I have thus far considered mainly classical mechanical (macroscientific) paradigms for the relationship of the mind to the

brain on the widely accepted premise that awareness and subjectivity are probably network effects, involving many millions of neurons in thalamic and cortical structures31neurons not quantum collapses, not holographic waves, and not translations of particle effects into neural effects. Yet the mind is not related to the brain in a simple topographic manner, as we have seen, nor are there answers for fundamental questions about basic phenomenasuch as the role of back projections, the nature of representation in sensory systems, whether sensory systems are hierarchically organized, precisely how memory is stored and retrieved, how sensorimotor integration works, [and] what sleep and dreaming are all about32the bioneurological mechanisms of awareness.33 Insofar as the evolution of consciousness may have little to do with differentiating biological regimes under Darwinian natural selection or other changing external circumstances and arise, rather, because of the natural dynamics of self-organizing processes,34 it is worth considering whether consciousness is related in some fashion to quantum-level phenomena. I should point out right away that there is no demonstrable link between the ranges in which neuronal or subneuronal events occur and quantum ones nor any explanation for how the two realms, existing at radically different degrees of scale with radically different ranges of activity, could interact in such a way as to co-create consciousness. After all, quantum effects occur only in very small spaces and at very low temperatures or under very high pressures, notwithstanding (of course) that these spaces in some manner comprise the core reality of all larger spaces like neurons, brains, and their components. {question for readers: what is the scale of difference between the quantum realm and the neuronal realm? A million, a billion..?} For reasons that I will soon explain, the quantum brain is not a key premise in my book, though it is a proposition I need to identify in my journey toward something else. As I am not a physicist (I never even completed my college physics course), I will be speaking of things I dont really know or understand. My account is necessarily a blend of pop physics, intellectual hearsay and gossip, and online iterations of common metaphors, narratives, and themes. First and foremost, the so-called quantum brain is an inevitable trope of the reflection that quantum-level phenomena and consciousness, being equally mysterious, equally inexplicable, and equally indeterminate, are causally interrelated at a deep operational level of the universe. As early as 1951 quantum physicist David Bohm pointed to the uncanny resemblance between subjective experience and the qualities and properties of quantum systems. Quantum indeterminacy at least seems to have to do with free will and the imaginative aspects of consciousness in a way that the biology of the

nervous system doesntperhaps not its outlying provinces where neuroscience still holds sway but at its still inaccessible base. At least metaphorically the mind follows paradoxical principles resembling those of quantum mechanics; for instance, consciousness like particles can be in two places at once or connect to things without connect or operate symbolically outside the domain of time. Speculative physics and astrophysics are awash in propositions at precisely the point at which reality hits its own absolute boundaries: dark matter, event horizons, tiny stringlike forms; a fictive early universe in which the dimension of time is mathematically distorted into one of space so that all four dimensions function like space; another whole universe in a superposition of many different states, in which the constants of nature like quark masses take different values and in which even a cat can be in a superposition of states, in some of which it is alive and in others dead; eleven space-time dimensions with different sets of particles or strings or membranes in spacetimes of various dfferent dimensionalities; quantum particles entangled such that, if they were dice, each pair would give the same roll light years apart in time or space; or a universe [that] does not have just a single history but every possible history.*35 The stuff of poetry, abstract mathematics, music, and hiphop contains intrinsic mysteries like uncertainty states and wave functions, though that does not mean that they represent the same mystery. The quantum event-field was modeled in the 1920s to deal with Newtonian mechanics failure to account for the realm of the very, very small, not for its failure to account for consciousness. It has a very limited exact application in nature. For instance, quantum mechanics will give perfect answers for the energy states of the hydrogen atom, and for any other one electron, one nucleus system. As soon as scientists go to a more than two-body system, quantum mechanics can't give them an exact answer and they have to start tossing fudge factors into their equations to get their numbers to match known energy values. Even the simple helium atom (one nucleus, two electrons) is beyond exact solution. Physicists have been trying for years to mathematically understand just the combining of two hydrogen atoms to form a hydrogen moleculea two-electron chemical bond and a four-body problem (two electrons and two protons) when even a three-body problem is unsolvable. How then can it begin to account for epiphenomenal thought events? With these provisos many neuroscientifically-oriented philosophers, psychologists, and even some theoretical physicists have reconceived the brain as a microphysical object and mapped mind onto The cat belongs to early twentieth-century physicist Erwin Schrdinger, the dice to twenty-first-century quantum-information physicist Michael A. Nielsen, the universe with every possible history to astrophysicist Stephen Hawking.
*

it by deepening its field and substituting, as it were another brain or cerebral level: the quantum-mechanical field of relationships in neural tissue. Potentiated functions of this brain can then hypothetically be derived from quantum field theorys precepts of wave-form, superposition, quasicrystals, quantum gravity, nondeterminism, nonlocality, nonalgorithmic computations, quantum entanglement, and the like. Parallel computational capacity is assumed to woven into and intrinsic to the fabric of matter at a subatomic level, compressed into cellular density of the brain, hence concomitant with the creation of reality itself, consciousness generated as its invariable outcome. The trillions of particle reactions, quantum properties, and density matrices imbedded in the brain cause indeterminate states to be propagated through the collective neuronal flow into the cortex by the interactions of individual microfilaments and computer-like structures such as microtubules and other organelles making up neurons. Even as faster computers operate by quantum tunneling, teleporting information between different energy states, so might quantum tunneling take place between neurons or between their microtubules or even among their bosons and other subatomic particles. It might occur at several levels simultaneously, approximating the interior feel of consciousness. Some sort of virtual machine would be operated by the brain or assignable through the to the quantum states of particles in the atoms inside its molecules. The interfacing deep fields (neurological and nuclear) would excite a combination amplification/synergy that triggers topological phase transitions between separate state universes. As neural networks and subcellular networks reverberate back and forth, consciousness would be generated as an emergent phenomenon. Bosons exist at the borderline of the real and an abstract mathematical realm and by definition are not ordinary, concrete objects, even small ones. They obey statistical rules such that any number of them can occupy identical places and share quantum states. Carriers of force rather than matter, they have zero or integral spin: e.g. no equivalent to angular momentum in quantum space. Basically massless, they transform nonlinearly in the context of superconductivity. They are also scalar; that is, have magnitude but no direction and are not changed by coordinate system rotations or by Lorentz transformationsby conversion into each other through different observational frames of references or space-time relativistic exchanges. In that sense the scalar properties of bosons might be independent of even their own independence; remember, these are quantum effects rather than objects or energies. What such independence might amount to is anyones guess, but we are talking about the stream of mindedness and its possible sources in nature.

In the 1960s physicist Hiroomi Umezawa modeled quanta of longrange coherent waves within and between brain cells, with memory storage and retrieval in terms of bosons. His theory was later elaborated into quantum brain dynamics wherein water molecules (comprising seventy percent of the brain) constitute a quantum cortical field. The quanta in this field (dubbed corticons) interact with biomolecules generated in its component neurons and propagated along their synaptic network, compacting in a state known as the Bose condensate, which allows long-range correlation among the dipoles. As biomolecules line up along the actin filaments of the cytoskeleton, they generate dipolar oscillations in the form of quantum coherent waves. Consciousness and sense of self are then engendered by interactions between energy quanta of the cortical field and biomolecular waves originating from the neuronal network, particularly the dendrites, their quantum states producing two complementary representations, one of self and the other of the external world. Consciousness becomes the recognition by each representation of the existence of the other. In the 1980s mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, dismissing a computer model for consciousness as inadequate, proposed a nonalgorithmic computing process in the braina function not reducible to algorithms, hence non-computable. Noncomputable means that the performance of the system could not be produced by any algorithmic procedure; more to the point, it could not be approximated by an algorithmic procedure;36 for instance river eddies and planetary rings, complex systems in continuous states, are only weakly nonalgorithmic. Penrose cites the reasoning used to create mathematical systems as one example of a strong nonalgorithmic constraint. He then aligns this abstract function with the nuclear noncomputable function based on the random choice of position that follows the collapse of a quantum wave into a particle under hypothetical conditions of quantum gravity. He later refined this waveform into a second, autonomous kind of collapse where multiple quanta, each with its own tag of spacetime curvature, become unstable when separated by a Planck length of more than 10-35 meters and therefore collapse on their own accord without interaction with the environment. He called this collapse objective reduction and, through its mechanism, linked the brain directly to spacetime geometry,37 though he could not assign the event to any neuronal anatomy. After reading Penroses book, research physician Stuart Hameroff decided to fill this gap with the possible computing functions of microtubules and other subneuronal components of the cytoskeletons of brain cells.38 The main supporting structures of the cytoskeleton, microtubules seem to have properties which make certain quantummechanical phenomena (e.g. super-radiance) possible and they play a key role in neuronal functioning.39 Microtubules have pore diameters of

