<1>
ABSTRACT

The criteria for the selection of a new paradigm are important in guiding us toward the most viable. Swift’s class of criterion is ontological— the study of being—involving the existence status of the principle notions, physical reality and consciousness. Another possible class of criterion is epistemological, where process is considered, as well as reality status. The Primal Existence of Consciousness paradigm, chosen by an ontological criterion, is compared to the Organism Consciousness paradigm chosen by an epistemological—the study of the acquisition of knowledge—criterion.

SECTION I.
Science Within Consciousness (SWC) as an Ontological Paradigm

<2>
In [2], Swift characterizes the current paradigm as follows: The current paradigm for science has two main tenets. The first is that the material world is the primary reality and all else is either derived from that or illusionary.

If the paradigm criterion is restricted to ontology, namely the existence status of the material world vs. consciousness, one is constrained to describe the paradigm in terms of various degrees of existence, such as real phenomena vs epi-phenomena, and the corresponding choice between the immanence vs. transcendence of mind and matter.

<3>
Swift reviews the evolution of scientific paradigm shifts in terms of the increased richness of their ontological content in [16], EACH SHIFT EXPANDED THE PURVIEW OF "HARD" SCIENCE. (WITHOUT INVALIDATING THE FORMER), e.g.,

a) spherical vs flat earth expanded geometry from planar to spherical ( but we still use plane geometry for surveying).

b) Newton expanded science from merely planetary motion to motion anywhere of anything. (but epicycles still explain planetary motion).

c) Einstein extended physics to the very fast (but NASA still uses Newton for space navigation).

d) quantum mechanics extended physics to the very tiny (but it approaches identity to Newton as mass increases from atomic dimensions).

e) SWC expands science into the life sciences and spirituality (but with no change in the old physics of the material world).

Each new shift introduces a larger formalism to explain more of the material world. It is not clear how the new paradigm of SWC, expanding into life sciences, extends science, especially when it is remarked in [10], Consciousness can neither be sensed, defined, nor described.

Swift notes that science expands into the life sciences without any augmentation of the old physics. The problem here is that the old physics of closed systems cannot adequately describe open living systems. This situation is, in fact, the stumbling block for any paradigm based on current physics. The situation is even more troubling, since it is not clear that any ontological paradigm could be viable.

PART II.
A Review of the Evolution of Cultural Paradigms

<4>
If the notion of paradigm shift is defined as a fixed conceptual framework which becomes a filter for seeing, interpreting, and correlating experience, then these properties can be used to describe any culture. Thus, rather than starting at the idea of a flat earth, we can go back to the earlier Greek culture. One of their paradigms was an immanent mind, permeating existence (Collingswood, 1945). Motion seemed to be controlled by some thinking and animating agent. This paradigm is not explicitly an ontological one, since it mentions no hierarchy of being. It was only when Decartes was troubled by the conflict between ephemeral/corruptible matter and immortal/uncorrupted soul/mind, that ontological transcendence of mind above matter was needed to distinguish the two (Ibid). This schism became the scientific paradigm when the British Royal Society and the Vatican agreed to go their separate ways, science with matter, religion with soul/spirituality. This schism remains in place as the foundation of modern Cartesian culture.

<5>
Science as paradigm was inaugurated when experiment as controlled and critical observation of Nature was established as the criterion for seeing, interpreting, and correlating experience. Each new Cartesian paradigm shift embodied a larger horizon for experimentation. The sequence from Newtonian classical physics, through Einsteinian relativity and Bohr/Heisenberg/Schroedinger quantum mechanics had the common feature that they restricted investigation to the external physical world.

<6>
The advent of the scientific study of the mind changed the ground rules, since internal mind was included as well as external matter. Hence, to continue the trend of enlarging the horizon of experimentation, the old Cartesian restriction to limit investigation exclusively to the objective world is inadequate. The new paradigm must reunite mind and matter as the subject of controlled observation of an internal/external world. But this advance demands a shift to an extra-Cartesian cultural paradigm in order for science to progress into the internal/external world.

PART III.
Shift from Ontological to Epistemological Paradigm

<7>
The shift from an ontological to an epistemological paradigm demands that the frame of explanation be shifted from existence status to process. An epistemological paradigm that would continue to expand the horizon of critical experience to a wider field would picture the extra-Cartesian process of an internal/external agent or operator acting on an internal/external operand.

