Edgar Mitchell,
A DYADIC MODEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Extract:
". . . When we consider the way the human organism receives information, science has limited
itself to considering information from the five normal senses, all of which find their basis
in electromagnetic theory. However the human body not only receives but
perceives
information from external sources and also has an elaborate internal .feeling sense.
which manages information internally. .Feeling. is by definition a subjective experience.
This internal feeling sense and the associated information management system is a key
element in the dyadic model.
The feeling sense monitors the internal well being of the system, provides access to
intuition, provides response to sublimated memories, provides stimuli for the emotions
and
provides a response to non-local information. All of the functions, however, may be
described simply in terms of information management. Although non-local effects have
been observed and studied for over a century by parapsychologists, in the absence of a
compelling theory the results have been ignored or disparaged and certainly
misrepresented by mainstream science. Non-locality in quantum physics now provides a
physical basis for these effects. A large number of investigators for several decades have
demonstrated that brain waves can be synchronized and information transferred between
individuals across Faraday cage barriers. The results do not obey the inverse square rule
of electromagnetic propagation, nor are they time dependant, suggesting the phenomenon
is a macro-scale version of quantum non-locality, but with more degrees of freedom that
simple particles undergoing a double split experiment
.
Split brain theory, mapping the functional capabilities of the brain, plus anthropological
studies suggest that the linguistic and reasoning capabilities, resident in the left
hemisphere and frontal lobe, are later capabilities to have evolved. The functions of the
right hemisphere and the limbic region are pre-linguistic are responsible for pattern
recognition, intuition, emotional response and more holistic functions. The dyadic theory
suggests that the molecules of the body and brain are also in dynamic exchange of energy
with the zero point field (as is all matter) and also resonate non-locally with each other
and the remainder of the universe. The brain/body inner .feeling. sense provide
perception of this information. Likely the zero point field is the mechanism for this
resonance. The non-local resonance of energy and matter throughout the universe is
suggested as nature's most fundamental information management scheme. Dyadic theory
predicts that patterns of resonance become more complex as the complexity of the
molecular structure increases; that the modes of resonance parallel the degrees of
freedom of molecular structure. Perception possesses additional degrees of freedom in
more complex matter. Observed first at the level of subatomic particles, but by extension
to all matter, non-locality provides an information basis for all subjective experience. In
retrospect it seems exceedingly strange that if both energy and information have been
present from the beginnings of the universe, and that matter seems to have self organized
from energy, that information would not also be utilized in the organizational process.
But information is the basis of knowing. and .knowing. implies the attribute that
Homo
sapiens experience as .consciousness. or .mind.. Thus mind in some elemental sense is
ubiquitously present in the universe.
I argue that the most fundamental aspects of consciousness with which we are concerned
are actually .perception. (or awareness) and .intentionality. (or volition). Thus it is these
fundamental attributes that are likely the primordial antecedent to the evolved
consciousness that
Homo sapiens experiences. The .mentality. that we experience is the
evolving component of consciousness that requires a more complex brain and nervous
system.
Likely all matter in nature, but certainly all living matter perceives information within
some nuance of the word .perceive.. In other words, fundamentally nature has provided
a subjective experience. But in the same sense that we cannot directly observe
wave/particles in action at the subatomic level and must devise intricate experiments to
detect behaviors at that level of existence; neither can we observe subjective experience
except our own personal subjectivity. Therefore we must use other means to deduce its
existences in entities other than humans. In the dyadic model perception and
intentionality are dyadically coupled, that is to say they occur together. If one can
discover the intentional behaviors in nature, then awareness will be present also. The
rationale behind this coupling is: a) we experience both perception and intentionality at
our level of organization, b) complexity theory points out the repeating patterns in nature
at different scale sizes and at different levels of molecular complexity, c) awareness
without an ability to respond, and intentionality without feedback of the results, would
both be useless attributes, d) awareness and intentionality create a learning feedback loop
which we do observe in nature. Thus it is both reasonably and experimentally verifiable
that perception and intentionality are coupled. One can observe with present day
instrumentation behaviors in simple forms of nature that are neither random nor
deterministic. Such behaviors are of necessity intentional, such as the search for food,
mating opportunities, predator avoidance, etc. These behaviors are indicative of a
volitional presence, and thereby are internal subjective experience.
It is necessary to be very specific about the meaning of .awareness. as proposed by the
dyadic model. Homo sapiens experiences self-reflective awareness, meaning the ability to
reflect upon the information content of our thoughts. The primates are perhaps on the
edge of experiencing self reflection but certainly have a full measure of self-awareness.
