|
 
 |
| INVITED COMMENTARY WITH THE LETTER TO EDITOR |
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 19
| Issue : 1 | Page : 76-78 |
|
Consciousness: State reductions, mental disorders and dimensions
Prakash B Behere1, Siddharth Kalucha2
1 Director Research and Development, Professor and Head, Department of Psychiatry, Visiting Professor, University of Chester, UK, Adjunct Faculty Georgia Southern University, USA, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Psychiatry, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha - 442 004, Maharashtra, India
| Date of Web Publication | 1-Feb-2014 |
Correspondence Address:
Prakash B Behere
Department of Psychiatry, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College (JNMC), Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University), Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha - 442 004, Maharashtra
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0971-9903.126267
Quantum mechanics and godel's theorem are purely work and concept of physics. When applied to see how ways in which mind works is fascinating, at the same time at a very hypothetical level. Orch or model of consciousness explores neurological basis of consciousness and insight in psychiatric patients as well as in normal patients is also explained. Though many of these are proven concepts in physics and mathematics, there application in understanding of psychiatric phenomenon is still at hypothetical level.
Keywords: Quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, godel′s theorem, consciousness, insight
How to cite this article:
Behere PB, Kalucha S. Consciousness: State reductions, mental disorders and dimensions. J Mahatma Gandhi Inst Med Sci 2014;19:76-8 |
This letter to editor described the views on the subject under the heads:
(a) Classical and quantum mechanics, (b) Gödel's theorem, (c) Neuro physical basis of consciousness, (d) Orchestrated objective reduction, (e) Dimensional basis of insight.
This is very poorly studied and understood area and needs more studies and evidence based research to support the theories. As mind itself is very complicated issue to be addressed.
| Explaining Basics of Classical and Quantum Mechanisms (QM) | |  |
The term classical mechanics was coined in the early 20 th century to describe the system of physics begun by Isaac Newton. In physics, classical mechanics and QM are the two major sub-fields of mechanics. Classical mechanics is concerned with the set of physical describing the motion of bodies under the action of a system of forces. Classical mechanics provides extremely accurate results as long as the domain of study is restricted to large objects and the speeds involved do not approach the light. QM also known as quantum physics or quantum theory is a branch of physics which deals with physical phenomena at microscopic scales, where the action is on the order of the Planck constant. When the objects being dealt with become sufficiently small, it becomes necessary to introduce the other major sub-field of mechanics, QM, which reconciles the macroscopic laws of physics with the atomic nature of matter and handles the wave-particle duality of atoms and molecules. [1]
Godel's theorem which is back bone of this article, which details:
- Gödel's first incompleteness theorem: Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory. Gödel's first incompleteness theorem shows that any consistent effective formal system that includes enough of the theory of the natural numbers is incomplete: there are true statements expressible in its language that is unprovable within the system.
- Gödel's second incompleteness theorem: For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent. This strengthens the first incompleteness theorem, because the statement constructed in the first incompleteness theorem does not directly express the consistency of the theory. The proof of the second incompleteness theorem is obtained by formalizing the proof of the first incompleteness theorem within the theory itself. [2]
Defining consciousness on principles of neurophysics:
According to John in article titled "Neurophysics of Consciousness" consciousness combines information about attributes of the present multimodal sensory environment with relevant elements of the past. Information from each modality is continuously fractionated into distinct features, processed locally by different brain regions relatively specialized for extracting these disparate components and globally by interactions among these regions. Information is represented by levels of synchronization within neuronal populations and of coherence among multiple brain regions that deviate from random fluctuations. Large-scale integration, or 'binding', is proposed to involve oscillations of local field potentials that play an important role in facilitating synchronization and coherence, assessed by neuronal coincidence detectors, and parsed into perceptual frames by cortico-thalamo-cortical loops. The most probable baseline levels of local synchrony, coherent interactions among brain regions and frame durations have been quantitatively described in large studies of their age-appropriate normative distributions and are considered as an approximation to a conscious "ground state." The level of consciousness during anesthesia can be accurately predicted by the magnitude and direction of reversible multivariate deviations from this ground state. An invariant set of changes takes place during anesthesia, independent of the particular aesthetic agent. [3]
About orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) model of consciousness:
Orch-OR is a theory of consciousness, which is the joint work of theoretical physicist, Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Mainstream theories assume that consciousness emerges from the brain and focus particularly on complex computation at synapses that allow communication between neurons. The Penrose-Lucas argument states that, because humans are capable of knowing the truth of Gödel-unprovable statements, human thought is necessarily computable. Kurt proved that any effectively generated theory capable of proving basic arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. Furthermore, he showed that any such theory also including a statement of its own consistency is inconsistent. A key element of the proof is the use of Gödel numbering to construct a "Gödel sentence" for the theory, which encodes a statement of its own incompleteness, e.g. "This theory can't assert the truth of this statement." This statement is either true but unprovable (incompleteness) or false and provable (inconsistency). An analogous statement has been used to show that humans are subject to the same limits as machines. [4]
Describing insight on the basis of dimensions of consciousness:
A phase space is a space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state of the system corresponding to one unique point in the phase space. A dynamical system is a concept in mathematics where a fixed rule describes the time dependence of a point in a geometrical space. According to Walling PT, Hicks KN. in article; Dimensions of Consciousness, evolution of consciousness may have been to aid sensory-motor coordination. An attractor is a set toward which a variable, moving according to the dictates of a dynamical system, evolves over time. That is, points that get close enough to the attractor remain close even if slightly disturbed. An attractor is called strange if it has a fractal structure. [5] There have been mention about concepts of non-linear dynamics in the brain as supported by purposed chaos theory. [6] Consciousness is a not merely an evolutionary process, it is a revolution: Its ground work was laid when initial improvement in sensorimotor co-ordination of species was necessary during the evolutionary process and this result conclusion has been attained by studying electroencephalogram patterns of different species. [7] More than 2000 years after Archimedes stepped into the bath, saw the water rise and exclaimed "Eureka," his experience remains the prototypic insight: A sudden, conscious change from not knowing to knowing a problem's solution. [8] However, this is not the only view of how insights arise. The two dimensions on which these account differ - consciousness and abruptness - are also at the center of psychological research regarding insight. Some of the theorists have depicted insights as conscious (e.g., Gick and Lockhart, 1995); others have depicted them as arising unconsciously (e.g., Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). Insight arises at an unconscious level first, could be sudden or gradual; but when sufficient data accumulates over a period of time then it becomes a conscious process and this quantitative process through which our behavior is changed, becomes a pattern of learning and development. [9]
To conclude the theory examines psychiatric symptoms in relation to principles of quantum physics and theories of mathematics as applied to them. It is very difficult to look into the mind and the ways in which it work in the form of purely physics and mathematics. All the references and sub references are actually work of mathematics and physics, whose implications in health, let alone psychiatry are at best on hypothetical levels. Most of the work in this field has been done by non-psychiatrists and the language used is mostly alien to a health worker. So at best, the letter to the editor can be described as having hypothetical claims, the practicality and usefulness of which cannot be established on the work done at present and may require several years of work before it can be done.
| References | | |
| 1. | Everett H. Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 1957:29:454-62. 
|
| 2. | Charlesworth A. A proof of Godel′s theorem in terms of computer programs. Math Mag 1980;54:109-21.
|
| 3. | John ER. Neurophysics of consciousness. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12086706 [Last accessed on 2013 November 10].
|
| 4. | Popper, Karl(2004): conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge( reprinted.ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-28594-1
|
| 5. | Greenwood JA, Williamson JB. Contact of nominally flat surfaces. Proc R Soc 1966:295:300-19.
|
| 6. | Faure P, Korn H. Biologiecellulaireetmoléculaire du neurone. Institut Pasteur, (V261) Roux, 75724.
|
| 7. | Popper K. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (reprinted ed.). Vol. 7. London: Routledge; 2004. p. 788-96.
|
| 8. | Siegler R. From Unconscious to Conscious Insights. Current directions in psychological sciences. Available from: http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/vita.
|
| 9. | Siegler R, Araya R. A computational model of conscious and unconscious strategy discovery. Adv Child Dev Behav 2005;33:1-42.
[PUBMED] |
|
Search Pubmed for