ABSTRACT
The consideration of Quantum Mechanics as something 'independent' of humans sometimes leads to the failure to recognise that it is a 'mapping' system created by 'in here' to help describe specific processes 'out there' and it is the STRUCTURE of the system that can help us develop other mapping systems rather than its specific algorithms and formulas. This structure comes from 'in here' and so a refined analysis of our neurological and psychological METHODS that go into the creation of QM can go towards developing a 'Theory of Cosciousness' that is NOT based within a QM context but in the generic context in which we make all maps. (and can also go towards solving QM 'paradoxes' and refining other categorisation systems.).


<1>
Nunn's comments on QM and the mind are interesting but seem to ignore the 'fact' that the whole structure of what we call 'Physics' is in fact a specific method used to map 'out there' and as such reflects more about how 'in here' perceives 'out there'. Thus the 'importance of quantum theory for an understanding of consciousness' is more the importance of the FORM that QM takes that tells us how we perceive 'out there' regardless of what is 'out there'.

<2>
When we 'look' at the neurology we see the foundations for the psychology to create the physics, by this I mean that our descriptions are dictated by three constraints -- physiological, sociological, and psychological and these go towards the way we 'do' physics or any other form of categorisation and mapping.

<3>
Mathematical descriptions of 'out there' (or even 'in here') are based on the use of algorithms and formulas to 'assert' specifics, where the algorithms and formulas are 'generals' in that they 'point' to precision but are not in themselves 'precision'. (thus there can be a number of ways to do the same thing).

<4>
The process of discovering and/or creating algorithms and formulas is reductionist in that we respond to a basic, genetically determined, need to identify by naming specifics and then noticing patterns of behaviour that may lead to the assertion of an overall 'law' (a general) that determines the behaviour and so a more refined understanding of the specifics. The 'base' idea being to be able to predict the behaviour of specifics such that we can avoid having to keep track of every specific; we 'know' what will happen since we 'know' the law and so can see where things are going.

<5>
The determination of 'laws' is based on the analysis of groups of specifics and from this analysis a pattern emerges that we can then apply, but the form of the method used in the analysis will itself determine what we 'see' in that the method has properties built-in such that the observed patterns are only 'seeable' in the context of the method used to describe the patterns.

<6>
In Physics, Classical Mechanics is highly explicitly 'reductionist' in that there is a high degree of tangibility -- we can 'touch' the specifics that lead to the patterns. On the other hand, Quantum Mechanics is *implicitly* 'reductionist' in that the nature of the specifics depends on the nature of the experiment; if we 'look' for single particles we find them but the moment we go 'general' so the specifics disappear into waves.

<7>
This takes us back to the neurology in that we find another aspect in the form of pattern detection that is 'illusionist' in that it is based on the summing of aspects that lead to the assertion of a 'specific', but the 'specific' can be an illusion in that the meaning given it is 'wrong' -- like random patterns (e.g. Markov Chains) that 'appear' to have something 'behind' them but dont; we go back to looking for 'signs' a la the movie "The Life of Brian". (there is a sociological archetype at work here that seems be rooted in security seeking in that when the stranger enters town and does NOT reveal background etc a lot of speculations are made by the populous that become 'facts' that are aspects that get summed into an overall assertion (identification) of what/who the stranger is; all of these are then found to be illusion -- usually after the stranger has been lynched or run out of town...or else has been made a god' ... illusionism is 'transforming' but it has a price).

<8>
The neurology and psychology suggest that the methods we use to create our maps are based on the oscillation between reductionist and illusionist processing. The format taken is to an explicit, absolute, EITHER/OR biased, particle-emphasising, reductionism combined with an implicit, relativistic, BOTH/AND biased, wave-emphasising, illusionism; where the latter introduces the world of probabilities and transformations.

<9>
Switching to our maps of reality based on Physics we do indeed find these forms of representation, where the illusionist bias is strongly found in QM, and where one of the 'basics' of QM is statistical analysis. (Note how the fundamentals of physics --- fermions and bosons -- are seen analogously to brain categorisation behaviours where the fermions are 'particle'-like absolutes and the bosons are 'wave'-like relatives.)

