Rating: 
Summary: A very good step in a very long journey
Review: Consciousness and the mind have long been ignored by science and left to philosophy to ponder, but Walker makes a brilliant break through with what he has to say in this book. By taking the fundamental problems with Quantum theory and approaching them with a fresh and open mind, this book presents some very amazing and exciting possibilities into the real workings of reality. While heavy in Quantum theory, Walker does a sufficent job of moving the reader through a long and complicated journey, the rewards of which are quite worth the work. I highly recommend this book to anyone searching for answers to life's bigger questions who can no longer believe through faith alone.
Rating:
Summary: Quantum physics basics plus, with feeling!
Review: Here are a few big questions about reality. Is it material and objective? Or is subjective, somehow linked with the human mind and dependent upon it? Why are we here? What is our relationship to the reality that we perceive and what is our relationship to each other within that reality? What happens to our consciousness when we die? Is there an afterlife? Is that question linked to the nature of reality, whether it is objective or subjective? Did Descartes have it correct when he said "I think, therefore I am."? Or, was he reversed such that it is more correct to say "I am, therefore I think."? When the theoretical physicist mentions the term "observer", just what is meant by that term? What is consciousness and how does it fit into reality?I will not tell you what I think the answers to those questions are. I do not think that would be appropriate in this context. I will only say that these questions, among many others about the nature of reality and human consciousness, are the topics addressed by Evan Walker Harris in his book "The Physics of Consciousness, The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life". Does Evan Walker propose good answers to the big questions? Hmmm... I will say this: "The Physics of Consciousness" will likely surprise you and inspire you to think, even if only to solidify your resolve against many of the ideas it presents. In "The Physics of Consciousness", Evan Walker tells the story of a personal quest to answer some of the big questions. This quest appears to have started and been motivated by the loss of a loved one when he was young - the story of that loss is told in bits and pieces throughout the book. At first, the presence of these sections of the book evoked a strange uneasiness within me; but, later, I came to appreciate the author's need to include them. I also came to see these sections as a reminder that the questions that philosophy and science seek to answer are about people and their relationship to the universe about them and each other. These are questions that have implications to individual humans - humans with ALL of the attributes that go along with that. In "The Physics of Consciousness", Evan Walker describes the history of the many ways that men have viewed reality. From primitive spiritualism in its many forms, to Newtonian physics. On, through general relativity, and into quantum theory. He discusses Bell's Theorem and its notion that one particle can instantaneously affect another particle at another (even, very distant) location. He further discusses the thoughts and findings of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen with regard to Bell's Theorem. This book is worth the effort even if read for only this history and related discussion. Now, how does all of this physics and philosophy relate to the topic of human consciousness? It seems that a few years ago, although such writings existed well before then, writings about the concept of the "quantum mind" were becoming more and more numerous. This book, "The Physics of Consciousness" is the first significant text about the topic of the "quantum mind" that I have read. I believe this book is a good and balanced introduction to the topic and it has inspired me to think and seek out further reading materials. I found the technical descriptions of the concept of the "quantum mind" (electron tunneling in the brain) educating, interesting, and exciting. I also learned a great deal about the brain that I had not come across in other related texts. For instance, did you know there is melanin in the brain? Why is it there? Evan Walker presents a good idea about that. Evan Walker has obviously deeply considered and discussed arguments against his ideas. Throughout the book, I kept finding myself reading something and mentally thinking of some argument, only to find Evan Walker presenting a discussion of my very argument a paragraph or two later. Do you want to read some interesting ideas about the big questions and the physics of the human brain and consciousness? If so, read "The Physics of Consciousness". Whether you agree with the ideas presented or not, it will stretch and permanently expand your mind.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad science, lame speculation.
Review: I disagree with all those who see the beginnig of a scientifically founded religion in quantum theory. Walker's venture into consciousness, from a wuantum physics point of view, is not original, nor justified. It has been argued for years that quantum effects disappear in systems as noisy and hot as the brain. There is also no reason why it would be in principle impossible to explain consciousness in purely neural-functional terms. IT is incredibly imaginative to talk of wuantum jumps and superpositions when theoriwing about the brain, but neural action is not in the least concerned with these effects: and the evidence point to the fact that neural action is all there is to consciousness.
I would like to also point out that it is possible to break down Harris's edifice from a physics angle as well. He basically takes the copenhagen interpretation as a given, without contest. This way, he can use some quantum phenomena as arguments that consciousness is somehow fundamentally related to them. But if one takes a "no-collapse" interpretation, one can account for quantum mysteries without tlking about an observer, or consciousness for that matter. There is the Everett interpretation, but the "pilot-wave" interpretation would be my choice.
