A Multidisciplinary Approach to Mind and Consciousness

8/10/2019 A Multidisciplinary Approach to Mind and Consciousness

1/11

NeuroQuantology | December 2013 | Volume 11 | Issue 4 | Page 607-617

Grandpierre A et al.,Multidisciplinary approach to mind and consciousness

eISSN1303-5150 www.neuroquantology.com

607

A Multidisciplinary Approach toMind and Consciousness

Attila Grandpierre*, Deepak Chopra,

P. Murali Doraiswamy, Rudolph Tanzill, Menas C. Kafatos*

ABSTRACT

In the last 400 years physics has achieved great success, in theory and experimentation, determining the structure of

matter and energy. The next great step in the evolution of science will be exploring the role of mind and

consciousness in the universe, employing mathematics and fundamental theoretical constructs to yield specific

predictions. Based on recent findings in biological autonomy, we propose to approach consciousness from the keyaspect of decision-making. This approach allows us to develop a quantitative theory of consciousness as manifested in

information processing. Since decision-making occurs at a certain level of organization, natural relations are obtained

between consciousness at one level of organization and unconsciousness at another. By following this chain of

argument, we also consider the possibility that levels of consciousness and unconsciousness form a self-closing

hierarchy. This line of reasoning has led us to theoretically formulate the possible relationships between mind, cellular

activity (both neuronal and non-neuronal), and the universe, working with the categories of consciousness, self-

consciousness, and unconsciousness. What we propose in the present paper is a natural and straightforward

extension of information theory to quantitative measures of consciousness at different levels and scales.A framework

that integrates data from multiple disciplines can help us develop a broader theory of consciousness than what is

possible from any single field alone. We present quantitative estimations for the rates of information processing at the

global and cellular levels of the human organism and suggest values at the level of the universe. Our picture yields a

new, quantitative picture of the mental capabilities of Homo sapiens and a reformulation of our place in the universe.

Key Words:genuine biological autonomy, decision making, quantitative aspects of consciousness, unconsciousness,

self-consciousness, cells, universal mind

NeuroQuantology 2013; 4:607-617

Introduction1Consciousness is widely considered to be the

greatest challenge for modern science. Atpresent, Not only have we so far no good

Corresponding author: Dr. Attila Grandpierre

Address: *Chapman University, Schmid College of Science and Technology,

One University Drive, Orange, California 92866, USAKonkoly Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Konkoly

Thege u. 13-17, H-1525 Budapest, Hungary.The Chopra Center, Carlsbad,

California.Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

llHarvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Genetics and Aging

Research Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachussetts

[email protected]

Relevant conflicts of interest/financial disclosures:The authors declare that

the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial

relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.Received: September 28, 2013; Revised: October 14, 2013;

Accepted: October 31, 2013

theory of consciousness, we lack even a clearand uncontroversial pre-theoretical description

of the presumed phenomenon (Dennett, 1987;p.160). Historically, Samuel Butler in thenineteenth century defined sentience as beingcapable of making numberless tiny decisions(cited in Margulis and Sagan, 2010). In Butlersview all life, not just human life, is teleologicaland endowed with consciousness, memory, anddirection of purpose (Butler, 1917/ 1967).

For him, amoebas have their little wantstoo, their little spheres of influence, their littletool-boxes with which they materially changetheir surroundings, pursue their specific goals,and build their environments. Butler argued


2/11




608

that consciousness (we will define such basicconcepts below in the Appendix) comes first bylearning how to solve problems, whileunconscious habits arise by applying theworking solutions repeatedly in a way that doesnot require attention.

Recent developments in theoreticalbiology (Bauer 1967) and psychology (Lehrl andFischer, 1990), along with the theory of genuinebiological autonomy (by genuine we refer to anew type of autonomy, see Grandpierre andKafatos, 2012; 2013) offer a new scientificcontext for rethinking Butlers views. It is wellknown that in macroscopic, non-equilibriumphysical systems, the main trend, according tothe second law of thermodynamics, is towardequilibration. We consider that life is basically asystematic effort to maintain and elevate itself

(Bauer, 1967), or, formulating it in one word, toflourish (Bedau, 2010). In contrast to physicalsystems in which the main trend is approachingthermodynamic equilibrium, living organismsare organized as hierarchical systems ofbiological functions acting against decay. Assuch, we emphasize that there exist afundamental difference between physical ordercreated by physical self-organization andbiological organization. By analogy, a livingorganism can be compared to a football team: Afootball team is not a system of players

arranged in order, in special spatio-temporalpatterns; instead, it is organized in a way thatall the players are endowed with special tasks toperform certain functions (that are additional totheir spatio-temporal coordinates), and thesegoal-oriented (teleological) functions areorganized to serve a central idea: scoring asmany goals as possible (Grandpierre, 2013). Aliving organism, first and foremost,teleologically organizes all its functionalactivitiesin order to secure the ultimate aim ofliving and flourishing. This is why, as we think;

a better term for living beings is organismsrather than systems.

Recently it has been argued that one ofthe most fundamental properties of livingorganisms is teleology (Grandpierre, 2012a;Toepfer, 2012). Yet the very concept of teleologyseems to be exiled from modern science, sincegoal-orientation and purpose, apparently, donot fit the prevalent idea that the mostfundamental ingredients of physical theoriesare physical laws formulated in terms ofdeterministic differential equations. Suchequations appear to be incompatible with any

teleology expressing an end-point selection.Therefore, the first fundamental difficulty to beremoved in building an exact theoretical biologyis a conceptual one, namely, to resolve thisincompatibility between deterministic physicalequations and genuine biological teleology. Wesuggest approaching the issue with the help of

the first principles of science, which are,arguably, deeper entities beyond physical or, ingeneral, natural laws.

In physics all the fundamental equationscan be derived from the least action principle.The dimension of action is energy*time.Generally, the action takes different values fordifferent paths. The least action principleselects the path between a given initial point Aand a given endpoint B that minimizes theaction. The least action principle is the most

powerful tool of physics. To obtain a similarlypowerful principle for biology, one cangeneralize the least action principle so that itbecomes compatible with lifes ultimate aim offlourishing (Grandpierre, 2007). In order to dothis, we have to allow that living organismsselect the endpoint of their biological processesto be compatible with their biological aims. Ifwe do so, besides the least action principle ofphysics we obtain the second first principle ofnatural sciences, namely the greatest actionprinciple in biology (i.e. what we term as the

biological principle). Basically, the principleof greatest action expresses the fact that allliving organisms strive to maximize action,actively maintaining their states as far awayfrom thermodynamic equilibrium as possiblefor as long as possible: that is, to survive andflourish (Bauer, 1967; Grandpierre, 2007;Bedau, 2010). Allowing teleology to be presentin biology implies that biological deviationsfrom strict spatio-temporal physical pathwaysdo occur.

It may seem that the greatest action

principle is limited and, for example, doesn'tdirectly apply to the case of apoptosis.Nevertheless, apoptosis generally confersbiological and over long term, evolutionaryadvantages during an organism's life cycle. Forexample, the differentiation of fingers and toesin a developing human embryo occurs becausecells between the fingers apoptose; the result isthat the fingers and toes become separate.Unlike necrosis, apoptosis produces cellfragments called apoptotic bodies thatphagocytic cells are able to engulf and quicklyremove before the contents of the cell can spill


3/11




609

out onto surrounding cells and cause damage(Alberts et al.,2008, Chapter 18). The greatestaction principle applies to the overall livingorganism, whether single cells, multicellularorganisms, plants and animals. For individualcells that make up an organism, the greatestaction principle does not directly apply, as the

cells exist in symbiosis for the common aimsand benefit of the larger organism, which theypopulate. Therefore apoptosis of cells is reallypart of the successful survival strategy of anorganism.

With these terms we circumvent theproblem that consciousness assumes a varietyof different meanings. For our purposes, weneed scientifically suitable terms having lessambiguous meanings. Thus we are defining anentity as physical if its behavior follows only

physical laws. By comparison we are definingmind as causing changes leading to deviationfrom physical pathways (for a more systematicdefinition of mind, see the Appendix). Onecannot take it for granted that Nature has only aphysical character. We argue that mind in itsfull context must be a fundamental feature ofNature. The reason is that something eitherhappens as a result of physical interactions -and so the organism follows an inertial path - orthe organism actively contributes to its furtherdevelopment. In the second case, the organism

causes systematic teleological changes (allowedby Heisenbergs uncertainty relation) leading tobiological deviations from physical behavior.The organism must then decide how to deviateits path from the physical path. We proposehere that genuine decisions are thatfundamental and quantifiable activity ofconsciousness in which it manifests itself. Suchdecisions, by our proposal, represent the first ofthe two pillars connecting mind with physicalmatter.

The second pillar is the decision-

initiated generation of virtual particles in thequantum vacuum that are responsible foreliciting subtle changes in the quantum states ofa living organism (Grandpierre and Kafatos,2012; 2013). We reserve the term mind to bethe general, universal entity responsible for allthese systematic, teleologically organizedquantum-level deviations from physicalbehavior as they occur anywhere in Nature(universal mind). According to our hypothesis,universal mind is the entity representing thepotential of Nature to act on the quantumvacuum, to initiate the generation of virtual

particle pairs (about the quantum vacuum, seeMilonni, 1994). The generation of virtualparticles can occur not only through themediation of the physical principle of leastaction, but, in our proposal, additionally, by thebiological principle of greatest action thatutilizes virtual particles. This allows the

determining of the possibilities that wouldnormally be left undetermined by the physicalprinciple alone, and it is allowed by thequantum indeterminism. In other words,virtual particles are utilized since the biologicalprinciple can act only on possibilities that arenot determined by the physical principle,through the 'quantum door' that is only openedthrough virtual particles.

According to our proposal, genuineautonomous decision-making (Grandpierre and

Kafatos, 2012) is a fundamental aspect of mindbecause genuine autonomous decisions arerequired to enable the full potential of the livingorganism to act for its own interests, in acontinuously changing and unpredictableenvironment, both inner and outer.Autonomous refers to actions, biological andphysical which are not completely pre-determined (ibid). On the human scale, even ifit were shown that 95% of behavior consisted oflawful, predictable responses to situationalstimuli by automatic processes, psychology

could not afford to ignore the remaining 5%(Baumeister et al., 1998) especially if non-automatic processes corresponding to learningare involved. All other forms of mind that weexamine here below are proposed to bedifferent aspects of the universal form (Kafatosand Nadeau, 2000; Manousakis, 2006). Weargue here that even cells are not chemicallypredetermined machines but have a kind ofconsciousness, since they make genuineautonomous decisions. Our argument is asfollows:

At any moment in the history of biology,biologists have vastly underestimated thesophistication of cellular mechanisms, and it iscertain that we still have an enormous numberof surprises ahead of us (Alberts, 2011). Nearlyall cell processes are based on elegantmechanisms too intricate to predict (Alberts,2013). As Harold (2001) noted, from thechemistry of macromolecules and the reactionsthey catalyze, little can be inferred regardingtheir articulation into physiological functions atthe cellular level (ibid, 5). The crucial nextchallenge, thus far out of reach, is to decipher


4/11




610

exactly how the elaborate networks of signalingmolecules that exist inside a cell enable it tomake its crucial decisionsa process analogousto cell thinking (Alberts, 2010).

We note that living organisms interactwith a complex environment that is rich in

unexpected changes. Therefore, even cells mustcontinuously solve newly encountered tasks intheir daily lives. Not all biological functions arepre-fixed as related to the long time scales ofbiological evolution. Novel biological functionsare regularly acquired (Shapiro, 2011; pp.15and 56), making living organisms extremelycreative beings. Organisms must possess a typeof intelligence if they can solve problems thatno specific individual in the evolutionaryhistory of the species has solved before(Heisenberg, 2009).

We are aware of possible objections towhat we are suggesting; objections that arebased on the unproven but prevalentassumption that cells are machines. This issueis still open. Yet we argue that because cellsproduce complex biochemical products,including molecular machines, they must be, atleast, factories. Actually, no factory can bemaintained without supervision or an externalcontrol. From time to time, due to decayprocesses like corrosion, equilibration,irregularities, and breakdowns the maintenance

of machines requires both control and repair.Relegating supervision to higher ordermachines does not help, since all machinesrequire supervision, leading to an infiniteregress.

In the last few decades, geneticessentialism, the idea of a determinate geneticprogram in the DNA that controls thedevelopment and functioning of the organism,rather like the digital code of a computerprogram, was an attractive idea. Nevertheless,

recent successes in systems biology clarifiedthat biological functionality is actuallymultilevel. As Noble (2008) noted, high-levelfunctions depend on DNA and the rest of thecell. We point out that this fact makes itnecessary to revise popular views aboutmacromolecular functions, distinguishingbetween local, physico-chemical and biologicalfunctions at the highest, global (cellular,organismal, universal) level.

Our corresponding analysis(Grandpierre, 2013) shows that physico-

chemical functions are based on local properties

of biomolecules, and are merely tools of global-level biological specific functions and aims. Thefunctions of the living organism typicallydepend upon the coherent operations ofmolecules by the millions; these involvedhundreds or even thousands of different kinds,marshaled into functional organization by a

hierarchy of controls (Harold, 2001; p.4). Suchan organization extends over distances that areorders of magnitude larger (ibid., 66) than theindividual molecules themselves. As Harold hasformulated, the relation between local andglobal determinations in terms of what, where,when, and why: Briefly, the genes specify What;the cell as a whole directs Where and When;and at the end of the day, it is the cell thatusually supplies the best answer to the questionWhy (Harold, 2001; p.82).

The control of milieu interior isattributable to the cell or organism as a wholeand it controls the lower, local level. In truth,the stretches of DNA that we now call genes donothing on their own. Keeping that finding inmind, our point here is that in the process ofcellular life, the production of biomolecules isnot enough to maintain a viable cell, becausethe most vital ingredient is missing: suitablemultilevel control securing biologicalorganization. Besides this multilevel argument,other fundamental arguments also show that

cellular organization requires a genuineautonomy of the cell (Grandpierre, 2013). It isthe cell that serves as the overall supervisor ofall its processes.

It is usual to consider life as defined bymetabolism and reproduction. We think thatlife is much more than fulfilling such routinetasks. All the constant basic biological aims,together with the newly arising aims based onchanges, form a dynamic hierarchy which iscontrolled by the ultimate biological aim offlourishing. This means that beyond the level of

secondary aims (and their algorithmiccomplexity) corresponding to well-definedbiological tasks, we find a deeper level ofcomplexity organizing the non-ultimatebiological aims into a coherent unit. Theultimate biological aim organizes at this deepestlevel of organization all the secondary aims intoa hierarchical system serving the ultimate aim,to flourish. Every unit of life (cell or organism)manifests complex creative teleologicalactivities (Grandpierre, 2008) requiringgenuine decision-making to serve the aim offlourishing. Since genuine decision-making is


5/11




611

the crucial element of consciousness, living cellsmust have a type of consciousness transcendingchemical predetermination (cf. Theise andKafatos, 2013).

Since high-level functioning is aninevitable teleological element of any viable cell,

such cellular-level functions must be assignedto suitable biomolecules in the process of theformation of the first cell on Earth. This meansthat a biological factor must be present beforethe origin of the first cell. Based on sucharguments, one of us has hypothesized that thefirst cell on the Earth developed from auniversal, comprehensive life form having akind of consciousness that assigns global-levelfunctions to biomolecules transforming the firstprotocell into the first cell on Earth(Grandpierre, 2013).

Decision-making is level related - itoccurs at a certain organizational level of theorganism. Moreover, since a decision made atone level does not occur at another level, what isconscious at a certain level of organization isunconscious at other levels. Unconsciousness ismeant here as decisions occurring at otherlevels than the reference level. Something thatis a conscious process for us as individuals(such as consulting a map or getting angry) isnot a conscious process for our cells. By ourdefinition, cells can be conscious if they are

making autonomous decisions. Evidently,something decided at the cellular level (such asthe coordination of an enzyme with otherbiomolecules) is not decided at the organismallevel (where decisions occur, in the case ofhumans, how to move our arms, legs, eyebrows,ears, what to read, what to think etc.).Therefore, using consciousness in this relativesense, there may be a variety of consciousnesstypes in an organism; even thoughconsciousness itself is a fundamental trait in theuniverse (just as blue is a color relative to other

colors, while color is what they all have incommon).

2. Quantitative EstimationsHaving offered a theoretical framework, itseems advisable to examine consciousness withquantitative data about its most immediatemanifestations that are measurable activities.Our first task is to obtain a closer picture of howconscious activities in cells and organism arequantified.

A useful measurement arises from thedifference between reading and perception. Theprocessing of information that occurs throughreading is much slower than the information weprocess by perceiving the outer world. Derivedas bits processed per unit time, mental speed isoperationally defined as reading rate.

Estimations of mental speed (here, what wesee when reading particular material) are inthe range of 100 bits/sec or less (Lehrl andFischer, 1990). By comparison, the flux ofinformation obtained through our outer sensesis estimated at a much higher rate, namelyaround 109 bits/sec (Anderson et al., 2005;Norretranders, 1999). Regarding the fact thatwe learn perception from our time in the wombonward, processing the information receivedfrom our senses corresponds to memory. Thisis because perception in its mature form must

rely on learned patterns established as a kind ofactive memory.

Reading, on the other hand, is regardedas self-conscious since the reader can recalland report in words on the content of what hehas read. The data indicate that the rate ofperceptual information processing is around 7orders of magnitude more powerful than that ofour self-consciousness, with the help of whichwe read, understand and make decisions.

Neural processingOur brain consists of ca. 1011-1012 neurons,yielding a brain-averaged rate for the self-conscious information processing a rate of 10-9to 10-10bits/sec/neuron. Neurons of the visualsystem process visual information at the rate ofca. 3 bits/sec/neuron (Anderson et al., 2005).The average daily intake of 2,500 calories thatan adult male needs to live and work translatesto the turnover of about 2.4 x 1026molecules ofATP (Kornberg, 1989; p.65) in a day,corresponding to about 2.9 x 1021 ATP/sec.

Considering that an average human bodyconsists of about 6 x 1013 cells (Alberts et al.,2008; p.1442), we obtain that 5 107 ATPmolecules are produced per human cell persecond. This means that the number ofmolecular reactions in an average cell must beof the order of magnitude ~108/sec/cell. Thecorresponding rate of information processingthat characterizes the intrinsic activity of thecells at the molecular level is estimated to beroughly 108 bits/sec/cell (Grandpierre, 2008).In our recent work we have argued that thisintrinsic cellular activity corresponds to cellular


6/11




612

autonomy, and thus to decision-making, themanifestation of cellular consciousness(Grandpierre and Kafatos, 2012).

These results suggest that manifestedcellular consciousness (the number of cellulardecisions per second) is about 20 orders of

magnitude more powerful than neuron-averaged human self-consciousness. Indeed,organismal consciousness may represent onlyan infinitesimal fraction of our full ability toprocess information (Norretranders, 1999;pp.124-56). For the sake of simplicity, we haveignored brain glial activity, which we agree issubstantive and could also play an importantrole. Thus, our numbers may underestimate theenormous amount of cellular informationprocessing that occurs in the human brain.

Moreover, active memory includes the

processing not only of perceptions but also tensof thousands of cognitive schemes (Mero,2002). One well-developed cognitive scheme isthat of a world-champion chess player.Comparing the complexity of such a cognitivescheme with the capacities of IBMs Deep Blueprogram that beat Russian champion GarryKasparov (Hsu, 1999), we obtain estimation forthe complexity of such a cognitive scheme asbeing ~1014bits/sec. In principle, ten thousandsuch cognitive schemes (as suggested by Mero,2002) may process 1018bits/sec.

