Mindful Universe

Henry P. Stapp, a quantum physicist here at Berkeley, published the book "Mindful Universe; quantum mechanics and the participating observer" last summer, but it wasn't until yesterday that it appeared in the Berkeley library, where I just snapped it up.

I have been on a pretty serious popular science reading kick for the past two years, reading (with various middling degrees of comprehension) any book I can find on cognitive science, especially those that focus on consciousness. This may have either originated from or inspired various art projects that deal with these ideas (it's a chicken/egg thing...). Here's a partial list for the bibliotechheads in perhaps the order I was reading them;
"The Mind's Eye" by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett - I read my father's version of this a long time ago.
"The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore - This book is written is speculative in the most inspiring way.
"How the Mind Works" (and others) by Steven Pinker - This is the most accessible and engaging read and is very clear.
"Consciousness Explained" by Daniel C. Dennett - This is the book unfairly referred to as "Consciousness Explained Away," but it is a very clear read.
"The Physics of Consciousness" by Evan Harris Walker - This book is also a bit speculative and has a stylistic twist that is either inspiring or distracting, but it is a good read.

I've read a few more, and if you look this topic up you will see that there are hundreds of books on this topic and they often contradict each other. This is one thing that attracts me to this topic - nobody is quite sure what the answers to these questions are, or indeed what the right questions are. I am neither a physicist or a cognitive scientist so I can't tell you which are more accurate, although I can recommend which ones are more compelling (compelling doesn't mean true, of course). That said, I think that, as a human who has a consciousness myself, I have a decent chance of sorting these ideas out for myself. As I have claimed before, I think that what we call creative thinking or, in my specific case, "art practice" is a way of thinking that is different than either mathematics, logic, rational argument, etc.  This mode of thinking uses a different spectrum of mental tools including creation, interaction with the chaotic real world, action as experience, performance, play, re-mixing, introspection, social dynamics, analogy, intuition, synchronicity, visual thinking, non-linear thinking, various highly-developed (?) schools of critical thought, etc. Thoughts are a result of the context in which they arise and I would claim that certain thoughts are ineffable. Therefore creative thought has something to contribute to cutting edge areas of investigation that is not available through other modes of thought. But at an even baser level, reading some of these books I was surprised by how often the language was stunted and graceless. This isn't just a nit-picky criticism; there is a loss of communication that seems to be a result of the pressure exerted from the use of insular logic. Moreover, the idea that truth is beauty is not just an artistic conceit; it is a fundamental force driving scientists' thoughts. They are trying to reduce the chaotic world into ever-simpler laws that enable us to understand the world and predict its workings. Indeed, a huge drive in 20th c. physics was to develop a grand unifying theory of everything.

I am not a primarily visual thinker (in the sense that some people report having an internal dialogue that is conducted in pictures alone rather than words) but images are important to my understanding of a concept. The authors of many of these books are engaged in a fascinating struggle to create visual analogies for the new and difficult concept they are trying to explain. Many of these concepts go beyond the common sense that evolution provided to our minds. Quantum physics is not a speculative theory, but many of its concepts are beyond common sense. It requires the use of the "imaginary numbers" that you may have studied at school (I clearly remember my math teacher advising me not to try to understand them, not listening, and failing the test).  The first prototypes of quantum computers have already been built; they operate much faster than usual computers based on "classical physics" (i.e. old-fashion Newtonian physics) because they perform their calculation simultaneously in several different alternative universes that are the result of quantum uncertainty in the computer's heart (somewhat similar to the multiple universes in sci-fi movies like "Back to the Future 2" "Groundhog's Day" and "The Lathe of Heaven"). This is not a metaphor or esoteric mystical speculation; it produces measurable results.

So, the core of what interesting about theories of quantum consciousness is that it essentially requires a mode of thought that is related to creative thinking and to mysticism in that it isn't "common sense." Perhaps quantum theory may appear to be similar to a mystery cult; at its heart there is something that is outside our understanding. However, what is at its heart is not some bullshit about an all-powerful god, or the great disappointment that the universe is purely robotic. No. What it says is that our conscious observation is what creates that universe, that consciousness is inextricably linked to the basic physical laws of the universe. In the 20th c. physicists and cognitive scientists ignored this fact and tried to explain our minds in terms of classic physics, which was inspired by (and enabled) the fact that the 20th c. was a revoltingly antihumanistic time. The fact that our top thinkers continually deceived us (and our governments) into believing that the whole universe was nothing but a huge pool-table with hard balls bouncing off each other in a complicated but essentially predetermined and heartless manner. In the 21st c. the acceptance and exploration of the implications of the (century-old but still misunderstood) theory of quantum dynamics has the potential to inspire a new understanding of our intrinsic self-worth; that our mind is an essential part of the universe, that we actually exist. In the end we have to admit that most of us don't think in a way that conforms to "common sense" and that in fact "common sense" is a dead-end mode of thought. If we can be smart enough in this new way the 21st c. will be a humanistic era, a mystical time in which creative and analogical thinking play a central role.

I haven't finished "Mindful Universe" but I will say a few quick things. One is that it is a tough read; I think reading a book on quantum physics beforehand would be wise. Two is that the sentences are problematic. Three is that there are not enough illustrations (yet...). Four is that it offers the clearest explanation of quantum mechanics* that I have encountered and that the ideas advanced about the nature of consciousness are further along the path to truth than any other book I've read and will probably be a central part of humanity's self-conception by the end of the century.
(*Note that this means the concepts themselves, the prose is sometimes problematic.)

For the interested, here is Henry P. Stapp's homepage. It's just a list of links to various texts.