Finally, if a quantum consciousness theory would turn out to be right, I doubt this would be it. It is not clear to me how consciousness could be explained at such an abstract level, like electrons jumping arround neurons. Maybe something akin to Hammerof's theory, where microtubules are involved, would be much more plausible.
Also, Walker's speculations about God and some cosmic consicousness were not really necessary. They can be dismissed as careless speculation, but also as unfounded claims. I would expect more from a scientist of Walker's ability. The book istelf is a pretty good read. The review of modern physics is adequate, and sometimes there are stimulating points made. His style is also quite enjoyable, and the autobiographic portions of the book are interesting. So one could say that the literature is good, but not the science- nor the theology.
Rating:
Summary: A Place to Start
Review: I have been reading most of the scientific magazines for almost twenty years, and what this guy says is at odds with my take on current scientific consensus. Also, his scientific credentials seem somehow incomplete. He does not mention being associated with any research group or university. The central point of his theories is that Quantum indeterminacy decays only until a *conscious* being makes an observation. A reasonable hypothesis, but what happened with decoherence? I don't remember him even mentioning it. And his "proof" that the parallel universes hypothesis is mistaken left me feeling that he was just discarding the theories that he did not like to leave only the one that he really wanted. And yet the book is good. I made it to page 248, almost two thirds of the book giving him the benefit of the doubt and believing that he could still be on the right track. However, his ideas on the 31 grams of brain being in a constant quantum state made him lose, IMHO, all remaining credibility. I believe one of the reasons I made it so far in the book is that what he "discovers" is very close to what I would like reality to turn out to be. This tendency is very human and even Einstein could not avoid it. When mathematics told him that space itself is expanding, he invented a new constant to make it stay still, as he thought "it had to be". I do believe that the guy is sincere. He must have put all his heart in this project and I am willing to bet that he really believes that he found the correct answers. I do not intend to read the rest of the book, but I am also willing to bet that at the end, he finds that his girlfriend, who died at 16 and was the reason that made him write the book, still exists in a neo-heaven, populated with scientifically acceptable consciousness "gods". But I am cheating. I saw on the introduction the name of the last chapter: A God for tomorrow.
Rating: 
Summary: Mixed Blessings
Review: I really felt I should only give this book two stars based on an objective view of its presumptions, assumptions, and hopeful speculations disguised as objective inquiry. However, Walker's tale is strangely moving, and not just because of the way he interweaves his memory of the death of his first love when she was but 16 years old. Walker means this quest; he needs it. Despite his denials, it seemed obvious to me that he began with presumptions of deity and a unity of spirit beyond time. When he expresses that sense, that intuition, his writing almost waxes poetic. I wanted to be offended, but instead I was moved. However, when he delved into the details of quantum mechanics I sometimes found myself quite lost. His brief exposition & dismissal of David Bohm's quantum interpretation was not recognizable to me. He showed no awareness of Bohm's holographic implicant order (which results in an ontology of creative immanence rather than Walker's preferred transcendence). I am aware of the EPR Paradox & Bell's Theorem as well as the Alain Aspect nonlocality experiments (and others, more recently) that prove that divided photons or electrons are still ' against all standard physics ' somehow one entity, no matter how far apart we judge them to be. Yet, Walker's explanation and his diagrams completely muddied up my whole understanding. (It's probably just me.) And it is on the proving of this theorem (which he interprets as proving absolute nonlocality) that his whole case for the existence of a transcendent God and eternal love seems to rest. He goes to the unadmitted consequences of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics ' that all the particles of matter, all solid reality, and therefore all the universe is the result of the "observer effect" (aka the "measurement problem"). Just as wave collapse occurs when an observer attempts to measure it and the wave then manifests as an "actual subatomic particle", so the whole Universe, according to Walker, is ultimately based in nothing but infinite wave-potential. Potential does not equal existence. So it follows that "in the beginning" a cosmic observation -- an act of divine will -- "collapsed" *some* of the infinite potential energy into the first material of time and space. So it seems to me that he implies a separate & supreme consciousness, that is, the monotheistic utterly transcendendent Deity who is not to be identified with His creation. If our whole universe is built from this loving God through His "observation" of the infinite quantum potential, then why is life so full of crap, stupidity, and cruelty? Why must this first "observation" originate from a supreme and conscious entity who is yet beyond all space and time? Why not just blind (or even accidental) creativity? In that way, amorality & human stupidity would be expected. In short, I mostly really enjoyed reading this heartfelt tome, but was sometimes left high & dry by some of the scientific detail or put off by the wishful thinking leaps of faith.