Based on these quantitative grounds, wereach the conclusion that human self-consciousness can be variously characterized byan information processing capability of ~102bits/sec; perceptual consciousness as ~109- 1018bits/sec; organismal unconsciousness (wedefine organismal unconsciousness as thenumber of decisions occurring at the cellularand supra-organismal, or universal level) of thewhole human organism as ~1022 bits/sec.Somewhat simplifying this, the hierarchical

activity of consciousness can be compared tothe activity of line workers at a companyprocessing data and preparing it in a suitableform for higher managers to make decisions atthe company level. If this is the case, it meansthat perceptual consciousness is not completelyautomatic - a significant portion can be creative,corresponding to problem solving, handlingnewly arising, unforeseen tasks or details, andtreating them according to the rules andviewpoints of the whole human system (orcompany in our analogy). The quasi-automatic,

mechanical or reflex-like activities can beregarded as corresponding to the tacit part of

consciousness (Polanyi, 1966). We can thereforeformulate the following relation:

Consciousness = self-consciousness + tacitconsciousness. (1)

We note that consciousness is a dynamic entitymeasured in bits/sec, in close relation to short-

term and long-term working memory (Weiss,1995). The capacity C of short-term, staticmemory (measured in bits of information) isthe product of the individual mental speed (MS)of information processing (in bits/sec; Lehrland Fischer, 1990), and the duration time D (inseconds) of information in short term workingmemory (Weiss, 1995). We introduce the ideathat since mental speed must be related toconsciousness, the duration time D ofinformation in short term working memorymust be related to the binding time (BT)

defined as the inverse of the frequency of thegamma waves to be responsible for bindingconsciousness (BF, binding frequency):

BT = 1/BF (2)

Since the frequency of gamma waves playing acentral role in object awareness, consciousness(Rieder et al.,2011), is around BF 40 Hz, wetherefore obtain from (2) that BT 1/40 sec. Byour proposal, D BT, and we obtain thefollowing equation:

C = A x MS x BT, (3)

where A can be regarded as a coefficient ofmental skill in recalling percepts. With thenumerical values MS 100 bits/sec, BT 1/40sec, we obtain C A x 2.5 bits, a result thatseems consistent with the accepted value of C 4 bits (Cowan, 2001).

Universal Information ProcessingWe can also estimate the upper bound ofinformation processing in the observable part ofthe universe. The maximum number of bits that

can fit in the materially manifested observablepart of the universe can be estimated from theabove by assuming, as is often done incosmology, that the observable universe is ablack hole with a surface corresponding to theHubble radius as Imax= 10120-10122bits (Davies,2004). Similarly, Seth Lloyd (2002) computesthe bits by considering the entropy (closelyrelated to temperature through the second lawof thermodynamics defining entropy), bymaximizing entropy, turning all of theuniverses matter into radiation and then usingthe blackbody radiation formula to get a


7/11




613

temperature, thus obtaining a value of Irad=1090bits. If, however, gravitational fields cancontribute to entropy, the total is much larger,and if the universe stores information throughgravity, Lloyd (cf. Davies, 2004) obtains thehigher estimate of 10120 bits. We note that thespecific type of entropy relation to information

theory, the so-called Shannon entropy (in bits),is just the number of yes/no questions neededto determine the information content in asystem. Therefore, dividing it by the Hubbletime ~13 x 109years, ~4 x 1017sec, we obtain anupper limit for the rate of informationprocessing in the universe (I) in the range I =2.5 x 1072 (lower limit, corresponding to Irad) -2.5 x 10104bits/sec (upper limit, correspondingto Imax). These rates are much larger than thesum of all organismal rates even if we assumethat every star in the universe which is capable

of having planets also has life. For example, if asmany as 1023 stars in the observable universehave planets inhabited by intelligent beings likehumans here on Earth, with an upper limit ofbit rates of cellular unconsciousness ~ 108bits/sec, and estimating the total number ofcells on the Earth as 5 x 1030(Whitman et al.,1998), the combined bit rate for all possibleintelligent life in the universe would be ~ 5 x1061 bits/sec. The organismal bit rates of allliving species on hypothetical planets in theuniverse would be several orders of magnitudehigher but still


8/11




614

supra-consciousness corresponds to decisionsmade at the higher level.

More concretely, in the case of a multicellularorganism, (6) yields:

Multicellular organismal unconsciousness =cellular consciousness + supra-consciousness.

(7)

Applying (6) to the cellular level, we obtain thefollowing relation:

Cellular unconsciousness = sub-cellularconsciousness + supra-cellular consciousness. (8)

Since supra-cellular consciousness consists oforganismal and universal consciousness, we

obtain a circular system of hierarchical relations(see the Appendix). We have been positing thatthe universe should be viewed as a biologicallyautonomous being (Grandpierre, 2008;Grandpierre and Kafatos, 2012). In a certainsense, both organismal and cellularconsciousness can be regarded as beingindependent of or beyond the Universe becauseof their autonomy, i.e., they can decide theiractivities independently. In a more generalsense, of course, biological autonomy is anatural phenomenon belonging to the Universe.

