Consciousness, the brain, and space-

time geometry.

Abstract
What is consciousness? Conventional approaches see it as an emergent property of complex
interactions among individual neurons; however these approaches fail to address enigmatic
features of consciousness. Accordingly, some philosophers have contended that "qualia," or an
experiential medium from which consciousness is derived, exists as a fundamental component of
reality. Whitehead, for example, described the universe as being composed of "occasions of
experience." To examine this possibility scientifically, the very nature of physical reality must be
re-examined. We must come to terms with the physics of space-time--as described by Einstein's
general theory of relativity, and its relation to the fundamental theory of matter--as described by
quantum theory. Roger Penrose has proposed a new physics of objective reduction: "OR," which
appeals to a form of quantum gravity to provide a useful description of fundamental processes at
the quantum/classical borderline. Within the OR scheme, we consider that consciousness occurs
if an appropriately organized system is able to develop and maintain quantum coherent
superposition until a specific "objective" criterion (a threshold related to quantum gravity) is
reached; the coherent system then self-reduces (objective reduction: OR). We contend that this
type of objective self-collapse introduces non-computability, an essential feature of
consciousness which distinguishes our minds from classical computers. Each OR is taken as an
instantaneous event--the climax of a self-organizing process in fundamental space-time--and a
candidate for a conscious Whitehead "occasion of experience." How could an OR process occur
in the brain, be coupled to neural activities, and account for other features of consciousness? We
nominate a quantum computational OR process with the requisite characteristics to be occurring
in cytoskeletal micro-tubules within the brain's neurons. In this model, quantum-superposed
states develop in microtubule subunit proteins ("tubulins") within certain brain neurons, remain
coherent, and recruit more superposed tubulins until a mass-time-energy threshold (related to
quantum gravity) is reached. At that point, self-collapse, or objective reduction (OR), abruptly
occurs. We equate the pre-reduction, coherent superposition ("quantum computing") phase with
pre-conscious processes, and each instantaneous (and non-computable) OR, or self-collapse,
with a discrete conscious event. Sequences of OR events give rise to a "stream" of
consciousness. Microtubule-associated proteins can "tune" the quantum oscillations of the
coherent superposed states; the OR is thus self-organized, or "orchestrated" ("Orch OR"). Each
Orch OR event selects (non-computably) microtubule subunit states which regulate
synaptic/neural functions using classical signaling. The quantum gravity threshold for self-
collapse is relevant to consciousness, according to our arguments, because macroscopic
superposed quantum states each have their own space-time geometries. These geometries are
also superposed, and in some way "separated," but when sufficiently separated, the
superposition of space-time geometries becomes significantly unstable and reduces to a single
universe state. Quantum gravity determines the limits of the instability; we contend that the actual
choice of state made by Nature is non-computable. Thus each Orch OR event is a self-selection
of space-time geometry, coupled to the brain through microtubules and other biomolecules. If
conscious experience is intimately connected with the very physics underlying space-time
structure, then Orch OR in microtubules indeed provides us with a completely new and uniquely
promising perspective on the difficult problems of consciousness.
Beyond Space & Time: Quantum Theory
Suggests Consciousness Moves on
After Death

One of the biggest questions modern day science seeks to answer about human
consciousness has to do with its origin — whether it is simply a product of the brain,
or if the brain itself is a receiver of consciousness. If consciousness is not a product of
the brain, it would mean that our physical bodies are not necessary for its continuation;
that awareness can exist outside our bodies.

Asking these questions is fundamental to understanding the true nature of our reality,
and with quantum physics gaining more popularity, questions regarding
consciousness and its relationship to human physicality become increasingly relevant.

Max Planck, the theoretical physicist credited with originating quantum theory — a feat
that won him the Physics Nobel Prize in 1918 — offers perhaps the best explanation
for why understanding consciousness is so essential: “I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind
consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”(Source)
Eugene Wigner, also a theoretical physicist and mathematician, stated that it’s not
possible to “formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without
reference to consciousness.”

Does Consciousness Move on After Death?

In 2010, one of the most respected scientists in the world, Robert Lanza, published a
book titled Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to
Understanding the True Nature of the Universe.
An expert in regenerative medicine and the scientific director of Advanced Cell
Technology Company, Lanza is also very interested in quantum mechanics and
astrophysics, an interest that led him on a path to developing his theory of biocentrism:
the theory that life and consciousness are fundamental to understanding the nature of
our reality, and that consciousness comes prior to the creation of the material universe.

His theory implies that our consciousness does not die with us, but rather moves on,
and this suggests that consciousness is not a product of the brain. It is something else
entirely, and modern science is only beginning to understand what that might be.

