States of Consciousness
Charles T. Tart
18. As Above, So Below: Five Basic Principles
Underlying Physics and Psychology
I consider the material in this chapter speculative and thus appropriate
for introducing this section on speculation about consciousness.
The ideas presented are not basic to the applications of the systems
approach to the investigation of states of consciousness but are
extensions of the approach that intrigue me. They are speculative
also in that I am by no means a physicist and do not really understand
mathematics, the language in which so much of physics is expressed.
I intend this chapter primarily as a stimulus to prompt both physicists
and psychologists to think further about some of the ideas expressed
here.[1]
Most psychologists accept the idea that reality is ultimately
material, composed basically of matter and energy operating
within the physical framework of space and time. This is a useful
set of intellectual constructs for dealing with experiences, but
most psychologists think of it as an understanding of reality
rather than a philosophy. Psychologists who implicitly or explicitly
accept this position (which means most psychologists) thus in
effect define psychology as a derivative science, one dealing
with phenomena much removed from the ultimate bases of reality.
A corollary is that to be really "scientific" (to be
fashionable in terms of the prevailing physicalistic philosophy),
psychology must ultimately reduce psychological data to physical
data.
Figure 18-1 depicts the world-view of philosophical physicalism.
The ultimate structures or components of reality (top) are subatomic
particles. When I was a high school student, only a few such particles
were known and many scientists thought that electrons, protons,
and neutrons were the basics whose arrangement in patterns accounted
for the way the world was. Now literally hundreds of subatomic
particles have been "discovered." The word is enclosed
in quotation marks because, of course, no one has actually ever
seen a subatomic particle. They are assumed to exist because their
presence enables sensible interpretation of various kinds of instrumental
readings. Thus modern physicists picture the universe as composed
of hundreds of subatomic particles being influenced by three basic
types of forces: (1) the nuclear binding forces, which operate
only at the extremely tiny distances inside atomic nuclei; (2)
the so-called weak forces, which determine particle interaction
at extremely close distances; and (3) electromagnetic forces.
These forces act on the subatomic particles within a matrix of
space and time, which is still largely taken for granted as simply
being "space" and "time." Physics, then, is
the study of this most basic level of reality.
From this most basic level this world-view builds toward life
and consciousness. From subatomic particles, it moves to atoms,
primarily influenced by electromagnetic forces and studied by
physics and chemistry. From atoms it moves to molecules, primarily
governed by chemical forces (which are electromagnetic forces)
and studied most appropriately by chemistry. Next come large molecules,
which to some extent are self-sustaining, hold their molecular
configuration in spite of fairly large changes in their environment.
Some of these cross the mysterious dividing line into the simplest
forms of life, complex molecular assemblies capable of sustaining
themselves and reproducing themselves in spite of environmental
changes. Chemical, electromagnetic, and now gravitational forces
affect things at this level, and chemistry and biology are the
sciences for studying them.
Next comes the evolutionary chain of increasingly complex organisms,
which soon develop specialized nervous systems, which themselves
increase greatly in complexity. Chemical, electromagnetic, and
gravitational forces are active here, and chemistry, biology,
and physiology are the important sciences for studying them.
The human brain is considered the epitome of development of nervous
systems. I suspect that this is an unduly egocentric view, for
animals such as dolphins and whales certainly have larger brains
than man. But, perhaps because they do not build weapons to attack
each other or us, practically no one seriously considers the idea
that they may be as intelligent as we—the notable exception is
John Lilly {34}. The human brain is also affected by chemical,
electromagnetic, and gravitational forces. Physiology and probably
information theory are appropriate sciences for dealing with the
human brain.
Finally, there is consciousness, thought of as a by-product or
property of the human brain, and psychology is the science for
studying it. The forces affecting consciousness are not shown
because, in terms of the physicalistic philosophy, social or psychological
forces are derivative, not the "real" forces that actually
control the universe.