Therefore, universal consciousness (by whichwe mean that of the Universe as a whole) isaccompanied by cellular and multicellularconsciousness. Leaving aside its otherinteractions, universal consciousness forms acircular system with respect to its relations tocellular and multicellular consciousness - this isconsidered below.

4. Consciousness and the UniverseAt this point, we can consider that all decisions

occurring in the Universe are made either byuniversal, organismal, or cellularconsciousness. Substituting (6) into (4), andusing the constraint that the three levels ofdecisions are universal, organismal and cellular,we obtain:

Universal mind = Universal consciousness +organismal consciousness + cellularconsciousness. (9)

Denoting universal mind as UM, universal

consciousness as UC, organismal consciousness

as OC, cellular consciousness as CC, we canwrite (9) in the form

UM = UC + OC + CC. (9)

We can sum up these findings compactly inTable 1.

1 2: UM 3: OM 4: CM

UC UC OU CU

OC UU OC CU

CC UU OU CC

Table 1. A proposed architecture of the conscious Universe.

First column: there are three fundamental kinds of

consciousness, UC (universal consciousness), OC (organismal

consciousness) and CC (cellular consciousness). Second column:

UM (universal mind) = UC + UU (universal unconsciousness due

to decisions occurring at the organismal level) + UU (universal

unconsciousness due to decisions made at the cellular level).

Third column: OM (organismal mind) = OU (organismal

unconsciousness due to decisions made at the universal level) +

OC + OU (organismal unconsciousness due to decisions made at

the cellular level). Fourth column: CM (cellular mind) = CU

(cellular unconsciousness corresponding to the universal level)

+ CU (cellular unconsciousness corresponding to decisions

made at the organismal level) + CC.

As Table 1 indicates, the organismalmind of an individual living being involvescellular and universal consciousness; therefore,it has a huge potential for informational content(Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000; Manousakis, 2006,Grnitz, 2011).

In physics it is generally regarded thatelementary particles are not really elementary,since they are based on universal fields(Einstein and Infeld, 1938; Weinberg, 1995).Similarly, if biological decision-making occursthrough the quantum-vacuum (Grandpierreand Kafatos, 2012), and the Universe as a wholecan be regarded as conscious (Kafatos andNadeau, 2000) or equivalently living

(Grandpierre, 2012c), then decision-making canalso occur through the autonomy of a livingUniverse (Grandpierre and Kafatos, 2012).

5. ConclusionsHow can we conceive the physical ways throughwhich universal mind interacts with organismaland cellular minds? At the present state of theart, this question seems to be premature. For aslong as consciousness remains a fundamentalproblem, its scientific exploration may requirethat even physics can be transcended or at thevery least enlarged. At present, it is generally


9/11




615

conceded that we do not know how our mindsinteract with our bodies. We hope that ourproposed model may offer a new perspectivewith the help of such powerful explanatory toolslike genuine biological autonomy and thebiological principle acting on the quantumvacuum.

Although we know more and more aboutcellular intelligence and the psychoactiveactions of microbiota (Sousa et al., 2008) onour brain, science does not yet have a clearpicture about the interactions betweenorganismal and cellular minds. Nevertheless,there are some indications underpinning ourmodel. One is the fact that quantum-vacuumprocesses have a vast potential that, by ourproposal, can be harnessed by consciousness.Moreover, the phenomenon of intuition seems

to be related to cellular and universalconsciousness as basic ingredients oforganismal mind. In a living universe, universalconsciousness can be in a similar relationship ofmacrocosm to microcosm that we proposebetween organismal consciousness and cellularconsciousness. We would add that in a unifiedscientific outlook, as well as in the actualuniverse, all phenomena, laws, and firstprinciples must eventually be interconnected.

As we have argued here, livingorganisms, including the human, are first of all

systems of consciousness capable of makingdecisions. In the old scientific picture thedistinguishing property of human beings is ourself-consciousness, to which an outstandinglyhigh rate and quality of information processingis attributed. In the new picture obtained here,human self-consciousness has a relatively lowrate of information processing in comparison totacit, cellular, and universal consciousness. Atthe same time, the human mind has anoutstanding rate and quality of consciousnessbecause self-consciousness is assisted by the

even higher rate of tacit consciousness,corresponding to human knowledge (i.e., all thethings we have learned and remember, assistedby the extraordinary capacity of the humanneocortex).

Finally, the relation of self-consciousness to tacit consciousnesscorresponds to one of the general tendencies ofevolution, namely, the increasing developmentof the brains capacity, memory, flexibility, andlearning. On the basis of our results it seems

that contrary to the general view, evolution isprimarily the evolution of tacit consciousness,

not the information processing of self-consciousness.

6. AppendixSince we can measure only the already

manifested aspects of consciousness, i.e. asmanifested in the physical/material universe,therefore all such measures refer to the mostimmediate, yet already measurable, physicalaspects of consciousness.

As a first step, we consider that there arethree fundamental levels of consciousness inthe Universe: the universal, the cellular and theorganismal (multicellular), corresponding tothe three fundamental level of biologicalautonomy (defined as the ability of livingorganisms to decide about their acts themselvesin a way that is not determined completely byphysical or biological laws and previousconditions, Grandpierre and Kafatos, 2012),which we regard as the scientifically suitableformulation of consciousness.

