Abstract
I suggest that there exists an interesting and little known relationship between Neuroscience, Consciousness and Spirituality. To illustrate this, I first outline the paradoxical relation between the subjectivity of mind (i.e. consciousness) and its objective material correlate (i.e. neuroscience). I then give support to the notion that this paradox is rationally unsolvable by showing that it is isomorphic to the wave-particle paradox in quantum physics, where the impossibility to rationally resolve it has eventually been accepted as a fundamental property of reality, called the complementarity principle. Next, I point out that spiritual (mystical) traditions have also arrived at very similar paradoxical descriptions of reality, which lends additional plausibility to the insights from quantum physics and philosophy of mind (and vice versa!). Finally, and most importantly, I suggest that since mystical practices offer ways to individually transcend logical paradoxa by developing non-dual, transrational states of consciousness, they may provide a solution to fundamental theoretical problems such as those outlined above and should thus be regarded as an indispensible part of any advanced research methodology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Here, the label ‘hard’ was meant to accentuate the differentiation between the practically demanding but paradigmatically not so challenging questions regarding the form a particular content of consciousness takes on, in correspondence to the characteristics of the correlated neuronal processes, and the more fundamental question about why there is any conscious, i.e. subjective and qualitative experience at all, and how it relates to its physical counterpart.
- 2.
I use the word spirituality here to denote the experiential aspect of transcendence, the mystical core of all religions.
- 3.
A photograph of this coat of arms is available at http://www.nbi.dk/hehi/logo/crest.html (last accessed April 20th 2010)
- 4.
It may be reassuring to note that Nagarjuna also made clear, that this applies primarily to so called ultimate truths (paramartha satya), whereas on the level of so called conventional, instrumental or relative truth (samvriti satya) definite answers and binary logic can be considered adequate (e.g. Scott 1995).
- 5.
Of course, if we analyze it precisely, no experience can ever be conveyed exactly using only words or any other means of communication. Firstly, language is coarse and simplistic compared to experience which is subtle, fluid and highly complex. Secondly, any communication can only serve to call forth in the ‘receiver’ a new or remembered experience of his or her own, which will therefore never be exactly the same as the ‘sender’s’. The difference between normal experiences (such as seeing the colour red) and a mystical experience is that for the former it is more likely that two people have both had it. A mystical experience is in this sense only mystical for someone who has not had it. And for someone who has never seen colours, seeing red is in this sense mystical.
- 6.
Satori denotes a mystical peak or enlightenment experience in Zen Buddhist terminology, literally (jap.) “understanding” (author’s note).
- 7.
References
Atmanspacher, H., & Fach, W. (2005). Acategoriality as mental instability. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 26(3), 181–206.
Bohr, N. (1928). The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature, 121(3050), 580–591.
Bohr, N. (1934). Atomic theory and the description of nature. New York: Cambridge University Press (Republished 1961).
Braud, W., & Anderson, R. (1998). Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences: Honoring human experience. Sage Publications, Inc.
Brody, N., & Oppenheim, P. (1969). Application of Bohr’s principle of complementarity to the mind-body problem. The Journal of Philosophy, 66, 97–113.
Chalmers, D.J. (1995a). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D.J. (1995b). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.
Chunqiu, L. (2003). The taiji diagram: A meta-sign in chinese thought. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 30(2), 195–218.
Daniels, M. (2003). Making sense of mysticism. The Transpersonal Psychology Review, 7(1), 39–55.
De Broglie, L. (1925). Recherches sur la théorie des quanta. Annales de physique, 3, 22–128 (Republished (1992) in Ann. Found. Louis de Broglie (17) p. 22).
De Broglie, L. (1926). Ondes et mouvements. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
Edelheit, H. (1976a). Complementarity as a rule in psychological research – Jackson, Freud and the mind/body problem. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 57, 23–29.
Edelheit, H. (1976b). Complementarity as a rule in psychological research. Jackson, Freud and the mind/body problem. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 57(1–2), 23–36.
Einstein, A. (1905). Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt. Annalen der Physik,(17), 132–148 (Republished (2005) Annalen der Physik 14(11): 164–181).
Einstein, A. (1909). Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 10, 817–825.
Fahrenberg, J. (1979). Das Komplementaritätsprinzip in der psychophysiologischen Forschung und psychosomatischen Medizin. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 27, 151–167.
Fahrenberg, J. (2007). Gehirn und Bewusstsein: Neuro-Philosophische Kontroversen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Feigl, H. (1972). The “mental” and the “physical”. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Filk, T., & von Müller, A. (2009). Quantum physics and consciousness: The quest for a common conceptual foundation. Mind and Matter, 7(1), 59–79.
Gebser, J. (1986). The ever-present origin. Athens: Ohio University Press.
Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy; The revolution in modern science. New York: Harper.
Heisenberg, W. (1971). Physics and beyond. New York: Harper & Row.
Hoche, H.U. (1990). Anthropologische Komplementarität und die ‘Einheit der Sache’. Versuch einer skeptischen Lösung eines skeptischen Zweifels. In H. U. Hoche (Ed.), Einführung in das sprachanalytische Philosophieren (pp. 107–129). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Hoche, H.U. (2007). Reflexive monism versus complementarism: An analysis and criticism of the conceptual groundwork of Max Velmans’s reflexive model of consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(3), 389–409.
Hoche, H.U. (2008). Anthropological complementarism. Linguistic, logical, and phenomenological studies in Support of a third way beyond dualism and monism. Paderborn: Mentis.
Huygens, C. (1690). Traité de la Lumière (S. P Thompson, Trans). Leyden: University of Leyden (Republished (1912) as “Treatise on Light”, London: McMillan).
Millikan, R.A. (1916). A direct photoelectric determination of Planck’s “h”. Physical Review, 7(3), 355–388.
Mou, B. (2001). Becoming-being complementarity. An account of the Yin-Yang metaphysical vision of the Yijing. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://them.polylog.org/3/amb-en.htm.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450.
Nakagomi, T. (2003). Quantum monadology and consciousness. Biosystems, 69(1), 27–38.
Napper, E. (2003). Dependent arising and emptiness: A Tibetan Buddhist interpretation of Madhyamika philosophy. Somerville: Wisdom Publications.
Newton, I. (1704). Opticks: Or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light. London: Printed for Sam. Smith and Benj. Walford, Printers to the Royal Society (Republished (1979) Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications).
Oshima, Y. (1985). Zen – anders denken? Heidelberg: Verlag Lambert Schneider.
Pauli, W. (1955). The influence of archetypal ideas on the scientific theories of Kepler. In C. G. Jung & W. Pauli (Eds.), The interpretation of nature and the psyche (Bollingen series). New York: Pantheon Books. Chapter 2.
Primas, H. (2007). Non-boolean descriptions for mind-matter problems. Mind and Matter, 5, 7–44.
Primas, H. (2009). Complementarity of mind and matter. In H. Atmanspacher & H. Primas (Eds.), Recasting reality: Wolfgang Pauli’s philosophical ideas and contemporary science (pp. 171–209). Berlin/New York: Springer.
Scott, D. (1995). Buddhist responses to Manichaeism: Mahayana reaffirmation of the“ Middle Path”? History of Religions, 35(2), 148–162.
Shear, J. (Ed.). (1997). Explaining consciousness: The hard problem. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Stace, W.T. (1960). Mysticism and philosophy. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Tang, P.C. L. (1996). Alternative representations and the complementarity model of mind-brain. In D. Peterson & D. Peterson (Eds.), Forms of representation: An interdisciplinary theme for cognitive science (p. 198). Exeter: Intellect Books.
Tart, C.T. (1986). Consciousness, altered states, and worlds of experience. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 18(2), 159–170.
Taylor, E. (1984). William James on exceptional mental states. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Velmans, M. (1991). Is human information processing conscious? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(4), 651–726.
Velmans, M. (1993). Consciousness, causality and complementarity. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(2), 409–416.
Velmans, M. (1995). The relation of consciousness to the material world. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 255–265.
Velmans, M. (2000). Understanding consciousness. New York: Routledge.
Velmans, M. (2002). How could conscious experiences affect brains? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(11), 3–29.
Velmans, M. (2009). Psychophysical nature. In H. Atmanspacher & H. Primas (Eds.), Recasting reality: Wolfgang Pauli’s philosophical ideas and contemporary science (pp. 115–134). Berlin/New York: Springer.
von Stillfried, N. (2010). Theoretical and empirical explorations of “Generalized Quantum Theory”, Doctoral thesis, Kulturwissenschftliche Fakultät, Europa Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt a. d. Oder.
von Stillfried, N., & Walach, H. (2006a). Taking pre-established harmony beyond determinism: the complementarity principle applied to the mind-body problem. Proceedings of: ‘VIII. International Leibniz Congress’, Hannover, Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibnitz-Gesellschaft e.V.
von Stillfried, N., & Walach, H. (2006b). The whole and its parts: Are complementarity and non-locality intrinsic to closed systems? International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, 17, 137–146.
Walach, H. (2005). The complementarity model of brain-body relationship. Medical Hypotheses, 65(2), 380–388.
Walach, H. (2007). Mind – body – spirituality. Mind and Matter, 5(2), 215–240.
Walach, H., & Römer, H. (2000). Complementarity is a useful concept for consciousness studies. A reminder. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 21, 221–232.
Walach, H., & Runehov, A. L. C. (2010). The epistemological status of transpersonal psychology: The data-base argument revisited. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17(1-2), 145–165.
Walach, H., von Stillfried, N., & Römer, H. (2006). Pre-established harmony revisited: Generalised entanglement is a modern version of pre-established harmony. Proceedings of: ‘VIII. International Leibnitz Congress’, Hannover, Gottfried-Willhelm-Leibniz-Gesellschaft e.V.
Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston: Shambhala Publications.
Wulff, D.M. (2000). Mystical experience. In E. Cardena, S. J. Lynn, & S. C. Krippner (Eds.), Varieties of anomalous experience (pp. 397–440). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Young, T. (1807). Course of lectures on natural philosophy and the mechanical arts. London: J. Johnson.
Young, R.M. (1990). The mind-body problem. In R. C. Olby, G. N. Cantor, J. Christie, et al. (Eds.), Companion to the history of modern science (pp. 702–711). New York: Routledge.
Acknowledgment
The author gratefully acknowledges helpful comments from Harald Walach and Stefan Schmidt and funding from the Fetzer-Franklin Fund.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
von Stillfried, N. (2011). Hard Problems in Philosophy of Mind and Physics: Do They Point to Spirituality as a Solution?. In: Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Jonas, W. (eds) Neuroscience, Consciousness and Spirituality. Studies in Neuroscience, Consciousness and Spirituality, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2079-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2079-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2078-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2079-4
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)