<8>
The issue of lack of explanatory power is problematic for ontological SWC. While the statistical deviations of anomalous phenomena are indeed many standard deviations from pure chance, no fully developed explanatory framework has emerged. Until such a framework appears, any convincing explanatory power remains lacking.

<9>
In a search for seeds for a frame of explanation in SWC and to clarify my understanding of them, I would like to examine closely some key phrases. Consider in [10], "Consciousness is the ground of all being." This provokes the question about what are the properties of the notion of ‘consciousness’. Immediately following in [10] is, "Consciousness can neither be sensed, defined, nor described." Paradoxically, this characterization sounds like a definition of ‘transcendence’ — beyond any description. This limit on conceptualization seems to preclude any development of a framework within which elemental properties could provide a convincing explanation.

Fortunately, this does not remain the case, since in [11], a property seems to appear. Even more interesting, the property seems to have the character of an epistemological picture, describing a process of experience, "[In QM, consciousness] is the agent for the materialization [actualization] of matter from the potential state." Let me use a synonym for agent here, namely operator. Then this becomes, "consciousness is an operator that acts on a potential state operand and promotes potentiality to actuality." Later in [11] the property of potentiality is introduced, "...before quantum collapse the electron was actually nowhere in this space-time world of ours." In [12] this is qualified by saying, "...it [the potential electron] must therefor have been in a transcendental region." So the agent/operator of consciousness promotes the operand from the transcendental to the real/physical/actual.

<10>
Let me interject here a short aside on how the process of quantum collapse is described in an epistemological paradigm. An important change from the old physics must be made to a new physics involving a replacement for the von Neumann maxim that only the human mind can cause a quantum collapse. Von Neumann’s conjecture, within the old closed system quantum mechanics, is a bald statement without any experimental evidence. The isolated closed quantum system, evolving according to its mechanical Hamiltonian equation of motion has no ability to connect with the external human mind that is supposed to cause the reduction from potentiality to actuality. Hence it has no explanatory power. The new physics draws on quantum field theory, QFT, to provide a meta-mechanical description, involving open quantum systems, so potentiality conversion becomes verifiable experimentally. Actuality is stimulated through invariance symmetry breaking in open quantum systems within biological organisms, particularly intra-cellular structures, (Del Giudice 1988). When the group invariance symmetries of quantum Bose condensation order wave resonances are LESS than the invariance symmetry of the underlying mechanical Hamiltonian, (photon/phonon) vibrations in the cell’s environment drive the collapse to a particular resonance. This is an explicit picture that describes how any living organism, from single cells up, can undergo a ‘quantum measurement process’. This meta-dynamic approach transcends the old unitary quantum theory, being non-unitary. Consciousness must also be generalized from human to living organism. The usual description of the quantum measurement process as producing conceptual properties of isolated systems must be generalized to a two level hierarchical process. Beneath the level of human conceptual consciousness that RE-PRESENTS—one type of thing standing for a different type of thing—the world in terms of symbols, is a more basic organism consciousness that PRESENTS the world—one type of thing standing for the same type of thing—the world of vibrational frequency in terms of a resonant ‘map’ of the world.

<11>
Now back to the discussion in <9>. Applying the overlay notion of operator/operand to describe consciousness seems to be the beginning of a framework of explanation. I suggest this overlay in order to introduce a further overlay notion from the epistemological paradigm, namely, the QFT notion of invariance symmetry breaking. If an invariance symmetry is considered to be a ‘potentiality for discrimination’, then the previously mentioned phrase, "The operator of consciousness promotes the operand from the transcendental to the real/physical/actual." Becomes "The operator of consciousness/experience breaks (promotes) an invariance symmetry (potentiality) by using difference to generate experience (the real/physical/actual)."