We define the physically manifestedaspect of consciousness as the number ofdecisions made in a second by the organismunder consideration (cell, multicellularorganism, or the living Universe) as a whole, asa biologically autonomous being. Consciousness

is inevitably relative to the first-personperspective, and so it is different at the differentbut autonomous levels of an organism. Forexample, organismal consciousness is definedas the number of all decisions made at theorganismal level by the organism. We definethe observable aspect of self-consciousness asthe number of elementary bits of informationprocessing in a second that can be reported onby the subject. Examples for self-consciousnessare reading, voluntary motions, and thinking.

We define the manifested aspects ofunconsciousness as the number of all decisionsin a second in the organism, made at adifferent than the autonomy level ofconsciousness. For example, organismalunconsciousness is defined as the number of alldecisions in the organism made at the cellularor universal level.

We define the manifested aspects ofmind as the rate of all decisions made in theorganism, made by consciousness orunconsciousness, summed up.


10/11




616

We define the physically manifestedaspects of universal consciousness as thenumber of decisions made by the Universe as awhole. In our previous paper (Grandpierre andKafatos, 2012) we found that the Universe as awhole is biologically autonomous.

We define the manifested aspects ofuniversal unconsciousness as all decisionsmade by individual living multicellularorganisms and cells.

We define the manifested aspects ofuniversal mind as the rate of all decisionsoccurring in the Universe, made by universalconsciousness and unconsciousness, summedup.

In materialism, it is usual to considerthat the universe is the sum of all matter,planets, stars, galaxies etc. In a wider horizon,we define the Universe (including matter, lifeand consciousness; to distinguish it from thematerial universe, we write it with a capitalletter) as the unified whole of all physical,biological and psychological phenomena, lawsand first principles, together with autonomyexisting at the cellular, organismal anduniversal level. Identifying autonomousdecision making with the most immediate, yetalready physical aspect of consciousness, thisdefinition can be formulated as:

Universe = observable phenomena + laws ofNature + first principles of Nature + all thethree basic forms of consciousness. (10)

We note that observable phenomenacorrespond to the manifested surface ofNature. In comparison, laws of Naturerepresent a conceptually more compact anddeep level of Nature having vast (infinite)explanatory power and a moderate level ofalgorithmic complexity (Grandpierre, 2008),

while the first principles a still deeper, ultimate,creative or generic level (ibid.).Correspondingly, consciousness also has three

levels. The first, manifest level of consciousnesscorrespond to mental phenomena likethoughts already formed in words andsentences. The second, unmanifest level ofconsciousness corresponds to mental formshaving a certain algorithmic complexity. Thethird level of consciousness is the creative or

generic level, the ability to decide freely andcreatively, which we can call as creativeconsciousness. In our proposed scheme, thethree fundamental levels of consciousnessforms a unified whole. Similarly, we conceivethe Universe as the unified whole ofphenomena, laws, principles andconsciousness.

Imagining an evolutionary scheme inwhich the primary, unmanifested Universe (wedenote it as state 1) develops to materially

manifested Universe (state 2), we have thefollowing options:

Case 1. In state 1, unmanifested Universeconsists of principles, and consciousness.

The other option arises when assuming thateven laws and first principles of Nature arecreated by universal consciousness:

Case 2. In state 1, unmanifested Universeconsists of consciousness.

This option (2) in principle may allow thatcellular and organismal consciousness to co-exist with universal consciousness; let us denotethis case as (2a). The other option is that non-manifested, primary Universe consists ofuniversal consciousness, and cellular as well asorganismal consciousness develops later on(case 2b). In that case, in state (1) cellular andorganismal consciousness does exist onlypotentially. We can keep in mind thatunmanifested Universe has, with respect to itsmanifested activities, a fundamentally quantumnature, closely related to the quantum-vacuum,in which potential forms can exist which are notyet manifested in material, observable reality.


11/11




617

ReferencesAlberts B , Johnson A, Lewis J , Raff M, Roberts K and Walter

P. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 5th ed. Garland Science,2008; p.1115.

Alberts B. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines:Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists.Cell 1998; 92: 291294.

Anderson CH, Van Essen DC and Olshausen BA. Directedvisual attention and the dynamic control of information

flow, in Itti, L., Rees, G. and Tsotsos, J. (eds.)Neurobiology of Attention, Burlington, MA/San Diego,CA/London: Elsevier Academic Press, 2005; pp. 1117.

Baumeister EE, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M and Tice DM. EgoDepletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource? Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 1998; 74: 1252-1265.

Bauer E. Elmleti biolgia (Theoretical Biology). Budapest:Akadmiai Kiad (in Hungarian: 1967; an abridgedversion in English: 1982; in Russian:1935/1982/1993/2002).

Bedau MA. Four puzzles about life, in Bedau, M. A. andCleland, C. E. (eds.) The Nature of Life: Classical andContemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science,New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010; p.393.