By self awareness I mean the ability to distinguish self from other, to experience an
I/thou dualism. It is likely that self-awareness can be found in many, of not most, animals
having multiple sensors and a brain. Below self-awareness is undifferentiated awareness
which means the ability to perceive information and to react to that information but
without a self concept. If the development of an individual traces the evolution of a
species, then we may say that any fetus certainly has undifferentiated awareness. Selfawareness does not develop in the human child until several months after birth. How far down the evolutionary chain one can detect undifferentiated awareness is a valid area for research. The dyadic model suggests that undifferentiated awareness, or simple
perception, is a more fundamental attribute of matter than life itself, and the crucial point
is the distinction between reception and perception of information. If non random, non
deterministic behavior can be observed within the degrees of freedom permitted matter
by the conservation rules, perception can be inferred at that level of organization.
Norbert Weiner of M.I.T. provided a numerical definition of information as the negative
of entropy, circa 1942. James Shannon of Bell laboratories provided the seminal paper
developing information theory six years later. A tacit assumption of information theory is
that the meaning of information is carried in the signal. It can be easily shown that this
assumption can pertain on[ly] to .intended. information, but is in general false. The meaning of information is assigned by the percipient. Even if the originator of information
intended a meaning for the signal, there is no assurance that that any percipient sill
recognize the intended meaning.
Information is just a pattern of energy that requires
perception to utilize and an information base (experience) from which to assign meaning.
Meaning. is internally created information which connects the perceived information to
the information base residing in memory. To assign meaning is a fundamental function of
.mentality., the evolutionary component of consciousness. At very simple levels of
living matter, behaviors such as the search for food, mating opportunities, predator
avoidance, etc. require that information from the environment be perceived and given
meaning. And since information does not carry within the signal, but is just a pattern of
energy to be interpreted, assigning a meaning is an evolved, learned behavior. Learning is
precisely the activity of giving meaning to information and retaining the meaning for
future use. Non-local resonance allows experience to be shared.
If nature's primordial information management process is non-locality, it would seem
that evolution rather quickly availed itself of other information produced by the
environment as the environment became more complex. Acoustic, tactile, olfactory,
visual and taste senses undoubtedly evolved rather early in the planetary environment
once mobile organisms existed. Multi-sensory information requires an information
management process within the organism. The dyadic theory suggests that information in the environment caused .mentality. to begin its own organizing process. Thus the
antecedents to human consciousness find their roots in the primitive processing of
environmental information, but the most primitive of the processes is centered around
non-locality.
Prior to the evolution of Homo sapiens, which means prior to brains developing selfreflective awareness, before linguistic capabilities, before reasoning and other high level mental functions, animals were solving problems, creating tools and otherwise being
quite intelligent. This activity should be characterized as subconscious or unconscious
activity (as compared to anthropic type self-reflective conscious awareness). Wolf packs
likely discovered by accident that splitting forces and encircling prey was an effective
hunting strategy. But the successful experience connected with other information in the
brain, and .meaning. was established and remembered. It is likely the same for beavers
learning to construct dams of stick and mud, and bees learning to communicate through
the waggle dance.
Nature's creatures likely learned through trial and error, thus nature
itself must be said to learn through trial and error. We say that animals obey .instinct.,
but how did they acquire the instinct? . Most likely by learning it through trial and error in
the process of evolutionary development. Non-local resonance undoubtedly played a
significant role in communication of .instinctual. behaviors. Non-local resonance as used
in the dyadic model is similar to the morphic resonance as proposed by Sheldrake.
Perhaps the most compelling reason to interpret natural learning processes in this manner is the fractal evidence from chaos theory; nature repeats patterns at different scale sizes. Recursive evaluation of simpler nonlinear equations has been discovered to simulate exotic forms in nature, at different scale sizes. This suggests, not that nature knows mathematics, but that nature uses multiple feedback loops of energy and molecules to produce form. Together these phenomena are highly suggestive of learning behaviors and non-local resonance.
The dyadic model suggests that the anthropic consciousness experienced by humans must
be viewed in an evolutionary sense as having emerged from antecedent conditions that
can be traced back to origins before the Big Bang in the sea of zero point energy. The
elemental components of perception and intentionality seem to be irreducible attributes,
and must be considered .hidden. or at least unobserved attributes of elemental matter. If
intentionality exists at all, it must be fundamental. Intentionality cannot arise from a
deterministic nature. Physicists have only looked for and verified nonlocality for basic
correlations of polarization, momentum, etc. . the most basic wave/particle measures.
But given that evidence, reason suggests that a most fundamental behavior of matter
resides in the property of nonlocality and that nonlocality operates at all levels of
complex matter.
We do no more injustice to reason to say that particles .instinctively.
maintain correlation than to say that photons .know. that they are undergoing a double
split experiment. It is language and our knowing that is incomplete, not the properties of
matter.
In the dyadic model, wave/particle are coupled, perception/intentionality are coupled,
xistence/knowing, internal/external, subject/object, life/death, success/failure, and so
forth. They are coupled because in our universe, at least, they always seem to be found
together when we attempt to describe process. . . ."
http://quantrek.org/Technical Literature/Mitchell_A_Dyatic_Model_Of_Consciousness.pdf