This is the conservative or orthodox view of the mind discussed
briefly at the beginning of this book. It does not really explain
what consciousness is, but, citing good evidence that physically
affecting the brain alters consciousness, asks not further questions
and simply believes that consciousness itself is a product of
brain functioning. The consequence of this view is that for an
ultimate explanation of consciousness, the phenomena of consciousness
must be reduced to those of brain functioning; brain functioning
must be reduced to basic properties of nervous systems, which
must be reduced to basic properties of live molecules, which in
turn must be reduced to basic properties of molecules per se,
which must be reduced to properties of atoms, which must finally
be reduced to properties of subatomic particles.
In practice, of course, this would be extremely tedious. Certain
relatively simple phenomena can be reduced one or two levels,
but if I want to predict what you are next going to do, the amount
of information I must deal with, starting with the knowledge of
subatomic particles and various forces and building all the way
up to consciousness, is simply impossible to handle.
There is no doubt that reductionism to more basic physical levels
has been extremely useful in the physical sciences; and, to a
certain extent, reductionism to simpler psychological events has
been useful in psychology. Finding the physiological bases of
psychological events or perhaps more accurately, the physiological
parallels or interactions with psychological events, has also
been useful. But, by and large, the attempt to reduce psychological
events to physiological events is neither the only nor the best
activity for psychology.
In the radical view of the mind, discussed earlier, a person's
belief about the nature of reality may actually alter the reality,
not just his interpretation of it. A fundamental part of the radical
view is that basic awareness may have an independently real status
itself, rather than being just a derivative of physical processes.
Figure 18-2 shows the scheme I propose for understanding human
consciousness. Human consciousness is shown as the result of the
interaction of six dimensions, each one just as real in some ultimate
sense as any of the others. The dimensions are matter, energy,
space, time, awareness, and an unknown factor that may be life
itself. Science, guided by a physicalistic, reductionistic philosophy,
investigates finer and finer levels of the matter and energy dimensions,
within a certain space-time framework; but these dimensions constitute
only two of the six or more dimensions that must be examined for
full understanding of human consciousness.
I have added space and time as two independent dimensions more
on intuition than on a basis I can cogently argue. We tend to
assume that space is some uniform thing that is just there and
that time is some uniform thing that is just passing. But experiences
in d-ASCs (see discussion of the Space/Time subsystem, in Chapter
8) indicate that there may be other kinds of spaces and other
kinds of times. I predict that some day our procedure of simply
taking space and time for granted as unitary phenomena will seem
quite crude.
In the systems approach, awareness is given a real and separate
status. Recall the distinction between awareness and consciousness.
Awareness is that basic, obviously there but hard-to-define
property that makes us cognizant of things; consciousness is
awareness as it is modified by and embedded in the structure of
the mind. Consciousness is awareness transformed by the brain-body
machine so that awareness loses some of its own innate properties,
gains certain properties from the structure (probably largely
brain structure) it merges with (or arises from in the conservative
view), and leads to certain gestalt properties that cannot be
predicted from a knowledge of either. The unknown factor dimension
is added to remind us of our ignorance and because I feel intuitively
that symmetry is called for in this diagram.
The first phrase of this chapter's title, "As Above, So Below,"
expresses my hypotheses that there is a uniform set of basic laws
running the universe. I speculate that whatever fundamental principles
or laws run the universe manifest themselves similarly in one
area we call psychology and in another we call physics. The idea
can be extended to other areas also, but I am not expert enough
to do so. Thus the laws of physics, as we currently understand
them, are manifestations (of an unknown degree of directness)
of the basic principles running the universe; laws and principles
affecting consciousness are manifestations (of an unknown degree
of directness) of these same principles. Neither manifestation
may be any more basic than the other. If this hypothesis is correct,
parallels to the five basic principles that seem to underlie physics
should be clearly discernible in the psychological area.
