If we accept consciousness being immaterial and persisting beyond bodily death, rather than a phenomenon tethered to neurons and synapses of the brain – how does that signal bind, unbind and rebind to new biologies?
Over the years in this blog, I have considered possible vectors (or metaphors for mechanisms), from brain waves, quantum effects and gut flora to music. Today, I'll dive in deeper.
Let's start with the metaphor of consciousness as a broadcast field. Our brains act as receivers, picking up signals from the field. At death, the receiver fails – but the field, the signal, persists; a new brain with compatible structure locks onto the same frequency or pattern. The question here is that of compatibility; is this purely a biological factor? Is it random? What of karmic affinity? The 'broadcast field' metaphor also explains atheists who do not feel the numinous, who have no spiritual attunement; for they are like computers, able to think, logically, quickly – but are not connected via wi-fi to the Cosmic Consciousness, to the Eternal Whole. Then there is the idea of the brain not so much as a receiver but as a transmitter, generating electromagnetic fields that might imprint on the environment and later be reabsorbed, but no there are no hypotheses as to storage or retrieval mechanisms.
Acoustic / vibrational models begin with the notion that reality is fundamentally vibrational, and that consciousness is a frequency pattern. At death, the pattern dissipates but does not vanish; it can be congruently reconstructed under the right conditions via resonance. As I wrote, this echoes Pythagoras's 'music of the spheres', as well as the Vedic concept of Nāda Brahma ('universe as sound'). Whether your physics is field-based or wave-based, this is intuitively powerful; and while lacking a concrete encoding mechanism for memory/identity, it could be that music somehow acts as trigger.
Physics (bless it) has not yet detected neither such fields nor such vibrations. (Note the word 'yet' there– as I wrote yesterday, should it? Will it ever detect them? Or is science destined never to nail down the numinous and ineffable as a mathematical formula?)
The next mechanism is quantum information transfer. This posits that consciousness as a quantum state (or information pattern). Consciousness is encoded in quantum information, potentially in microtubules (the Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory of Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff) or some deeper quantum substrate. At death, quantum coherence collapses the information of consciousness, which disperses into the quantum vacuum or entangled states; it then recoheres in another system. This theory provides a technical framework for non-local persistence. However, there is no evidence that personal identity can survive decoherence.After 30 years, Orch-OR has neither been proven nor falsified. Sir Roger has often stated that he does not believe consciousness to be computational.
However, if we think of our consciousness as operating system software, and our thoughts as the apps run on that operating system, the brain being the biological hardware, then we can think of a computational continuity model of reincarnation, with old software being copied over into a new computer. A wave pattern of information reforms in a different medium, recreating the consciousness of the deceased person. This model is favoured by those who believe in a simulation hypothesis. But the question remains: what's the transfer mechanism? Pen-drive or wi-fi?
Biological carriers are also worth considering. Genetic memory links consciousness to DNA patterns. This can explain 'atavistic resurgence', whereby a memory from an ancestor re-emerges via blood lineage; however this can't explain non-familial cases of reincarnation. This could explain the strong feeling of familiarity I got in May 2010 while cresting a low hill outside Mogielnica, unaware of the fact that my grandmother was brought up nearby. Then there is the microbiome (gut flora). The gut-brain axis has been proved to influenced cognition; it could be hypothesised that microbial ecosystems carry 'memory markers' from one human to another. This, however, is thought to be highly implausible as a carrier of identity and complex personality; at best microbes can influence mood.
The panpsychist and idealist models, towards which I lean, are based on the core idea that consciousness is primary, rather than derived. There is no migration of consciousness, only localisation (life), delocalisation (death), and relocalisation (rebirth); a whirlpool forming in a river dissolving and reforming elsewhere Advocates include three of my favourite philosophers, David Chalmers, Bernardo Kastrup and Phillip Goff. Idealism, which gets away from the primacy of matter, sidesteps the transport problem entirely, but is hard to reconcile with personal identity continuity that we see in those cases where one dead person's identity seems to inform the consciousness of another (which I experience).
If we want to abandon any pretence of scientific rigour, we can seek non-mechanistic answers in karmic or causal continuity, as propounded by Buddhism. There is no migrating entity here, only a causal chain, with one life conditioning the next, as a flame passed from candle to candle or a wave propagating on a calm surface of water. In Buddhism (unlike Hinduism) there is no permanent self, but continuity of tendencies. While philosophically rigorous, it doesn’t satisfy intuition of a persisting 'self'
So... what persists? Memories? Certainly. Personality traits/behaviours? Possibly. Physical traits (birthmarks etc). Personally, I can't see why. Causal chain (karma – learning lessons, undoing past-life wrongs), yes, I get that and appreciate this argument.
Any viable mechanism must explain memory continuity (rare but claimed cases), identity persistence, selectivity (why one body, not another), and ways whereby energy and information are conserved. The answer lies in a blend of the above. Perhaps.
Old Souls and New Souls: some people report the feeling of having experienced many previous human lifetimes. Others few, or just one. But most folk – none at all. My thinking here: humanity is expected to peak at ten billion sometime in the mid-2070s before settling back to a more sustainable and stable number in the middle of the 22nd century. More and more human beings will become inhabited by old souls, who will have experienced many lives and therefore become wiser, gentler, understanding the notion of win-win rather than looking at life adversarially. A stable population will mean lesser pressure on natural resources. Less greed. So – is the number of souls finite? Still so many questions remain.
Lent 2025: day 30
Getting On With It (Pt II)
Lent 2025: day 30
The Divine in your life
Lent 2023, day 30
God/No God
Lent 2022: day 30
Let the Spirit guide you!
Lent 2021: day 30
On being perceptive
Lent 2020: day 30
Time – religion and metaphysics
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment