Evolution of Consciousness

1
Mind in the Cosmos

• Evolution of Consciousness

Christian de Quincey, Ph.D.
University of Philosophical Research Institute of
Noetic Sciences John F. Kennedy University
2
Session Ten
Course Review
3
Overview of Session 10

• In this final session we will recap what we have
  covered throughout the coursetying up loose
  ends, and connecting back into the key themes and
  topics covered along the way
• How our philosophical worldviews or stories
  impact the world we live in.
• Summarize the four different mind-body
  worldviews.
• Question the appropriateness of energy talk for
  exploring consciousness.
• Evaluate the potential for quantum physics to
  enlighten us about consciousness.
• Acknowledge and discern different ways of
  knowing.
• Decide whether we want our study of consciousness
  to lead to truth or wisdom (or both).
• And clarify what we mean by Mind in the Cosmos
  or The Cosmic I.

4
Cosmos Story
We began this course by looking at the impact
our stories have on the world around
usparticularly stories about the cosmos and how
we fit into nature. We saw that the dominant
story, or cosmology, describes a universe
beginning with a big bang about 15 billion years
agoa universe without the slightest trace of
mind or consciousness. In other words a
universe made up utterly of objective, physical
stuff a universe composed of dead matter or
energy.
5
Cosmos Story
Mind, or consciousnessso this story
goesemerged in the cosmos much, much later
(perhaps as recently as only a couple of million
years ago) when human nervous systems and brains
evolved. Mind, thenaccording to this storyis
a mysterious product of complex brains. Somehow,
we are told, the immense complexity of matter
found in brains is sufficient to produce the
interior cosmos of the mind. The rest of
natureperhaps extending to the rest of the
entire cosmoscontinues to be utterly mindless,
without any intelligence, purpose, meaning, or
value other than whatever human brains contribute
and project.
6
Cosmos Story
The only mind in the cosmos, then, belongs to
humans. Some versions of this dominant cosmology
story allow for the possibility that a few other
animal speciessuch as whales, dolphins,
elephants, chimpanzees, gorillas, and perhaps
dogs and some birdshave consciousness. But in
all cases, only those creatures with
highly-evolved brains could possess minds. It
is a very brain-centric story that excludes the
rest of the cosmos from participating in the
community of consciousness. And, as we saw, it is
also a highly human-centric story that places
human minds and intelligence above the rest of
nature. In fact, as I emphasized, it is a
story whose central motif is the assumption that
humans are special.
7
Cosmos Story
This idea of human specialness, we saw, is
common to both science and religion. We are
special, they say, because we have consciousness
and/or souls. We saw, too, that this idea of
human specialness and privilege implies a split
or separation between humans and the rest of the
natural world. And that this split has resulted
in a variety of ecological, societal,
philosophical, and personal crises. All because
of the particular story we tell ourselves about
the relationship between humans and the rest of
nature, between consciousness and the physical
world.
8
Cosmos Story
It is the story, or worldview, called
materialism. Materialism tells us that the
fundamental nature of reality is purely
physicalall that exists can be explained
ultimately in terms of the mechanics and dynamics
of matter or energyincluding consciousness. Co
nsciousness, we are told, is merely an emergent
by-product of electro-chemical processes in the
brain. Its as if consciousness is nothing more
than a kind of electronic glow or
luminescence dancing between the billions of
synapses in our brains. As if consciousness was
the biological counterpart of the blue-gray glow
on your computer monitor, or the hum of your hard
drive.
9
Cosmos Story
Philosophically, this position is deeply
problematic. It misses entirely the most crucial
characteristic of consciousness namely its
subjectivity. To repeat, the problem is this
How is it possible that wholly physical,
objective brains could ever produce something
that is neither physical or objective? How, in
other words, can we get subjective experience
from purely physical objects? No materialist
has ever been able to answer this. Instead, we
are asked to accept the story of materialism on
faith. We are asked to accept that it is
obvious minds emerge from brains, even if no-one
has the slightest idea how this could happen. But
such emergence was, and remains, nothing more
than an act of faithan act of faith that implies
acceptance of a miracle.
10
Cosmos Story
We are asked to have faith in materialismthat
one day, when all the facts are in, when
neuroscience has progressed sufficiently to
understand the intricacies of the brain, then we
will know the mechanisms involved in how the
brain produces consciousness. But this, we saw,
amounts to nothing more than promissory
materialism, and does not come close to meeting
the criteria of scientific knowledge. In fact, it
is nothing more than a metaphysical prejudice
masquerading as science. Its a story based on a
metaphysical assumption that the ultimate nature
of reality is purely physical.
11
Cosmos Story
But, as weve seen, it is a bankrupt
metaphysical position. As soon as we try to
account for mind in the cosmosfor the fact that
the universe includes consciousnessmaterialism
draws a blank. Given the worldview of
materialism, consciousness poses an apparently
insurmountable problem for both science and
philosophy. As weve seen, in philosophy the
problem is how to account for subjectivity in an
otherwise objective universehow to explain the
ontological jump from a wholly objective state of
reality (the state of the cosmos before any minds
evolved or emerged) and an utterly different
state of reality (where subjectivity, experience,
interiority now exists).
12
Cosmos Story
No-one has even come close to explaining how
this could be possiblehow, as one philosopher
put it, we could get the wine of consciousness
from the water of the brain without a miracle.
Such an ontological jump would indeed require a
supernatural interventiona miracle. And since
miracles have no place in philosophy, the story
of materialist emergence self-implodes under the
weight of a profound metaphysical contradiction.
13
The Hard Problem
In science, the problem is equally severe, for
similar and related reasons. Science, we know,
works by observation and measurement of objective
things and events. But there is no way to
objectively observe or measure consciousness.
Science deals with objects in space.
Consciousness is notoriously not located anywhere
in space. Science gains knowledge by
understanding mechanisms, but no mechanism
explains consciousness. So, when it comes to
mind or consciousness, both science and
philosophy face a profound crisiscalled the
hard problem.
14
Mind-Body Worldviews
Besides materialism, we explored three other
worldviews or ontologies that have attempted to
solve the hard problemdualism, idealism, and
panpsychism. To recap The problem for
materialism is to account for the emergence of
mind from wholly mindless matter without invoking
a miraclethe problem of emergence. For
dualism, the problem is to explain how two
utterly different and separate kinds of
realitymind and mattercould ever interact.
Again, such interaction would require a
miracle. For idealism, the problem is two-fold,
depending on the brand of idealism.
15
Cosmos Story
For maya idealism the problem shows up as a
performative contradiction. When an idealist
claims that matter is an illusion yet lives, or
performs, in the world in a way that contradicts
that claim, we would say, He or she doesnt walk
the talk. For emanationist idealism, the
problem is logically the same as it is for
materialismthough now in reverse. An
emanationist says the cosmos begins with pure
spirit, and then, through a series of step-down
constraints, becomes more and more dense until it
turns into real, dense matter. But how can you
get real matter out of wholly matterless spirit
or consciousness? Again, this would require a
miracle.
16
Panpsychism
Which leaves us with the fourth alternative
panpsychism. This worldview acknowledges the
reality of both matter and mind, and that neither
one has ontological priority over the otherin
other words, neither matter nor mind gives rise
to or can be reduced to the other. Furthermore,
because panpsychism does not assume any
separation between mind and matter it does not
require a miracle to account for their
interaction. And because it takes the view that
consciousness goes all the way down, it doesnt
have to account for emergence of mind from
mindless matter. Nor does it involve a
performative contradiction because it doesnt
claim matter is an illusion. And because it
doesnt put pure consciousness or spirit at the
starting gate, it doesnt face the difficulties
of emanationismof explaining how we could get
real matter from purely matterless spirit.
17
Panpsychism
Panpsychism seems the most likely story to
account for the fact that we live in a universe
with real matter and real mindbecause it doesnt
require a miracle. It sees both matter and mind
as natural, requiring no supernatural
intervention of any kind. As an alternative to
materialism, it is preferable not only because it
fits the facts much better, but also because its
implications for our ecological, societal,
personal, scientific, and philosophical wellbeing
are so much more appealing. And because
panpsychism takes the view that matter itself is
intrinsically sentientconsciousness goes all the
way downit means that all of nature (from
highly-evolved creatures with complex brains to
simplest organisms) tingles with the spark of
spirit.
18
Panpsychism
From the perspective of panpsychism, nature and
cosmos are suffused with mind and consciousness.
Literally, nature has a mind of its own, and so
does the cosmos. We call this cosmic mind, or
Cosmic I, God. And, like matter and mind, God
is naturalized, no longer seen as
supernatural. Looking out on the world
through the eyes of panpsychism, we see and
experience a world teeming with conscious,
sentient beingsall the way up, all the way down.
We see a sacred world, a world permeated with
soul and spirit, a divine world worthy of our
deepest respect and awe. And when we see and live
in the world with such eyes, we begin to relate
to nature differently. If we do so in time, we
may yet avoid Earth Crash and be around to
share in the magnificent unfolding of Earth
Spirit.
19
Panpsychism
With panpsychism, or radical naturalism, as I
call it, we can begin to tell ourselves a new
story, a different cosmology. And this new
story, we have seen, is actually a very old
storytold for countless millennia by indigenous
cultures around the world. If we urbanized
moderns begin to tell ourselves this different
story, and begin to benefit from living more
sustainable lifestyles, we will have a new and
ancient guiding philosophy. We will have a
philosophy that heals the mind-body and
human-nature split, a philosophy that accounts
for the presence of consciousness in an otherwise
physical universe. But we will still face the
problem of developing a science of the mind, a
science of consciousness.
20
A Science of Consciousness?
So far, modern science has been highly
successful in exploring the nature and dynamics
of matter, of the physical universe, but has not
been able to even begin a comparable study of the
nature and dynamics of mind. We saw why this is
so. The standard scientific method works
exclusively with observable and measurable
objective quantities. Yet consciousness is none
of theseneither observable with the senses or
any instruments, nor measurable in any way, nor
objective, nor quantifiable. Science works only
with objects and events in space. Consciousness
does not exist in space. So anyone interested
in developing a science of consciousness faces a
profound dilemma
21
Cosmos Story
Either, radically change the way science is done
by including different modes of inquiry, or give
up the hope of ever having a science of
consciousness. Expressed this way, the dilemma
reveals its own solution Clearly, if we do want
a science of consciousness, then science has to
radically change. Of all categories of study
and investigation, consciousness is unique. In
all other fields of inquiry, it is possible (at
least in theory) to assume a separation between
the subject doing the inquiry and the object
under investigation. When consciousness is the
focus of study, such separation is no longer an
option. Because now the subject itself becomes
its own objectthe beam of inquiry is turned
back on the very instrument of inquiry itself.
22
Cosmos Story
We have no option but to explore consciousness
using consciousness. As we saw, plate-glass
science will not work for investigating mind. We
can no longer assume a separation between subject
and object, between the knower and the
known. Instead, to study consciousness, we will
need a new kind of sciencelooking-glass
science, where the beam of inquiry is reflected
back on itself. Lets revisit the different
criteria for plate-glass and looking-glass
science
23
Criteria for a New Science

• Looking-Glass Science
• Subjectivity
• Engagement/Quality
• Meaning
• Growth
• Transformation
• Deep motivation Trust

• Plate-Glass Science
• Objectivity
• Measurement/Quantity
• Mechanism
• Prediction
• Control
• Deep motivation Fear

24
Cosmos Story
Besides the need for new criteria for science,
and different methodologies for doing science, we
saw that we will also need to come up with new
ways of talking about consciousness. Standard
scientific language draws heavily on mechanistic
metaphors and descriptorsbased for the the most
part on our dominant senses of vision and touch.
We know our way around the physical world by
relying greatly on what we can see and feel. A
great deal of scientific evidence relies on the
old maxim seeing is believing. And if you cant
see it, then touch it. And failing that, at least
measure it. Again, we cannot see, touch, or
measure consciousness. It just doesnt exist in
the universe in the way physical objects do.
25
Cosmos Story
Consciousness has a different kind of existence.
First, as we have seen, it is not an object. It
is the subject that studies or knows any object.
It has no extension in space. It cannot be
measured. It is neither big or small, heavy or
light, bright or dark, bitter or sweet, perfumed
or pungent, loud or silentexcept in some
metaphorical sense. Because of this, we saw
that energy talk is inappropriate for
discussing consciousness. Mind cannot be reduced
to the language of mechanismwhich is a
description of energy exchanges between physical
objects in space. Yet our habits of thought,
based on our dominant senses of vision and touch,
keep pulling us back to energy talk, even when
it is inappropriate.
26
Cosmos Story
Our task, then, is to find ways of breaking
these deeply engrained linguistic and conceptual
habits. In exploring consciousness, we need to
give up energy talk and the search for
mechanisms, and instead flex our mental metaphors
based in consciousness talk, replacing the
search for mechanism by a search for
meaning. Because consciousness does not exist
in space, it does not work by transference of
energy from one location to anotherit does not
work by mechanism. Instead, consciousness works
by sharing or participating in meanings.
27
Cosmos Story
Instead of words such as energy, vibrations,
waves, fields, mechanism, nonlocal, and
so on, to describe consciousness and how it
works, we need to make use of more appropriate
terminology for consciousness such as meaning,
purpose, intention, attention, feeling,
choice, desire, empathy, compassion,
altruism, curiosity, experience,
knowledge, wisdom, pleasure,
satisfaction, understanding, hope, faith,
certainty, honesty, integrity, love, as
well as less savory aspects of consciousness such
as pain, anger, hate, fear, grief,
dishonesty, ignorance, pride, laziness,
selfishness, greed, lonelinessnone of
which can be reduced to explanations in terms of
physical mechanisms.
28
Cosmos Story
Because consciousness doesnt exist in space, it
is not a form of energy, and therefore cannot be
accurately described using energy talk. And
because consciousness does not exist in space, it
means that when we talk of mind in the cosmos
we mean that mind is in the cosmos in a way
different from the way suns or galaxies are in
the cosmos, or the way a brain is inside a
skull. Consciousness exists in brains, and mind
exists in the cosmos, in the same way a feeling
exists in your bodye.g., the way the taste of
chocolate or a toothache exists in your body. The
experience of the taste or pain is real, but it
cannot be located anywhere in your body.
29
Cosmos Story
Open up a decayed tooth, for example, and you
will never locate the pain. You can only feel it.
Open up a brain, and you will never locate the
taste of chocolate. You can only experience
it. In the same way, mind is not located in the
cosmos. It is felt in the cosmos. It is the
capacity that the cosmos, and any of its
constituents, has for feeling. Mind is not in the
cosmos, so much as it is an ingredient of the
cosmos. Think of it this way the shape of a
tennis ball is not in the substance of the ball,
yet the shape is inseparable from the substance.
Analogously, mind is not in the cosmos, and
consciousness is not in matter, yet mind is
inseparable from matter. Matter tingles with
consciousness. Cosmos tingles with mind.
30
Cosmos Story
So, if mind is not in space, then how can
science ever study it? Well, one answer we
already looked at is that what we call science
will have to radically changeto become a
database not just of quantities but also of
qualities, or qualia. And science will have to
complement its historical reliance on mechanism
and energy talk with an openness to meaning and
mind talk. This does not mean that nothing in
the vast database of modern scientific
knowledgefrom quantum physics, neuroscience,
cognitive science, psychology,to anthropologycan
help in consciousness studies. These sciences
can be a great source of knowledge about
correlates of consciousnesssuch as what goes on
in the brain.
31
Cosmos Story
We just need to keep in mind that knowledge of
brain events is not the same as knowledge of mind
events. Brain does not equal mind. Studies of
the brain are third-person explorations of
objects in space. And these may very well be
useful for telling us what is going on in the
matter of the brain while its owner is having a
particular experience. But the experience per
se, is not in the brain, and therefore cannot be
an object for neuroscientific study. To study the
experience, we need a different approacha
first-person approach. The subject having the
experience needs to observe internally (through
meditation or introspection) what it feels like
to be having that experience.
32
Radical Empiricism
This approach leads to a very different
scientific databasea database containing
first-person experiential data, second-person
reported data, as well as conventional
third-person data about correlates of
consciousness. Instead of an exclusive reliance
on sensory empiricism (where the only acceptable
data are those gathered via the senses, for
example, through vision and touch), the new
science will adopt what philosopher-psychologist
William James called radical empiricism. In
radical empiricism, all data that show up in
experience (whether or not via a sensory channel)
are valid for scientific knowledge. And only data
that show up in experience are valid.
33
Noetic Science
Such a science is the only way forward for a
true science of consciousness. It is what we call
noetic science. Noetic sciences are
explorations into the nature and potentials of
consciousness using multiple ways of
knowingincluding intuition, feeling, reason, and
the senses. Noetic sciences explore the inner
cosmos of the mind (consciousness, soul, spirit)
and how it relates to the outer cosmos of the
physical world.
34
Noetic Science
A comprehensive science of consciousness would
include (1) First-person perspective by
supporting individuals to explore and develop
their own subjective consciousness (e.g.,
meditation and other spiritual practices).
Emphasis on inner knowing and personal
transformation. (2) Second-person perspective
by exploring and supporting transformative
relationships and intersubjective consciousness
(e.g., compassionate dialogue, community
building, a global wisdom society). Emphasis on
transformative learning and collective wisdom.
35
Noetic Science

• (3) Third-person perspective by gathering data
  about objective physiological correlates of
  consciousness (e.g., research using rigorous
  scientific protocols, including experiments in
  neuroscience, cognitive science, psi, mind-body
  healing, and subtle energies). Emphasis on
  scientific understanding.
• These are the complementary elements of a
  noetic science. All three perspectives value
  and employ multiple ways of knowingincluding
  intuition, reason, and the senses in varying
  combinations.

36
Cosmos Story
Besides advances in neuroscience, many people
are excited by discoveries and implications of
quantum physics, and believe that perhaps, here
at last, we have a science that will be an open
sesame to consciousness. But can we expect
quantum physics to bridge the gap between
third-person objective science and first-person
subjective science? For reasons Ive already
outlined, I dont think we should get too excited
about quantum physics as a source of knowledge
that might enlighten us about consciousness. Qua
ntum physics is still exclusively the study of
third-person objective entities.
37
Cosmos Story
Even though the observers consciousness seems
to be implicated in the collapse of the quantum
wave function, the data of physics are all
exclusively objective and quantifiable. No matter
how bizarre, counter-intuitive, or
paradigm-breaking the data of quantum physics may
be and no matter how deep into the structure of
the physical world this science takes us, it is
still all within the physical, objective
domain. Quantum physics is a third-person
science. It studies objective events, and
therefore does not inform us about first-person
subjective events. In short, quantum physics does
not tell us about consciousness. However . . .
38
Cosmos Story
Quantum physics may still be a useful source of
metaphors for understanding some aspects of
consciousness, even if cannot provide mechanisms
for understanding consciousness. And, as we saw
in an earlier lecture, quantum theory may provide
an opening into consciousness studiesif we
radically shift its metaphysical basis from
materialism to some form of idealism or
panpsychism. For instance, we saw that
psychologist Carl Jung found useful metaphors in
quantum physicsparticularly in relation to the
phenomenon of synchronicity. Other consciousness
theorists found insightful metaphors for
consciousness in the ideas of wave/particle
dualitywhere consciousness or awareness in
general is likened to a wave, and specific
thoughts or habits are compared with particles.
39
Cosmos Story
When viewed through the lens of the quantum, the
deep roots of the physical worldsubatomic
forces, quarks, quanta, superstringsevaporate
into ghostly swirls and patterns of energy that
behave nothing like matter as we know it.
Quantum physics, then, reveals the deep
foundations of physical reality to be very
immaterial indeedeven seemingly nonphysical. We
may be excused, therefore, for expecting that
quantum physics, because it deals with elusive
ghostly entities, may yet get us to
consciousness. One great physicist even remarked
that the universe begins to look less and less
like a great machine, and more and more like a
great thought.
40
Cosmos Story
And coupling the world of the micro in quantum
physics with the world of the macro in cosmology
we might even be excused for thinking that some
kind of quantum cosmology might yet lead us to
mind in the cosmoshelping to bridge the
perennial gap between the two cultures of science
and spirit. And indeed, this may be so. But,
again, only if we embrace a radically different
metaphysical foundation for both the quantum and
the cosmos.
41
Cosmos Story
We looked at three quantum cosmologies that
did just this Amit Goswamis idealist quantum
physics, and the idea of science-within-conscious
ness David Bohms implicate order, and its
practical application in human relations through
the practice of dialogue Arthur Youngs
theory of process and reflexive model, where the
quantum is consciousness and spirit, where the
physicists photon is identical to the mystics
divine light.
42
Self-Aware Universe
Amit Goswami takes a radically idealist approach
to quantum physics and science in general by
shifting to a foundational metaphysical
assumption where consciousness is the ultimate
reality. It is a form of emanationist
idealism. Instead of deriving consciousness
from the quantumas many more mainstream quantum
theorists attempt to doGoswami derives the
quantum from consciousness. He proposes that
all the apparent paradoxes encountered in the
quantum domain can be resolved by the simple
maneuver of positing consciousness as primary.
43
Self-Aware Universe
Consciousness, he says, begins by objectifying
itselfby becoming self-aware, thereby creating a
duality of subject and object. This, he says, is
the starting point for all manifest reality, and
it shows up as the phenomenon of quantum
entanglement that underlies the entire structure
of the physical world. So, for Goswami, the
sequence of manifestation is as
follows Consciousness gt Quantum gt Physical
World One fascinating aspect of Goswamis
thesis is what it implies for time and evolution.
44
Self-Aware Universe
According to his model, self-awareness, or
reflexive consciousness, is necessary for the
creation of the quantum world, and therefore for
all physical manifestation that follows from the
quantum. In other words, only when the first
living creature achieved self-awareness did time
and evolution come into being. For Goswami, this
happened with the appearance of the first living
cell. But this presents a problem How could
time and evolution depend on the appearance of
the first living cell if the cell itself had to
evolve? Where, in other words, did the first
living cell come from?
45
Self-Aware Universe
We know from cosmology that the universe existed
for billions of years before the appearance of
living cells. Yet according to Goswami, there
could have been no universe prior to the
self-awareness of the first living cell. This
seems to be a fatal paradox or flaw in Goswamis
model. But Goswami has an answeralbeit a
mind-boggling answer Drawing on his knowledge of
quantum physics, Goswami proposes that all the
events in the cosmos from the big bang
onwardsthe entire panorama of cosmic evolution
for 15 or so billion yearsexisted in potential.
46
Self-Aware Universe
Before the first living cell, all of physical
realityincluding the big bang and all that
followedexisted as quantum probabilities (a
spectrum of superimposed alternative realities)
lying in a kind of suspended animation until
one of those probabilities manifested as the
first living cell. At that momentat the birth
of the first living cellthe entire history of
life and cosmos, all the unfoldings of cosmic,
chemical, and biological evolution, came into
being. From potentia to actuality. Its as if
nothing existed in manifest physical reality, and
then, poof!, the first living cell popped into
being trailing its own entire evolution from the
big bang onwards. (You should read Goswamis The
Self-Aware Universe for his own account of this
process.)
47
Self-Aware Universe
As I said, its a mind-boggling scenario.
Whether or not you accept it depends on whether
you feel comfortable with the idea of a living
cell being able to evolve in the domain of
quantum probabilitiesa domain where there is no
time. How could anything evolveeven in quantum
potentialwithout time? What does evolution mean
without time? However, you may be willing to
suspend such questions if one of the pay-offs is
a model that otherwise offers you a way to solve
a host of other mind-boggling paradoxes in
quantum physics. You would be substituting one
mind-boggle for another. And perhaps, when it
comes to deep metaphysical issuessuch as the
origin of the universe, the relationship between
consciousness and the physical worldsome
mind-boggling mystery will inevitably remain.
48
Mind and Implicate Order
Amit Goswami offers one way of using quantum
physics to enlighten us about consciousness. But,
of course, as an idealist, he does so by assuming
that consciousness already pre-exists quantum
reality and the physical world. For Goswami,
consciousness is the source of the quantum, not
the other way around. David Bohm, also a
quantum physicist, takes a different approach.
Instead of positing consciousness as primary,
Bohm points to a reality deeper than the
quantuma reality he calls the implicate order.
According to Bohm, what we know as quantum
reality emerges from this deeper enfolded
implicate reality. And what we know as mind or
consciousness has its origins there, too. Bohm
tells us that both manifest subject (mind or
consciousness) and manifest substance (matter
or energy) arise out of a common deeper
unmanifest reality.
49
Mind and Implicate Order
Bohm avoids any miraculous supernatural
intervention to account for the emergence of mind
and matter from a mindless-matterless implicate
order. He tells us that the implicate order
itself possesses a kind of intelligence, or
mind, as well as a kind of universal source of
potential energy (sometimes referred to as the
zero-point energy field). So, in Bohms
cosmologyas in panpsychismsomething like mind
and matter already exist in the deep structure of
the implicate order. Again, like Goswami, he is
not proposing that quantum physics can lead us to
an understanding of how the physical world
generates consciousness. Instead, he tells us
that mind or consciousness was there right from
the start, along with some form of matter-energy.
50
Mind and Implicate Order
In other words, the quantumand therefore the
cosmosalready comes with some degree of
intelligence, mind, or consciousness. Alth
ough a highly-respected quantum physicist, David
Bohms lifework was concerned more with the
ethical implications of his physics than merely
with abstract, theoretical knowledge about the
quantum. He was deeply concerned about the
fragmentation he saw in the worldin science,
in society, in our personal lives, in our habits
of thought. And he used his knowledge of quantum
physics and cosmology to develop a way of
exploring the sources of such widespread
fragmentation. Bohm was passionate about
wholenessin all aspects of life. (To find out
more, read his Wholeness and the Implicate Order.)
51
Mind The Reflexive Universe
Both Goswami and Bohm used their knowledge of
quantum theory to throw light on the question of
mind in the cosmos. But they did so by rejecting
the standard foundational metaphysical assumption
of materialism, and instead proposed versions of
quantum physics informed, on the one hand, by
idealist philosophy, and on the other, by an
insight compatible with panpsychism. Which
brings us to our third, and final, cosmologist of
consciousness. Although a mathematician and
engineer by training, and not a professional
quantum physicist, Arthur M. Young spent much of
his intellectual life studying and teaching about
the quantum. We have explored his ideas in some
depth in this course, so here we will just
highlight some of the key points of his Theory of
Process.
52
Mind The Reflexive Universe
As we have seen, the central idea in Youngs
model is that the quantum is consciousness.
Unlike Goswami, Young doesnt give consciousness
priority over the quantum. And unlike Bohm, he
doesnt look for a reality deeper than the
quantum. With all its profound mysteries, the
quantum or photon is sufficient, says Young, to
account for all we know about consciousness and
the physical world. So, for Young, the cosmos
begins when pure, absolutely free and
unconstrained spirit or consciousnessthe
original quantum of actionchooses to constrain
itself. Each constraint equals a dimension of
manifest reality. The first constraint creates
the single dimension of time.
53
Mind The Reflexive Universe
The second constraint creates the two dimensions
of space (the third dimension of space we call
depth, is, according to Young, really the
dimension of time). The third constraint creates
the three-dimensional world of space-time
objectsthe manifest world of matter. Youngs
comprehensive theory offers a way to bridge the
gap between science and spirit. By making the
quantum the ultimate fundamental, he makes a case
that the physicists photon is identical to the
mystics diving light. The mysterious properties
of light, he says, hold the clues to uniting the
discoveries of physics with the insights of
mysticism.
54
Mind The Reflexive Universe
We saw that Youngs model is based on the
structure and dynamics of the reflexive arc.
Beginning with the dimensionless photon, the
cosmos comes into being by moving through four
levels and seven stages. The four levels
are Level 1 Spirit / Quantum / Photon Level
2 Time / Soul / Nuclear Forces / Emotions Level
3 Space / Atoms / Egoic Minds / Reason Level 4
Time-Space / Molecules / Matter
55
Mind The Reflexive Universe
The seven stages move through the four levels
via the four-fold cosmic process of involution,
turn, evolution, and return. The three stages
of Involution are Stage 1 Spirit / Quantum /
Photon Stage 2 Time / Soul / Nuclear Forces
Stage 3 Space / Atoms Encountering the Turn
at Stage 4 Time-Space / Molecules / Matter
Then beginning the ascent of Evolution
with Stage 5 Life / Cells Stage 6 Mind /
Self-reflective Consciousness / Stage 7 Spirit
/ Quantum / Photon (Return )
56
Different Ways of Knowing
Besides laying out a theory of the cosmos,
Youngs model also includes a comprehensive
epistemologydifferent ways of knowing the
different levels of reality. We can know Level
1 Spirit only through spiritual intuition (the
domain of the mystic) We can know Level 2 Soul
and Time only through nonsensory, nonrational
feeling (the domain of the shaman) We can know
Level 3 Space through reasoning (domain of the
philosopher) We can know Level 4-Time/Space
through the senses (domain of the scientist).
57
Different Ways of Knowing
Recognizing that different levels of reality
require different ways of knowing we see why a
purely scientific, materialist, rational
understanding of the world cannot reveal the full
story about reality. Even if we reject the idea
of levels of reality, it is still clear that a
purely sense-based, rational investigation of the
cosmos cannot comprehend all of reality. The very
fact that consciousness exists, as we have seen,
already rules out standard scientific
methodology. If we wish to have a science of
consciousness, it is clear that the only option
is for science to undergo a profound
transformation. Scientific methodology must
change to include nonsensory ways of knowing.
58
Different Ways of Knowing
And once we open up to extrasensory ways of
knowingonce we pay attention to our actual
experience of consciousnesswe soon realize that
there are at least two fundamentally different
modes of consciousness. In an earlier lecture,
we identified these as preconquest
consciousness postconquest consciousness Preco
nquest consciousness refers to the feeling-based
mode of awareness common to indigenous peoples
throughout the world. It is deeply relational and
dialogicala form of consciousness still anchored
to its roots in the body. It approaches truth
by finding out what feels good for the
community.
59
Different Ways of Knowing
Contrasted with this, modern postconquest
consciousness is reason-based, conceptual and
dialectical. It aims to arrive at knowledge by a
process of conflictpitching one truth against
another in the hope of arriving at a higher
synthesis. We saw that when these two modes of
consciousness encounter each other, reason-based
postconquest consciousness inevitably decimates
feeling-based preconquest consciousnesseven if
it doesnt intend to. However, we saw, too,
that this is true only if we assume a monolithic
approach to reason, and a truncated view of the
evolution of consciousness.
60
Different Ways of Knowing
First, postconquest reason would wipe out
preconquest feeling only if reason were the
endgame in the evolution of consciousness. But we
know that this is not the case. Spiritual
literature is full of accounts of people who have
transcended reason in mystical experiences. And,
unlike dialectical reasoning, mystical knowing
does not develop only at the expense of reason.
Mystical experience does not operate by
domination the way reason doesrather it embraces
the best that reason can offer while going beyond
it. Mystical experience includes and transcends
reason. Second, we need to identify two kinds
of reason. clear or embodied reason
distorting or abstract reason
61
Different Ways of Knowing
Clear or embodied reason refers to a mode of
thinking that remains in touch with its source in
the feelings of the body. It is a mode of reason
informed by the bodys innate wisdomand so
remains connected not only to our own bodies but
to the greater body of the world around us, Earth
and Cosmos. We described this as feeling our
thinking. Distorting or abstract reason,
by contrast, refers to a mode of thinking that
relies on following the twists and turns of logic
through various circuits of abstract thoughts or
concepts. It has lost contact with its roots in
the body. Instead of being informed by the
natural wisdom of embodiment, this kind of reason
tends to get short-circuited in abstractionsa
process of hooking together series of thoughts to
see if they fit together coherently.
62
Different Ways of Knowing
This mode of abstract reasoningtypical of most
modern philosophy, science, and commerceoften
turns out to be dysfunctional because, as David
Bohm taught, it focuses on fragmentation, on
isolated ideas or truths. As long as reason is
confined to conceptual abstractions, it cannot
arrive at wholeness or wisdom. Instead of
feeling our thinking, we merely think our
thinking, by stringing thoughts together. It is
actually a mode of thinking that has lost contact
with the multifaceted nature of reality. And
this kind of reason does suppress, invalidate,
diminish or destroy feeling-based
consciousness. But reason per se, doesnt have
to decimate feeling.
63
Truth or Wisdom?
If we open up to feeling our thinking by
paying attention to how ideas well up from
feelings in our bodies, we open the way for a
kind of reason that honors feeling, resulting in
a more holistic mode of knowing. In identifying
the two modes of consciousnesspre- and
post-conquestwe saw how they achieve quite
different ends. Which end we chose will depend on
our motivation for exploration and communication
Are we ultimately interested in truth at all
costs, or in wisdom for the sake of all?
64
Truth or Wisdom?
This question is particularly relevant when
exploring consciousness itself. If, as my
research suggests, consciousness is ultimately
relational and intersubjective, then we are
unlikely ever to make much progress by aiming for
truth at all costs. Such a postconquest
approach is inimical to relationship, and ends up
fragmenting consciousness. Mere truth without
wisdom will at best yield abstract knowledge
about consciousnessbut not direct understanding
of consciousness as it is actually
experienced. And the issue of truth or
wisdom is also relevant to the question of
mind in the cosmos.
65
Mind in the Cosmos
We have covered a lot of ground since our first
lecture, ten sessions ago. Our goal has been to
explore the idea of Mind in the Cosmos, and the
evolution of consciousness. By now, I hope, it
is clear that we can explore mind or
consciousness only by opening our explorations up
to other ways of knowing. We simply cannot ever
capture consciousness in a net of language or
abstract ideas. If we want to know about mind
in the cosmos, we need to learn to feel our
thinking, to open up to other extrarational and
extrasensory ways of knowing. And often the most
effective medium for such knowing is through
silence.
66
The Power of Silence
Now that we have read the assigned books and
other supplemental texts, communicated back and
forth via email, and digested countless ideas
about mind or consciousness and its role in the
cosmos . . . now it is time to let it all
go. To let the words and ideas drift away, and
instead fall into silencepaying attention to the
feelings coursing through our bodies. What
messages do they bring? Where do those messages
come from? My parting words to you are these
Listen. Listen to the wisdom of your body. Listen
to the messages it conveys from the world around
you. Listen to discover your place in the cosmos.
Listen, and feel the simple, undeniable,
certainty of mind in the cosmos. Listen, and feel
the power and the wisdom of silence . . .