Rating:
Summary: Reasonable Objectivity
Review: I think that some linguistic clarification is still needed (after my 11/9/00 comments) about objectivity in The Physics of Consciousness. Eugene Wigner (in 1960) presented a highly-referred-to discussion, entitled "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences". He was referring to the commonly-held viewpoint that there was no reasonable way to explain how our mathematical descriptions of the objective world could be related to the (Platonic) mathematical capability of individual minds. Indeed, such a viewpoint would be expected if there were a material world which is independent of individual minds. However, for a one-world view where consciousness is the fundamental reality, shared by individual minds and a Universal Mind, this effectiveness is reasonable. It could be due to manifestations (e.g., objective world) of the Universal Mind reflecting features (e.g., Platonic capabilities) which are shared by individual minds. Walker would reject the unreasonable objectivity of a physical world which our minds can interact with and precisely describe, when that world is independent of our minds. He would accept the reasonable objectivity of a one-world view with consciousness as the fundamental reality, shared by individual minds and the Universal Mind. Wigner became convinced in the 1960's, through his deep understanding of quantum physics, that consciousness was an ultimate reality. However, he did not pursue his insight into the role of consciousness. Walker has pursued that quest, and it is presented in a highly-readable form in The Physics of Consciousness.
Rating: 
Summary: Another stereotyping stuff imitating TAO
Review: If i am allowed to rate a -5 stars, i would do it no doubt. The book starts with complicated material and thought experiment which can be illustrated in a much comprehensible way, like those in "one, two, three... to infinity" by George Gamov, or in "Quantum Reality: Beyond the new physics" by Nick Herbert, to overwhelm readers and then introduce his "Zheng" (or however it is called) thinking. In fact, the recent trend of Westerner trying to entertain themselves with the "Oriental" exotic idea of "Zheng" or Tao is just a joke in our, Chinese or Oriental people's, eyes. In fact Zheng and Tao are surely topics, not gimmicks, worth comtemplating, but not in such a superficial way. Especially not in a way which uses illogical phrases or poems. And absolutely not in a way which authors keep propaganding ideas like "Zheng cannot be talked of", while the very same person keeps talking about.
Rating:
Summary: Another stereotyping stuff imitating TAO
Review: If i am allowed to rate a -5 stars, i would do it no doubt. The book starts with complicated material and thought experiment which can be illustrated in a much comprehensible way, like those in "one, two, three... to infinity" by George Gamov, or in "Quantum Reality: Beyond the new physics" by Nick Herbert, to overwhelm readers and then introduce his "Zheng" (or however it is called) thinking. In fact, the recent trend of Westerner trying to entertain themselves with the "Oriental" exotic idea of "Zheng" or Tao is just a joke in our, Chinese or Oriental people's, eyes. In fact Zheng and Tao are surely topics, not gimmicks, worth comtemplating, but not in such a superficial way. Especially not in a way which uses illogical phrases or poems. And absolutely not in a way which authors keep propaganding ideas like "Zheng cannot be talked of", while the very same person keeps talking about.
Rating: 
Summary: Almost there...
Review: Never trust anything that claims to be about quantum physics unless it contains equations. This book does, and does a fair job of quantifying some of the physical aspects related to consciousness. In that respect it's easily the best book I have read on the subject. I used to be a big fan of Roger Penrose before I read Walker. (I still find Penrose worth reading, but he's much further off the mark, in my opinion.) Where he breaks down is that he has only physical models to explain consciousness. They're necessary, but not sufficient. Let me ask it this way: Is the mind a Turing machine? If it is, then his explanations are sufficient. I don't believe the mind to be that limited, and there is plenty of evidence that it is not. Then what makes the mind something that can determine that a particular Turing machine will never halt?
Rating:
Summary: Almost there...
Review: Never trust anything that claims to be about quantum physics unless it contains equations. This book does, and does a fair job of quantifying some of the physical aspects related to consciousness. In that respect it's easily the best book I have read on the subject. I used to be a big fan of Roger Penrose before I read Walker. (I still find Penrose worth reading, but he's much further off the mark, in my opinion.) Where he breaks down is that he has only physical models to explain consciousness. They're necessary, but not sufficient. Let me ask it this way: Is the mind a Turing machine? If it is, then his explanations are sufficient. I don't believe the mind to be that limited, and there is plenty of evidence that it is not. Then what makes the mind something that can determine that a particular Turing machine will never halt?
|