This theory is best illustrated by the quantum double slit experiment. It’s is a great
example that documents how factors associated with consciousness and our physical
material world are connected in some way; that the observer creates the reality.
Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe could be a mental construction,
or at the very least, that consciousness plays a fundamental role in the creation of
matter.

R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University wrote
in a 2005 publication for the journal Nature:

According to [pioneering physicist] Sir James Jeans: “the stream of

knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe
begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.
Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of
matter… we ought to rather hail it as the creator and governor of the
realm of matter.” . . . The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual.
Live, and enjoy.

(“The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005) (Source)

Lanza’s theory implies that if the body generates consciousness, then consciousness
dies when the body dies. But if the body receives consciousness in the same way that
a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at
the death of the physical vehicle. This is an example that’s commonly used to describe
the enigma of consciousness.

The double slit experiment has shown repeatedly that “observations not only disturb
what has to be measured, they produce it. . . . We compel [the electron] to assume a
definite position. . . . We ourselves produce the results of measurement.” (Source)
The idea that we could be living in a holographic-type of universe is not so far-
fetched, and if the observer is required for physical matter to manifest, then the
observer must exist before the physical body.
The hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness dominates the mainstream
materialistic world of science, despite the wealth of evidence showing that the brain
(and our entire physical reality, for that matter) could be a product of consciousness.

Below is a great quote to illustrate what is meant by “material” science.

“The modern scientific worldview is predominantly predicated on

assumptions that are closely associated with classical physics.
Materialism—the idea that matter is the only reality—is one of these
assumptions. A related assumption is reductionism, the notion that
complex things can be understood by reducing them to the
interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things
such as tiny material particles.”
– Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science
Examining the neurochemical processes in the brain that occur when one is having a
subjective experience is important, and does offer certain insights. It tells us that when
‘this’ type of experience is happening, ‘that’ is going on in the brain. But it does not
prove that the neurochemical processes are producing the experience. What if
the experience itself is producing the neurochemical processes?

Determining how consciousness causes matter to materialize is our next step. One
thing is for certain, however; with all of the information out there postulating the
existence of consciousness as independent from the brain, it’s time to push the
boundaries of our current accepted framework of knowledge and question what we
think we know.

The implications of this theory are immense. Just imagine if life after death
were confirmed by the mainstream scientific community — how much would
this impact not only our understanding of science, but also philosophy, religion, and
many other areas of our lives?

A Great Lecture
Below is a great video from Dr. Gary Schwartz, a professor at the University of Arizona,
discussing whether consciousness is the product of the brain or a receiver of it? It’s a
little overview of a subject that is full of peer-reviewed scientific research that not many
people have the time to go through. It would actually be almost be impossible to go
through all of it.

Some materialistically inclined scientists and philosophers refuse

to acknowledge these phenomena because they are not consistent
with their exclusive conception of the world. Rejection of post-
materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong
science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are
antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry, which is that
empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which
do not fit favored theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed a priori.
Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.
– Dr. Gary Schwartz, Professor of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and
Surgery at the University of Arizona

What About Near Death Experiences?

Below is a video of Dr. Bruce Greyson speaking at a conference that was held by the
United Nations. He is considered to be one of the fathers of near death studies, and
is a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Science at the University
of Virginia.

In the video he describes documented cases of individuals who were clinically dead
(showing no brain activity), but observing everything that was happening to them on
the medical table below at the same time. He describes how there have
been many instances of this — where individuals are able to describe things that
should have been impossible to describe. Another significant statement by Dr.
Greyson posits that this type of study has been discouraged due to our tendency to
view science as completely materialistic. Seeing is believing, so to speak, in the
scientific community. It’s unfortunate that just because we cannot explain something
through materialistic means, it must be instantly discredited. The simple fact that
“consciousness” itself is a non-physical “thing” is troubling for some scientists to
comprehend, and as a result of it being non-material, they believe it cannot be studied
by science.

What About Near Death Experiences?

Below is a video of Dr. Bruce Greyson speaking at a conference that was held by the
United Nations. He is considered to be one of the fathers of near death studies, and
is a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Science at the University
of Virginia.

In the video he describes documented cases of individuals who were clinically dead
(showing no brain activity), but observing everything that was happening to them on
the medical table below at the same time. He describes how there have
been many instances of this — where individuals are able to describe things that
should have been impossible to describe. Another significant statement by Dr.
Greyson posits that this type of study has been discouraged due to our tendency to
view science as completely materialistic. Seeing is believing, so to speak, in the
scientific community. It’s unfortunate that just because we cannot explain something
through materialistic means, it must be instantly discredited. The simple fact that
“consciousness” itself is a non-physical “thing” is troubling for some scientists to
comprehend, and as a result of it being non-material, they believe it cannot be studied
by science.