<10>
Statistical analysis stems from the inability to determine the laws applied to a specific, with this resulting in our looking at specificS -- we move towards 'generalities' and so 'patterns' to try and get behind the specific -- we look for contextual influences. We assume by this that the patterns we see are 'independent' of the methods of perception; this is false reasoning for the patterns we see are always perceived in the CONTEXT set by the method.

<11>
ANY form of statistical analysis is based on PAIRS where a PAIR is the BASE
unit of representation and as we add more elements so we refine the
patterns we perceive (if any).

<12>
The emphasis on PAIRS leads us to an emphasis on dichotomous analysis and from this emerges two patterns common in statistics -- a Normal Distribution Curve (NDC) and an Implied Wave Interference Pattern (IWIP); I stress 'implied' since we seem to assume that since the pattern suggests waves so the waves must be 'out there'; this is not necessarily the case.

<13>
The NDC emerges when we consider the PAIRS as explicit forms in that I can identify the order of each element of the PAIR; thus when I count so there is no question of ordinality.

<14>
The NDC emerges as we take the base PAIR and apply feedback in that we keep adding more data to find that our original BLACK/WHITE assertion is 'wrong' and there are in fact shades of grey involved -- so much so that BLACK and WHITE become extremes and the NDC emerges with the areas of highest diversity being in the middle. The NDC is a property of the METHOD of analysis and, although 'meaningful' to us, does not necessarily reflect 'out there' 'in toto'.

<15>
An interesting pattern emerges when we move to the consideration of dynamic PAIR events for here we do NOT know the order of the elements in the PAIR -- there is a 50/50 probability built-in to the determination. When we use this method so a pattern emerges that implies some sort of wave interference at work but this is projected onto the elements under analysis and is not recognised as being a property of the METHOD resulting from the indeterminacy of the elements within the PAIR; if we could determine the order then an NDC would emerge -- instead we get a 'reduced' form. (interestingly this suggests that in an IWIP pattern, over time, there will be ONE element in the areas claimed as resulting from destructive wave interference.)

<16>
The NDC and the IWIP are properties of the METHOD of analysis - ANY analysis, whether it be the micro or the macro or everything else inbetween and so the METHODS we use in QM are just as applicable to any other areas of analysis and so will emerge the same 'paradoxes' (e.g. 'where' is crowd behaviour in the individual?) All of this comes from 'in here' in that QM, Relativity, etc etc are metaphors representing whole/aspects interactions, for that is what the base neurology functions on when processing information.

<17>
Nunn mentions 'psychic' processes that 'suggest' QM related behaviours, but the statistical analysis of these processes is usually at the base PAIR level, as is the analysis of Bell's inequality and the EPR paradox (both of which imply faster-than-light communications.) where the experiments are based around photon pairs or photon/polariser interactions.

<18>
As the above demonstrates (I hope!), we must be very wary of our methods in that they contain properties that we may project 'out there', however there is an interesting area of consideration when we look at 'purity' in that for Bell and EPR so the emphasis is on correlation and a when we look at biology we find similar properties emerging in identical twins -- genetically 'pure' forms occupying 'different' spaces and supposedly showing 'psychic' connections (or 'resonance' due to identical 'tuning'?)

<19>
Looking at the overall neurology/psychology we find that reductionism also includes 'miracles' which are highly localised and specific events that 'transcend' the illusionist general non-localised 'laws' of the universe; these miracles are 'unexplainable' by any form of algorithm/formula know to Science at this time.

<20>
Overall, I suggest that it is the understanding of the way in which we make maps of reality that can help in our resolving 'problems' in QM as well as refining our attempts at creating 'Theories of Consciousness' and so it is the STRUCTURE of QM itself that can go towards aiding in this 'quest' rather than QM as a method; the structure is demonstratable as being founded on 'in here' and so generalisable to all theories including those of Consciousness.

[Chris Lofting is an Analyst/Programmer
with Computershare Ltd.
E-mail: <clo@fmsc.com.au>
Website: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond]