Science and Consciousness
The nature of consciousness is a fundamental existential question that has fascinated people through the ages and is a topic of much discussion between experts from various disciplines. These discussions have created confusion because the term ‘consciousness’ has been used in different senses by different people. One view of consciousness, which originated from the East, is that it is the source of everything around us, both in a manifest and unmanifest form. It is also viewed as the life force in everything, powering the universe and all its inhabitants, including us!
Years ago, the world of science and the realm of mysticism were considered to be quite separate from each other. However, nowadays there is a framework which begins to unite the two. The work of people like Fritjof Capra, who wrote The Tao of Physics in 1975, have helped to explore the relationship between the science of modern physics and the ideas of Eastern mysticism. Parallels are being seen between quantum theory and Hinduism and Buddhism. The modern view is that mystical and scientific approaches do seem to be quite compatible and can bring together the age-old questions of the nature of life, mind, matter and consciousness.
The conception of consciousness is being approached from the world of subatomic physics. The question of consciousness has already arisen in quantum theory in connection with the problem of observation and measurement. Some physicists argue that consciousness may be an essential aspect of the universe and that we may be blocked from the further understanding of natural phenomena if it is excluded.
There are two approaches in physics that come close to dealing with consciousness explicitly. One is the idea of order in Geoffrey Chew’s S-matrix theory which conceives of the material world as an interconnected web of relations that emerged from quantum theory. The other is a theory developed by David Bohm which is the idea of ‘unbroken wholeness’. Bohm wanted to explore the order he thought to be inherent in the cosmic web of relations. He used the analogy of a hologram in which each part of the whole, in some sense, contains the whole.
Both of these approaches are based on a view of the world as a dynamic web of relations. Both theories recognise that consciousness could be an essential aspect of the universe that will have to be included in any future theories of physical phenomena.
Even back in the nineteenth century, psychologists were aware that the ideas about consciousness should not be overly simplistic. William James emphasised that consciousness was personal, integral and a continuous phenomenon. He also believed that there were different forms of consciousness from our normal, waking consciousness with which we are all familiar. In his ‘Varieties of Religious Experience’, he wrote, ‘no account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded’.
Perhaps scientific theories, or ‘accounts of the universe’, as William James would say, indicate that the ultimate understanding of consciousness goes beyond words and concepts. This raises the important question of whether it’s at all possible to even make scientific statements about the nature of consciousness. Perhaps, for now, we should just be content to value our own human experience!
Victoria Willson is a trustee of the Hamblin Trust.
If you have found this article interesting, you might like to know that we recently ran a Zoom event on this very topic, led by Rev Don MacGregor. You can purchase viewing access to the video at the link below for just £2.99
