|
The panelists have already
opened discussion and referred to the
various researches in recent times which
dwell upon the topics listed for debate. To
me it seems that the developments in neuro-science
on one hand and quantum theory on the other
have brought about a need for considering an
integration between psychology and biology.
For instance, when neuroscientists wish to
alleviate pain and suffering, depression and
such aspects, and they come up with
phenomenon like second pain, then it becomes
necessary for them to consider the
phenomenology behind second pain; that is,
the one who is experiencing second pain is
the best available expert to mention what
the qualia concerning second pain is like.
This is why an integration becomes necessary
between experiential phenomenon and the
scientific methodologies.
Similarly, when we consider
human cognition, we find that it is not
following necessarily rational thinking, and
therefore, increasingly people explain human
cognition by taking recourse to quantum
probability mathematics rather than
classical Bayesian probability mathematics.
Pothos and Busemeyer have done considerable
research to show that what appears
irrational is not really irrational if
considered from the point of view of quantum
probabilities. As mentioned by Prof.
Karmeshu, the recent issue of Scientific
American, while considering the recent
election in the United States, also raises
this issue, and revisits the problem of
prisoner's dilemma and interprets it from
the viewpoint of quantum probability to show
that seemingly irrational thinking is not
really irrational and therefore there is a
need to integrate the phenomenon of inner
experiences with scientific methodology to
explain the behaviour of human beings.
We are familiar with the quantum
model of mind, e.g. two qubit model by
Blutner and Hochnadel. This is the reason
also why human cognition, human suffering
can better be addressed by considering
quantum biology, in particular, quantum
brain biology. The experiments by Anirban
Bandyopadhyay and his group including a
recent paper by Sahu et. al. are also
corroborating such possibility of quantum
functioning of the brain rather than the
classical model. There is again the
phenomenon of the so-called associative
thinking. When the brain is supposed to be
at rest, having been apparently so
instructed in a controlled experiment, it is
having considerable activity in it as
monitored by neuroscientists rather than
being at rest. So, that has baffled the
neuroscientists. This associative thinking,
they also label as mind-wandering. The areas
which get activated are primarily in the
parietal lobe of the brain. If we take
credence to inner experience of people, then
these become explicable because these are
precisely the areas which are mentioned in
Vedic literature and other religious texts,
particularly those of the Religion of
Saints, that participate directly or
indirectly in the meditationist experiences.
This is how it all gets linked up with
consciousness.
You have already alluded to the
paper by Penrose and Hameroff which has
raised this issue indirectly and kept alive
the possibility that a quantum model of the
brain could well explain how consciousness
might be a factor in maintaining coherence
or superposition and arriving at
measurements which are affected by or
influenced by the observer or experimenter
himself. So there is nothing like
observer-independent measurement. Although
science would like to believe that
measurements are objective completely, but
the experimenter himself influences the
observation. This is now increasingly being
recognized and this has been supported by
von Neumann-Stapp formulation in this
respect of explaining the measurement
problem in quantum phenomena.
It therefore seems meaningful as
also seen from a number of publications in
recent years, particularly in 2012. For
instance, Price and Barrell, in their book
on Inner Experience and Neuroscience,
talk about the need for integrating
experiential phenomena with the epistemology
of scientific methodology of science in
general. So, it appears that if we keep this
option open of getting the reports from the
first person experiences of those
experiencing the phenomena and then use
scientific methodology, the so-called
third-person rationality in explaining
those, invoking brain biology or psychology
or whatever, then there would be greater
success. One could formulate testable
hypotheses, based on the first person
experiences of those undergoing the
phenomena, and then this would be more
reliable and repeatable for carrying
scientific conviction.
So, this trend seems to be a
healthy one that increasingly bridges the
gap between psychology and brain biology and
further such attempts would help explain the
various intangibles such as sentiments,
emotions, thoughts, feelings, and should
also be able to address the concerns of
neuroscientists and neurophysiologists in
mitigating the human misery. So that would
be better addressed if you also look for
this support not just from neuroscience, but
also from psychology and philosophy, and
what this means is that we should have an
integration of inner experience with the
various developed sciences such as
neuroscience.
Thank you. |