First Principle: Duality
Physics distinguishes between a pure energy state and a matter
state, with both energy and matter operating within the framework
of space and time. A convenient abbreviation for this quaternity
is MEST (matter, energy, space, time). The first principle is
that whenever pure energy is converted into matter , it generally
(universally?) creates a pair of particles whose properties are,
in some important way, opposite. An electron and a positron may
be created, for example, with opposite electrical charges, or
a pair of particles may be created that spin in opposite directions.
Conversely, the proper interaction of a pair of such opposite
particles results in their annihilation as particles and their
transformation back into pure energy. Thus the transformation
of energy into matter is generally done in a dualistic manner.
The principle seems so general that whenever a new particle is
discovered, its exact opposite is looked for as a matter of course.
Assuming that a resulting duality in a transition from an energy
state to a matter state is a general universal principle, a parallel
manifestation at the psychological level is seen in a phenomenon
encountered in some d-ASCs, the mystical experience of unity.
This is a direct experience of a condition of consciousness in
which all duality is transcended. In contrast to ordinary existence
in a world dominated by opposites, there is to up and down, good
and evil, creator and created, I and thou; everything is oneness.
Our language, of course, cannot express the experience adequately.
The experience of what may have been consciousness of the Void
(Chapter 14) in William's ultradeep hypnotic state may be an example
of this kind. In Buddhist literature, the highest kind of samadhi,
reached by successive refinements of concentration, is described
as a state in which there is neither perception nor nonperception
{20}. This state of consciousness seems analogous to the condition
of pure, undifferentiated energy.
But we do not live in such a state of consciousness. Few people
ever attain it, and even to them it is a transient experience,
though of supreme importance. All the spiritual systems {128}
that have this realization of a transcendence of duality as an
experiential basis teach that in the ordinary d-SoC (and
in many d-ASCs) duality is a basic principle governing the manifestation
of consciousness. Thus pleasure cannot exist without pain, hope
cannot exist without despair, courage cannot exist without fear,
up cannot exist without down. The state of mystical unity, of
Void consciousness, seems to be the experience of pure awareness,
transcending all opposites, like the pure energy state, while
consciousness, the condition of awareness deeply intermeshed with
and modified by the structures of the mind and brain, is a realm
of duality, the analog of the matter state. This seems to be a
manifestation of the principle of duality in he psychological
realm.
It is an exotic example, as most of us lack an experiential basis
for understanding it. When we deal with human consciousness we
do not deal with undifferentiated energy manifesting as two opposite
particles, the simple, primary phenomena with which physics deals,
but with complex, interacting systems made up of untold numbers
of more elementary systems constituting the structures of the
mind and brain, activated by awareness and construction, consciousness
(as opposed to pure awareness), is the experiential area with
which we are most familiar. As we shall see in considering the
other basic principles, the fact that our ordinary psychological
experience is almost always with the complex, ongoing structure
of human consciousness makes it difficult to see how these basic
principles, derived for ideally simplified situations, can be
applied precisely.
Second Principle: Quantum Law, the Law of Discreteness
The quantum principle in physics states that because of the nature
of certain physical systems, most obviously that of the atom,
certain transitions from one energy configuration to another can
occur only in a complete, all-or-none jump. In an atom, for example,
an electron can be in one or another precise energy state, but
cannot occupy an energy level intermediate between these two.
It must go from one to the other, given the requisite energy to
bring this about, in an all-or-none fashion. Thus there is one
state, a forbidden zone, and then a second state. There may be
a third state, a fourth state, and so on, but the transition is
always all-or-none. When dealing macroscopic objects or systems
that are made up of large numbers of the more elementary components
governed by quantum laws, the aggregate, the macroscopic system,
may seem to show continuity over wide ranges of intermediate values,
but this is statistical illusion from a gross level of observation.
For example, an aggregate made up of units, many of which are
in a quantum state that we can call two, and many of which are
in a quantum state that we can call three, can have an average
value anywhere between two and three, depending on the relative
distribution of the quantum units.
