Kosha (described in Taittiriya Upanishad, where one gets from outside inwards Annamay Kosha, Pranamay Kosha, Manomay Kosha, Vijnanamay Kosha and Anadamay Kosha in description of total reality).

Could there by any logical basis to delineate nature into five such nests? Supposedly, yes. All descriptions of Reality are perceived realities. It is uncertainty that limits our cognitive ability. Uncertainty in observation imposes epistemological constrains. Perceived uncertainty in describing simultaneously paired properties, which are canonically conjugate to each other in Hamiltonian sense (e.g. position and velocity or angular momentum and angular position, energy of the particle and the time at which it is measured), is the characteristic of nest II of nature. In classical plane, no such uncertainty is encountered. In nest III, the perceived uncertainty in observer-dependent reality is between properties of the object and its very existence! In nest IV, perceived uncertainty is encountered between existence and non-existence. Properties are totally irrelevant here. In nest V, perceived uncertainty is seen between non-existence and a new existence! Unconditional consciousness as a perceived reality either does not exist or it exists as a reality, which is new, novel and hither-to-unknown, every time one tries to observe and describe it. Four levels of perceived uncertainty, therefore, determine four different depths of nature beyond the classical plane. Uncertainty is measurable and is an issue for science.

Assumption of nested hierarchy in organization of nature leads us to a situation where Mind (read Consciousness) and Matter could remain connected phenomenologically and axiologically. Their apparent independence as different ontological and epistemological entities is perhaps a surface phenomenon. Cartesian cut is, therefore, not deep enough. The knife seems to have gotten stuck at the level of phenomenology and axiology of relationship, nest III and nest IV of nature.

The original question still haunts me. Could Descartes cut the Matter and Mind (read Consciousness) even superficially? Are ontology and epistemology determined merely by surface (sensory) characterization? There is doubt. It is perhaps true only when we are merely confined to a kind of perception only through sensory antennae or their extensions, such as a microscope, stethoscope, telescope or sensor, etc. That is perhaps true when we distinguish ontological and epistemological status on the basis of our sensory experience only.

However, when we consider three kinds of perception--namely sensory, extrasensory and non-sensory--even then the ontological and epistemological distinction between Mind and Matter appear irrelevant. We have reached the moot question: Does an animal with a well-defined brain, say a human being, interact with his or her environment only through five sensory routes? Doesn't it have openness or access to environment, the ecosystem through any route other than the five senses? If NOT, then how are we different from a zombie or a thermostat (which adjusts itself sensing the environmental temperature)? How does an organism that does not have any sensory antennae communicate and react with the environment? If YES, could the extra- and non-sensory perception be explained by means of complexity in information processing? Or, if there exists a special route for perception, what could it be? Why, then ordinarily, are we not aware of it?

Let us look at some common examples of non-sensory perception. Precognition is not a sensory phenomenon. The sensory apparatus, as we know anatomically or physiologically, has nothing to do with it. It is a perception violating the barrier of communication through time. A few more examples of non-sensory perception could be cited from the behavior of a lover's brain or a visionary's brain. In love, it is very common to observe that when the lover jots down some query in the letter, the beloved has already responded to it. We call a person visionary when he can foresee a design, which his contemporary colleagues have dumped as a hoax. The suggestion therefore comes that we have additional routes meant for non-sensory communication, unmediated perception and direct experience. Where could this additional route be?

In prehistoric period, the people used to make holes at the top of the skull to let out the evil spirit. There is the widespread culture of blessing the young ones by touching or kissing the top of their heads. The spiritual master (Guru) blesses a disciple when the latter bows down his head at the feet of the former. The lineage of Greek philosophers from Socrates to Aristotle considered mind as a non-material entity working on the brain. One famous quote from Aristotle is, "The mind is attached to the brain." W. Penfield, the Canadian neurosurgeon at McGill University in Montreal concluded, "it is impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain." (8) Eccles and Popper described 'World III' on the top of the brain. (9) Their world III is concerned with the creation of new ideas specially those that have had no evolutionary advantage.

A few examples from the school of yoga could be cited when yogis are reported to have "eye" (vision) on the top of their head. Accomplished yogis feel a throbbing sensation on the top of the head quite frequently; they rub oil particularly on this area. Many meditators have also reported feelings of cold wave over this area. Asana by standing on head is prohibited in later stage of yoga.

Therefore, there is a possibility that the catchment area in the brain for this non-material consciousness, which acts on the brain-bound consciousness, is on the top layers of the cerebral cortex in and around the vortex of the brain. The structures involved are the dendritic "mat," or a number of independent spines on the apical dendrites of the cortical neurons over the upper three layers of the cerebral cortex. The category of information that is exchanged in this communication might be different from the information with which we are familiar! The mode of communication is likely to be nonlocal. One becomes aware of this "open" brain only when one's brain passes through nest III of nature. In nests II and I, one is unaware of this communication. Ordinarily in nests II and I, the cortical synapses are not used to and not trained to decode the kind of information encountered in nest III of nature. There is also the possibility that our neurons are constantly engaged in decoding sensory inputs, which in fact have been depriving them of learning the skill of decoding supracortical message. The passage of the brain through different nests of nature is the key for the transformation of the information processing system in the brain and the transformation of the being as a whole. Consciousness-brain relationship keeps on changing with this passage and accordingly, the self evolves or involves.

To sustain this informational openness of the cortex and to be able to handle nature at its different depth, the brain as a system needs an absolute phenomenological and axiological integrity. Without integrity, the system brain is unlikely to withstand the danger of getting informationally corrupt. It may even lose sanity in information processing. In absence of integrity, there also remains a possibility of the brain's information content being "hacked" by some outside agency.

To explore this proposition further, the cascade of synaptic barrier that guards this informational openness of the cortex could be dissected into three gating mechanisms: Mind gating, time gating and death gating. The practice of yoga and meditation may help in the synaptic training and therefore might facilitate mind gating. Time gating could be facilitated by the self's practice of active and conscious surrender of brain-bound consciousness to brain-independent consciousness. The passage of a willing brain through different phases of "death," (I mean an effort for conscious physical conquest of death), might make synaptic facilitation complete on time. All accomplished mystics across the spectrum of religions reported having at least one experience of passing through the complete length of death tunnel.

With our brain-bound consciousness, we become aware of this nature-consciousness outside the brain, which exists independent of our brain--or to say, for any brain anywhere any time, the experience one goes through could be termed as that of supracortical consciousness. Supracortical consciousness is not synonymous to the "absolute "consciousness of Hegel where all is One, or the non-dual consciousness of Sankaracharya, which is pristine and without any illusion or attributes (what the mystics term consciousness-as-such). Supracortical consciousness is a death-transcending evolutionary emergence--the first step of a cortically conscious brain towards this "Absolute Nonduality." In this situation, neuraxis behaves as if it is an inverted tree with roots in the eternity and branches below, down in the peripheral nerves, where the informational geometry in the neural manifold of the cerebral cortex is in dynamic harmony with that in the nature consciousness.

The human brain has a sensorimotor integration center in the brainstem and an integration center for motivation and emotion in the hypothalamus. The human brain has evolved to handle surface, elementary and depth phenomenology, but without a coordinating integrating center for it. The human brain, to a large extent, retains axiological integrity in severe conflicts of values, again without logistic support of any specific center for it. This may be an attempt for acclimatization in a situation where informational openness is responsible for an evolutionary new leap of the brain towards developing a phenomenological integration center. A center, which could coordinate the connection between direct unmediated experience with the sensory perception in an axiological context; a center, which could help for accomplishment of purpose of evolution of brain as an organ to unify consciousness within and consciousness without! In this sense, Human beings are transitional beings and at present are heading for Sahasrara chakra, what accomplished yogis have termed the highest chakra, at the crown of the head. From the Sanskrit word for "wheel, circle," Chakra in yoga terminology would be the integration center in a neurological term.

Conclusion

For an individual whose existence is deeply rooted in supracortical consciousness, Mind and Matter are indissolubly connected. The same is true for brain-bound consciousness and brain-independent nature consciousness. Man-made divisions are, therefore, integral divisions of an indivisible whole. In the Sanskrit language, there is a description of this indivisible reality known as Akhanda (indivisible) Realty. The paperweight and I, in this sense, are divisions of this Akhanda Reality.

References

(1.) Smolin, L. (1997). The Life of the Cosmos. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

(2.) Guth, A. H. (1997). The Inflationary Universe: The quest for a new theory of Cosmic origins. USA: Perseus Books.

(3.) Levin, M. (2005). "Evolution vs. Design: Genetic Algorithms may clarify the controversy." Journal of Scientific Exploration, 19 (1), 115-122.

(4.) Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (2000). The Millennium Bridge. New Delhi: Conscious Publications.

(5.) Pearson, R. D. (1997). "Consciousness as a Sub-quantum phenomena." Frontier Perspectives, 6 (2), 70-78.

(6.) Gulick, V. R. (2001). "Reduction, Emergence and Other options on the Mind/Body Problem. A Philosophic Overview." Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8 (9-10), 1-34.

(7.) Josephson, B. D. (2004). "Science and Religion: How to make the Synthesis?" Seven Noble Laureates on Science and Spirituality. Ed. T.D. Singh. Kolkata, India: Bhakti Vedanta Institute, 51-63.

(8.) Penfield, W. (1975). The Mystery of the Mind. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

(9.) Popper, K. R., Eccles, J. C. (1981). The Self and its Brain. Berlin: Springer International.

A. K. Mukhopadhyay, MD.

All India Institute of Medial Sciences, New Delhi- 110029.

mukhoak@aiims.ac.in