<12>
In order for me to make clear what is being said, let me ‘gloss’ the terms in the above ‘synthesized’ phrase in the jargon of extra-Cartesian epistemology. Consciousness: An epistemological process of generating experience invariance symmetry: In physics, Nother’s theorem posits an invariance symmetry for every conservation principle. Any conservation principle can be described as a lack of variation of the conserved quantity during variation of dynamic parameters. potentiality: A subjective/objective or internal/external immanent mind manages a ‘web’ of all ‘potentially conceivable’ human/organism ‘thoughts’. Potential conceptual possibilities include: religious, spiritual, God, scientific theories, philosophical schools, concepts thought through by extra-terrestrial being, in short—everything under the sun. In the jargon of extra-Cartesianism potentiality has the reality status of COSMOS, defined in the dictionary as the universe, conceived as an orderly and harmonious system. It is not transcendental, but neither is it real/physical/actual. It is the result of generalizing the quantum mechanical notion of potentiality to the status of global wellspring of actuality. Perhaps it can rely on its mathematical abstraction to establish its reality status as a perfect invariance symmetry. COSMOS has a hierarchical structure, based on degree of symmetry. At the apex is global, perfect symmetry—the potentiality of existence as a whole. As one passes downward in the hierarchy, lower symmetries select less general potentialities. The hierarchy is comprehensive, so the smallest potential detail has a corresponding invariance symmetry. difference: The means to select a potentiality for promotion to actuality. The term is used by Gregory Bateson (Bateson, 1972) as what gets transferred from the ‘territory’ to a ‘map’. Potential COSMOS corresponds to Bateson’s territory. experience:
1. The product of actualization from potentiality to actuality.
2. Bateson’s map is the record (memory) of actuality.
3. The product of spontaneous symmetry breaking, the quantum theory/biological/ cybernetic/information theoretic process that connects COSMOS to living organisms. Collective cultural experience tries to reconstruct COSMOS in the form of discovered invariance symmetries. This product of culture or civilization, is labelled by extra-Cartesianism as LOGOS, the rational principle of the universe. LOGOS consists of empirical regularities, laws, principles, rules, all viewed as invariance symmetries in the form of order/organization/ complexity.

<13>
In this historical era of searching for the new paradigm it is worthwhile to keep in mind that the more successful candidates will be able to predict experimental results. Also, the words we choose to describe our thoughts must be chosen very carefully, since each word carries with it many hidden conceptual complexions. For example, the replacement of the word consciousness by the word experience carries with it a significant change in context. While behind the term ‘consciousness’ lies an ineffable concept, one that is hard to put one’s finger on, the term ‘experience’ has a much more pragmatic context. It is something that can be investigated in the laboratory. Finding an experimental model to test possible paradigmatic notions should be an important step.

<14>
The coming paradigm will necessarily be multidisciplinary. This puts a tremendous burden on discussion. We all have our own pet concepts and words—a jargon. Those from different disciplines have difficulty in appreciating the nuances that we mean to have understood. I speak from personal experience. Starting only a few weeks ago, a small multidisciplinary group of us have been trying to design an experiment to test a multi-disciplinary explanation of cell experience. (The experiment was done 15 years ago with no understanding of the basis for the observed phenomenon at that time. The experiment uses white and red blood cells smeared on a microscope slide. White cells within a definite radius of debris from a laser-blasted red cell somehow ‘perceive’ this ‘food’ and through pseudopodic motility move to the red cell and assimilate its contents. We posit that the white cell cytoskeleton ‘perceives’, using a ‘quantum resonance’ process to sense the bio-molecular debris’s photon/phonon radiation. A quantum Bose condensation within the cytoskeleton, called a Goldstone mode, resonates with external photon/phonon frequency through a process of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Not appreciating any of our quantum theory/information theory/cybernetic background, the biologist insisted that a chemical molecular diffusion explanation was the only one conceivable. The current molecular biologist’s paradigm is clearly dogmatically in place! In parting, he did say that if we could make ourselves understood "using simple clear language that he could understand" he would be interested.) The necessary jargon to successfully describe the phenomenon is not yet known to any of us. However, we physicists must make clear to biologists, for example, what it is we hope to show. It is an exciting time and also a frustrating time.

<15>
In summary, several points can be made. Consciousness is primary. However, human consciousness must be generalized to an evolving consciousness for the entire biological realm. Spirituality can be included through it’s appearance in COSMOS, the quantum mechanical notion generalized to a global potentiality and wellspring of actuality. The cultural revolution toward the necessary paradigm shift will be difficult. Ontological Cartesianism is well entrenched in modern culture. Even if experiment tends to support an epistemological paradigm, it is not clear that it will have any real impact on our dominant cultural belief systems.

-------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

Gregory Bateson, Form, Substance and Difference, in *Steps to an Ecology of Mind*, Ballantine, 1972

R.G.Collingswood, The Idea of Nature, Oxford, 1945, pg. 6

E. Del Giudice et al, Structures, Correlations and Electromagnetic Interactions in Living Matter: Theory and Applications, in *Biological Coherence and Response to External Stimuli*, ed H. Frohlich, Springer Verlag, 1988

-------------------------------------------------------

You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Joel E Henkel
e-mail <jhenkel@juno.com>]