Butler S. Darwin among the machines & Lucubratio ebria, in

Jones, H. F. (ed.), The notebooks of Samuel Butler, authorof Erewhon, New York: Dutton, 1863/1917; pp.4653.Butler S. The deadlock in Darwinism, in Streatfeild, R. A.

(ed.), The humor of Homer and other essays, Freeport,NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1967; pp. 253254.

Cowan N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: Areconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioraland Brain Sciences 2001; 24: 87185.

Davies P. Emergent Biological Principles and theComputational Properties of the Universe. Explaining Itor Explaining It Away. Complexity 2004; 10: 11-15.

Dennett D. Consciousness, in Gregory, R. L. and Zangwill, O.L. (eds.) The Oxford Companion to Mind, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1987.

Einstein A and Infeld L. The Evolution of Physics: From EarlyConcept to Relativity and Quanta. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1938.Grnitz T. The Meaning of Quantum Theory. Reinterpreting

the Copenhagen Interpretation. Advanced Science Letters2011; 4: 3727-3734.

Grandpierre A. The Nature of the Universe and the UltimateOrganizational Principle. Ultimate Reality and Meaning2000; 23: 12-35.

Grandpierre A. Az l Vilgegyetem knyve (The Book of theLiving Universe, in Hungarian). Budapest: Vlasz, 2002.

Grandpierre A. Biological Extension of the Action Principle:Endpoint Determination beyond the Quantum Level andthe Ultimate Physical Roots of Consciousness,NeuroQuantology 2007; 5: 346-362.

Grandpierre A. Fundamental complexity measures of life, inSeckbach, J. and Gordon, R. (eds.) Divine Action and

Natural Selection: Questions of Science and Faith inBiological Evolution, Singapore: World Scientific, 2008;pp. 566 - 615.

Grandpierre A. On the Biological Origin of Design in Nature,in Swan, L.S., Gordon, R., and Seckbach, J. (eds.)Origin(s) of Design in Nature: A Fresh, InterdisciplinaryLook at How Design Emerges in Complex Systems,Especially Life. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012a; pp. 17-41.

Grandpierre A. Az l Vilgegyetem knyve, jragondoltkiads (The Book of the Living Universe a ThoroughlyRethought Version, in Hungarian), Budapest: Titokfejt,2012b.

Grandpierre A. The Origin of Cellular Life and Biosemiotics.February 2013, Biosemiotics, Online First, Springer.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12304-013-9173-9

Grandpierre A and Kafatos M. Biological Autonomy.Philosophy Study 2012; 2: 631-649.

Grandpierre A and Kafatos M. Genuine Biological Autonomy:How can the Spooky Finger of Mind Play on the PhysicalKeyboard of the Brain? In: Hanna, P. (ed.) An Anthologyof Philosophical Studies, 2013; Vol. 7, pp. 83-98.

Margulis L and Sagan D. Sentient symphony, in Bedau, M. A.and Cleland, C. E. (eds.) The Nature of Life. Classical andContemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010; pp. 340-354.

Kafatos M and Nadeau R. The Conscious Universe, Dordrecht:Springer Verlag, 2000.

Kornberg, Arthur. 1989. For the love of enzymes. HarvardUniversity Press. Cambridge, MA.

Lehrl S and Fischer B. A basic information psychologicalparameter (BIP) for the reconstruction of concepts ofintelligence. European Journal of Personality 1990; 4:259-286.

Lloyd S. Computational Capacity of the Universe. Phys RevLett 2002; 88: 237901.

Manousakis E. Founding Quantum Theory on the Basis ofConsciousness, Foundations of Physics 2006; 36: 795 838.

Mero L. Habits of Mind: The Power and Limits of RationalThought, Springer: New York, 2002.

Milonni PW. The Quantum Vacuum. An Introduction toQuantum Electrodynamics. London: Academic Press,1994.

Norretranders T. The User Illusion. Cutting ConsciousnessDown to Size. New York: Penguin Books, 1999.

Polanyi M. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1966.

Rieder MK, Rahm B, Williams JD and Kaiser J. Humangamma-band activity and behavior. International Journalof Psychophysiology 2011; 79: 39-48.

Sousa T, Paterson R, Moore V, Carlsson A, Abrahamsson Band Basit AW. The gastrointestinal microbiota as a site forthe biotransformation of drugs. International Journal ofPharmaceutics 2008; 363: 125.

Theise N and Kafatos MC. Sentience Everywhere: ComplexityTheory, Panpsychism & the Role of Sentience in Self-

Organization of the Universe. Journal of ConsciousnessExploration & Research 2013; 4: 378-390.

Toepfer G. Teleology and its constitutive role for biology asthe science of organized systems in nature. Studies inHistory and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies inHistory and Philosophy of Biological and BiomedicalSciences 2012; 43: 113-119.

Weinberg S. Reductionism Redux. The New York Review ofBooks, 1995; October 5.

Weiss V. Memory Span as the Quantum of Action of Thought.Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 1995; 14: 387-408.

Whitman WB, Coleman DC and Wiebe WJ. Prokaryotes: Theunseen majority. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America 1998; 95: 65786583.

Documents

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Mind and Consciousness