I see the quantum principle, as stated in physics, as particular
manifestation of a more general principle that various components
of the universe have a "shape" or "structure"
or "energy configuration." On a familiar, macroscopic
level, for example, water can be in three distinct states, a solid
(ice), a liquid (ordinary water), or a gas (steam). There can
be mechanical mixtures of the three states, as of water droplets
falling or floating in the air, but the solid, liquid, and gas
states are quite distinct.
The application to consciousness of this general principle, that
various components of reality have properties that therefore
determine the way they can interact with other units, is outlined
in Chapter 2. To recapitulate briefly, a d-SoC is a system or
a pattern or an overall configuration of many psychological subsystems
or structures. Each subsystem shows variation within itself within
certain limits, but maintains its overall identity as a subsystem.
Since identity means properties, this limits the number of possible
ways a stable system can be built up from the subsystems and thus
limits the number of d-SoCs possible for a human being.
The induction of a d-ASC involves the application of disrupting
forces to the b-SoC to push one or more subsystems beyond their
stable limits and/or to disrupt the feedback loops between subsystems
that stabilize the b-SoC. When enough feedback loops have been
disrupted and/or enough subsystems pushed beyond their stable,
ordinary ranges of functioning, the overall organization of the
b-SoC breaks down, and a transitional period of varying duration
occurs, with the subsystems having only transient, unstable relationships
to each other. then, with the application of appropriate patterning
forces, the subsystems are reassembled in a new configuration
that is stable and that we call the d-ASC.
This process constitutes a kind of quantum jump. albeit not the
neat quantum jump of an electron from one discrete energy state
to another in an atom. We are dealing with highly composite, complex
structures, and even when such structures are made up of units
that operate on quantum principles, the aggregate may show various
degrees of continuity. Recall the earlier discussion of individual
differences. For certain individuals, the transition from a b-SoC
to a d-ASC definitely shows a quantum jump, with no consciousness
during the transition period. The system properties of the d-ASC
are quite different from those of the b-SoC.
The quantum jump from one d-SoC to a d-ASC may be a leap along
what we conceive of as a continuum or it may be the emergence
of a totally new function or pattern of functioning.
The d-ASCs of which we now have some scientific knowledge occur
in human beings who have been thoroughly conditioned by enculturation
processes, so the quantum jumps we have seen in investigating
various d-ASCs may largely represent the results of semiarbitrary
cultural conditioning. That is, in a particular culture you might
have to be either straight or stoned, but in another culture you
may be able to be a little of each simultaneously. However, we
can postulate as a general principle that the various subsystems
and structures that make up the human mind cannot be put together
in just any arbitrary way: each structure has properties of its
own that restrict its possible interaction with other structures
into a larger structure or system. Insofar as we can learn to
study the mind beyond the semiarbitrary cultural conditionings
of consciousness, the study of d-ASCs may eventually tell us something
about the fundamental properties of the human mind and the way
in which the overall system of consciousness can thus be structured,
what its basic states and forbidden zones are.
Third Principle: Relativity
In nonmathematical terms the relativity principle in physics is
that there is not such thing as a neutral observer. Rather,
any observer exists within a particular MST framework, and this
framework affects his observations.
This is more profound than saying that an observer's sense organs
affect his observations. We realize, for example, that we do not
naturally know how the world looks in the ultraviolet spectrum
of light, but we can build instruments to make a translation for
us. What is here being said is that the observer is an inherent
part of the MEST framework, and this gives the observer himself
characteristics, over and above what can be compensated for by
special instruments, which affect his observations of thins outside
himself.
The principle of relativity applies in a variety of ways in psychological
work, even though most psychologists have not seriously accepted
it. Indeed, it applies to you and me in our everyday lives, even
though we do not always accept it. At one level, each human being,
functioning in his ordinary d-SoC (or in a d-ASC), shows selective
perception, selective thinking, selective action that in turn
controls his perceptions. Because of his particular culture and
the consensus reality to which his ordinary d-SoC has adapted
him, plus his personal idiosyncrasies, he (1) is more prone to
observe certain things; (2) is unlikely to observe other kinds
of things at all; and (3) may have a great many transformations
and distortions of what he does sense before it reaches his consciousness.
This all happens unconsciously, automatically, and smoothly in
the normally functioning adult. For example, the Christian missionary
of the 1800s "saw" sin in the form of public display
of "lust" in a native village, when the natives would
have said that they were only giving polite approval to the dancers.
This kind of relativity is becoming recognized in psychology under
the topics of experimenter bias and the implicit demand characteristics
of experiments. An experimenter's desire to prove the hypothesis
he believes in not only can influence how he perceives his data,
but also can subtly influence his subjects to cooperate in ways
that will erroneously "prove" his hypothesis. Your beliefs
about the nature of things around you can influence the way you
see things and subtly influence others to uphold your view of
reality.
In addition to this culturally and individually conditioned relativity,
the fact that each person is human and therefore born with certain
basic properties in his nervous system, sensory receptors, and
perhaps in the nature of the awareness that enters into or comes
from the operation of his nervous system, equips him with built-in
biases for seeing the universe in certain kinds of ways and not
other ways. This applies not only to the external universe perceived
through his senses or with instrumental aids, but to his observations
of his own internal experiences.
It is amazing how little recognized this idea is. The old concept
of the "neutral observer," common in nineteenth century
physics but now long abandoned by physicists, is alive and well
within the ranks of psychologists, implicitly guiding almost all
experiments. A wiser course is always to assume that an
observer or experimenter has biases and selectivities in the way
he perceives, evaluates, and acts, even when these are not obvious.
D-ASCs are of particular interest here. The ordinary d-SoC is
a complex system incorporating various selectivities for perceiving
the outside world and our own internal experiences, and functioning
as a tool for coping with our external and internal worlds. Transiting
to a d-ASC constitutes a qualitative as well as a quantitative
restructuring of the systems, which may be looked at as a new
set of filters, biases, and tools for the observer/theorizer.
By observing both the external and internal worlds from a variety
of d-SoCs, rather than only one, we can develop a number of state-specific
sciences within various d-ASCs. This enables a complementary series
of views of the external and internal universes, which may partially
compensate for the limits of the view found in any one d-SoC.
I emphasize partially compensate, because no matter how
many different d-SoCs we observe from, we are still human, and
that probably implies ultimate limits on what we can do. We have
not begun to approach these ultimate limits.
Note again that the idea that we must obtain complementary (I
use this term in the sense it is used in physics) views of the
universe from various d-SoCs, in order to get as full as view
of it as possible, collides with an implicit and pervasive assumption
that the ordinary d-SoC is the optimal, most logical state of
consciousness and thus the one in which ultimate understandings
will occur. This powerful and implicit bias, a product of enculturation,
seriously hinders our thinking. We should always be open to the
possibility that there is some "higher" d-SoC of which
all other d-SoCs can be seen as fully comprehensible subsets:
perhaps this is what enlightenment means in some ultimate sense.
The ordinary d-SoC, with all its culturally conditioned limitations,
is an unlikely candidate for this high degree.
The last two basic principles of physics do not have obvious parallels
in known psychological functioning because the complexity of the
human mind precludes such simple analogies. It is interesting,
however, to consider them and assume that they ought to be manifest
in the psychological realm if they are true. In this way, we can
alert ourselves to look for parallels.
Fourth Principle: Conversation
The basic expression of the principle of conservation in physics
is that in any reaction nothing is lost. The sum total of what
goes in is the sum total of what goes out, even if there are transformations
in form. This was originally thought of as the conservation of
mass: the amount of matter that went into a chemical reaction
was exactly equal to the amount of matter that came out of it.
Because of various theoretical prospective changes, as well as
the development of extremely precise measurement techniques, this
definition was seen to be too simple and the principle was rephrased
in terms of the conservation of the sum of mass and energy. Thus
mass can be traded for energy, for example, but the sum is still
the same. Modifications of the exact quantities are put into this
equivalence equation in various physical situations, but the basic
principle that what goes in equals what comes out holds generally
through physics.
I do not see the obvious application of this to conscious experiences
that we know of, because we almost never have simple, straightforward
actions of consciousness that allow this kind of input-output
comparison. Even apparently simple psychological reactions may
consist of many separate steps that are perceived dimly or not
at all due to automatization {14}. Also, experience at almost
all times involves several things going on in rapid succession
or even apparently simultaneously, and we know that important
unconscious reactions can occur simultaneously with conscious
ones. Thus we may have conscious experiences that seem to deplete
or use up psychological energy or create psychological experience
(the equivalent of mass?), and other kinds of experiences that
seem to increase energy, but we do not know how to assess or measure
these in a clear enough way to begin to measure what goes in and
what goes out and see whether they are equivalent. We may be able
to develop indirect indicators of unconscious reactions or make
unconscious reactions more conscious by means of therapeutic or
self-observational techniques.
Fifth Principle: Law of Least Action
The physical expression of this principle is that nature is economical:
when a process can occur in several alternate ways, the one requiring
the least expenditure of energy is the one used. Apparent exceptions
generally turn out to conform to the principle and to have seemed
exceptional because they were viewed in isolation: when considered
as a part of a larger system, the principle of least action is,
in fact, followed.
An initial glance at psychological experience seems to show many
contradictions to this. We do all sorts of things every day in
ways that, even to our own perception, are certainly not the most
economical ways. An observer may detect even more wasted energy.
Suppose I carry a book from here into the next room. If I observe
the action carefully, I will probably find that I have not used
my body in a way that requires a minimal expenditure of energy
to move the book from here to there. The complicating factor in
trying to apply the fifth principle to psychology is the human
propensity for doing several things simultaneously, many of them
not in consciousness or even available to consciousness. So while
carrying the book from this room to the next I may also be thinking
about what to write in this chapter an using "body English"
as part of my thinking process. I may also be semiconsciously
trying to improve my posture, semiconsciously rebelling against
the need to try and improve myself so much of the time, and so
deliberately wasting some energy, either bodily or psychological
energy, in order to express my "freedom."
A claim made in many spiritual writings, supported by some experiential
data from various d-ASCs, is that, with effort, we can become
more and more conscious of exactly what we are doing. Whether
we can become conscious of everything we are doing psychologically
at a given moment is unknown. Thus it is unclear whether we can
ever be in a position adequately to assess whether the law of
least action applies to psychological phenomena. But it may be
profitable to postulate that the fifth principle does apply and
then proceed to look for manifestations.
In the history of science it has often been fruitful to postulate
some principle as true before there is good evidence for it, and
then to examine the subject matter of the particular science with
the postulate in mind. It may be profitable to follow this plan
for the fourth and fifth principles. They may be true; if they
are not, the need to develop more precise ways of measuring many
psychological phenomena simultaneously in order to test the truth
of the principles will be a major advance in itself.
As above, so below?
Footnote
[1] I In the spring of 1973, my colleagues
at the Institute for the Study of Human Consciousness and I heard
an exceptionally lucid presentation by Dean Brown, Stanford Research
Institute, of the basic principles of physics, general principles
that seem to emerge repeatedly in all areas of physics and that
may represent fundamental principles underlying the universe,
Brown suggested that these same principles may have parallels
in the study of the mind, although he did not expound on this
idea. The suggestion took firm root in my mind and has resulted
in this chapter. I am also indebted to Andrew Dienes for helping
me to understand and express some of the physics ideas in this
chapter. (back)