14 nanometers and are composed of tubulin protein dimer subunits, each with hydrophobic pockets 8 nm. apart, perhaps containing delocalized pi electrons. Smaller nonpolar regions incorporate indole rings themselves rich in pi electrons, separated by an even more minute 2 nm., close enough, Hameroff believed, to become quantum entangled to jump the Newtonian barrier into quantum space. Becoming locked in phase and using bosons to form a Bose-Einstein condensate, their output might extend over the synaptic gap junctions between neurons, translating quantum activity to a macroscopic portion of the brain. As waves collapse into particles, non-computable [should it be non-copmputational?] influences flood consciousness into the brain from the fundamental geometry of spacetime, leading to gamma-wave synchronization, which is also a correlate of consciousness in conventional neuroscience models. Hameroff called his enhanced model orchestrated objective reduction, and he and Penrose subsequently collaborated on developing it as an intracellular model of consciousness.40 I am a synthesizer here, as I get these images from the pop uses of quantum language across the Internetattributions that have developed their own implied meaning set. Yet Im not sure that even Penrose and Hameroff can push it further, though ostensibly (unlike me) they know precisely what they are trying to push. Neuroscientific researchers did not take any of this adventuresome modeling seriously for a whole range of reasons: the lack of mechanisms whereby microtubule effects could be translated into neuronal effects and conveyed then from one neuron to another, e.g. encodeinformation derived from sensory structures, process it, and then modify the firing of neurons in such a way as to support the consciousness of the stimulus, and perhaps a purposeful response as well;41 the lack of mechanisms whereby quantum events could be transmitted even from one tubule to another;42 the lack of mechanisms to deter macro-transmitter molecules from inhibiting the spread of quantum coherence;43 the impossibility of biological tissue surviving the high temperatures, energy, and degree of hydrolysis required for quantum interactions (protoplasm and quantum entanglement dont happily share a bedroom); and the lack of experimental evidence that quantum coherence even involves super-radiance in microtubules.44 Neurons are classical mechanical objects and they yield to ordinary not quantum deconstruction. Plus, how can microtubules both conduct and be isolated from the neurotransmitters and neuromodulators that they use to carry sensory signals, yet permeability and impermeability to the same ions is necessary to fulfill both quantum and neural conditions? How is the microtubule supposed to communicate with the synapses to have the Penrose effect? What precisely is supposed to be the effect on the neuronal membrane and

how is it to be achieved?... The release of neurotransmitter vesicles, for example, do not have any characteristic association with microtubules, so far as is known.45 When the quantum realm is coupled irreversibly with the macroframe, the possible consequence of decoherence defy even common sense and result in mixed metaphors and counterintuitive propositionsplus why would quantum states not decohere long before before they even reached a spatial or temporal scale applicable to neural processing? Yet if your view is that consciousness is neurons, neurons, and more neurons and the answer has got to be in there somewhere because it cant be anywhere else (without invoking idealism, vitalism, Platonism, or slapping on some metaphorical conflation), then the stretching of quantum events across a billionfold divide from a nano to a macro level is the only habitable platform between the abyss of premature concreteness of the unknown and the opposite abyss of knee-jerk intelligent design. Tell me that all that music (Bachs organs, the didgeridoos, ragtime, Bob Marley and the Wailers, Lady Radnors Suite, Steve Roachs Structures From Silence) isnt coming from somewhere. From here the models only get more sci-fi, as logically possible worlds projected into tangibly realized space quickly develop metaphysical characteristics. Physicist Henry Stapp translated objective collapse theory into his own free-will-oriented choice menu for the brain. The cerebral wave function and the particles indeterministic collapse are considered ontologically distinct features, quantum events that are part of a holistic process for selection from sets of possibilities among neural excitations in an evolving universe, something like Whiteheads incursion of novelty. A memory-oriented code reading neuronal synapses and drawing on the brains memory of past event creates the quantum future in a sphere that cannot be represented outside itself and is not subject to the laws of classical mechanics in the way that the rest of the universe is. This approach translates quantum-versusclassical mechanics into mind-versus-matter dualism. Stapp adds, The conscious action is represented physically by the selection of a new top-level code, which then automatically exercises top-level control of the flow of neural excitations in the brain through the action of quantum-theoretic laws of nature. The unity of conscious thought comes from the unifying integrative character of the conscious creative act, which selects a single code from among the multitude generated by the causal development prescribed by quantum theory.46 Once we are in deep quantum-metaphor territory, the variations of are endless. David Chalmers offers his own most promising interpretation [which] allows conscious states to be correlated with the total quantum state of a system, with the extra constraint that conscious states (unlike physical states) can never be superposed. In a conscious

physical system such as a brain the physical and phenomenal states of the system will be correlated in a (nonsuperposed) quantum state. Upon observation.the superposed external system [would]become correlated with the brain, yielding a resulting superposition of brain states and so (by psychophysical correlation) a superposition of conscious states. But such a superposition cannot occur, so one of the potential resulting conscious states is somehow selected (presumably by a nondeterministic dynamic principle at the phenomenal level). The result is that (by psychophysical correlation) a definite brain state and a definite state of the observed object are also selected.47 Istvn Dienes, another contemporary model-maker, posits the following under his rubric of the Consciousness Holomatrix: A thought for the brain is like a neutrino for the universe. It is everywhere and nowhere. We can in principle localise an electron in the brain but we cannot, even in principle, localise a thought.. Through quantum activity in the brain, a nonlocal knot is generateda defect on the field line which characterizes it as a wholea spatially extended object. This then creates its own internal principle of unfolding. Dienes invites the angel of topology to save his appearances: Nature obeys mathematical laws, but while for the physical brain these laws are primarily geometrical, both incommutative and noncommutative spaces, for the cognitive brain the underyling mathematical theory is essentially and fundamentally topological. [C]onsciousness is a topological effect. The brain decides geometrically; the mind decides topologically. A (topo)logical exciton emerges as a fundamental quantum of consciousness, forming coherent waves that run through the brain matter. In this way topology is not a matter of choice butfundamental. A (topo)logical process propagating along a closed information loop (knot) manifests itself as the thought process.48 Additionally, topological energy and interaction are not circumscribed by finite speed of propagations of interactions. Topological properties are tachyonic and could propagate instantly.49 Manifesting anywhere, they join any place to any other place. In such an imaginal regime nature could be viewed as integrative, emergent, self-organizing, non-isotropic (anisotropic), and quantum coherent to the corefar weirder than Source Code or Jabberwocky. But Dienes take it even further: [In] a two-dimensional strip universe with both ends extended to an absolutely remote areaif someone at infinity twisted and glued the ends of the strip the entire universe would instantly change from orientable to nonorientable, reversing the chirality (mirror-image superimposability) of anything passing through it. The topo-brain might likewise involve such Moebiusstrip-like transpositions. So then to describe consciousness one doesnt really need space-time or, more radically, does not have spacetime

anymore, but just a tensor [multidimensional vector-array] product of two-dimensional topologies, much as with string theoryone does not have a classical spacetime but only the corresponding two-dimensional theory describing the propagation of strings. Worldines are replaced by worldsheets, the interaction vertices in the Feynman diagrams [momentum-conserving eigenstates of particles colliding with antiparticles] are smoothed out, and spacetime exists only to the extent that it can be extracted from that two-dimensional field that encodes information [the Holomatrix].50 As long as weve gotten that far, I would suggest that large and small themselves may be conceptually relative insofar as the universe, originating in a very small (subatomic) space, then exploding and expanding to create the largest known space, could be conceived in its entirety as a quantum event in a pocket of something else, perhaps something equally quantum. Ordinary Newtonian space would then represent the outside of that expansion whereas consciousness as well as the interpolation of quantum effects into matter would represent its inside. Like the speed of light these quantum effects would be independent of velocity relationships, reference frames, distances, elapsed times, and orderings of events. Mind then becomes a spontaneous fluctuation of the pockets quantum vacuumcogito ergo sum and the same electron that is part of the soil and then a sesame seed would end up generating poetry upon passing into the brain. This is a multiverse distributed through its own complex self-computing lattice of logically supported operations. The world is then the summation of all that is accessible from a metaphysical index. Our "mind" is a particular way that a receivertransmitter works at that instant, and as that kind of thing. Ontology covers theories of various natural kinds. Natural kinds occur due to the ways of trying to know about them. Indexation qua mind has epistemic qualities, as it coalesces as a process manifesting itself (trajectories) through further metaphysical indices, counterfactual logic, and conditional logics, always sending a sign-signal that this, and this, and then this is some part of the structure of the plethora, of which not all parts can be "known". Minds somehow belong to spacetime indices that allow those "minds" to function as they do. The "story" we live is the running through indexes, over "time," composing physicality, mental histories, narratives, stories. Then we make our macro-cosmic being "fit" with the fractal scales at a cosmic level, and cosmic scales at sub-nano levels. Reality loops into and out of itself as it knows itself, creating its sense of self, according to the "rules," motifs, and dynamics of the operational nature of reality here-now. In fact, here-now means nothing, as it is just an indexical statement into my "perspective, the maximal sum of seen-thought-

intuited-felt-dreamed being.51 I think that all these lines of modeling are important, not because they are correct but because they offload consciousness onto systems that conceptually bears its weight and establish a parallel between two ranges of the universe, even if it is not the right parallel. Discovering whether any of them are actually valid is impossible anyway. Given the types of applicable technological breakthroughs that have been made in digital memory, nanotechnology, crystal structure, and genome mapping, I find it at least conceivable that the quantum brain could lead somewhere relevant. Even so, its complex object or continuum of objects and emergent field effects does not open meaningfully different ontological territory from the materialists purely behavioral and mechanical brain. It doesnt rescue qualia or banish zombies; it merely runs them anew at a nano-level. The stream of consciousness remains a hallucination, albeit a quantum illusiona movie of quantized inputs from both internal and external sources set in a continuous cognitive stream. Consciousness remains an epiphenomenon, albeit holding a scrap of defensible turf in a Darwinian universe. It still cannot survive its own illusory basis or provide actual meaning or morality though, as a quantum event, it fulfills Whiteheads prerequisite of novelty and increase the subtlety factor in creation. Chalmers concludes similarly that, after all the fuss, quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have some remarkable functional properties, such as nondeterminism and nonlocaltiy. It is natural to speculate that these properties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions such as random choice and the integration of information, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled out a priori. But when it comes to the explanation of experience, quantum processes are in the same boat as any other. The question of why these properties give rise to experience is unanswered.52 Rick Grush and Patricia Smith Churchland, staunchly materialistic philiosophers, pose the larger matter elegantly while going for its jugular: Despite the rather breathtaking flimsiness of the consciousnessquantum connection, the idea has enjoyed a surprisingly warm reception, at least outside neuroscience. One cannot help groping about for some explanation for this rather odd fact. Is it not even more reductionist than explaining consciousness in terms of the properties of networks of neurons? Emotionally, it seems, the two reductionist strategies arouse quite different feelings. After some interviewing, in an admittedly haphazard fashion, we found the following story gathering credence. Some people who, intellectually, are materialists nevertheless have strong dualist hankeringsespecially hankerings about life after

death. They have a negative gut reaction to the idea that neurons cells that you can see under a microscope and probe with electrodes, brains that you can hold in one hand and that rapidly rot without oxygen supplyare the source of subjectivity and the me-ness of me. The crucial feature of neurons that makes them capable of processing and storing information is just ions passing back and forth across neuronal membranes through proteing channels. That seems, stacked against the me-ness of me, to be disappointingly humdrumeven if there are lots of ions and lots of neurons and lots of really complicated protein channels. Quantum physics, on the other hand, seems more resonant with those residual dualist hankerings, perhaps by holding out the possibility that scientific realism and objectivity melt away in that domain, or even that thoughts and feelings are, in the end, the fundamental properties of the universe. Explanation of something as special as what makes me me should really involve, the feeling is, something more deep and mysterious and other worldly than mere neurons. Perhaps what is comforting about quantum physics is that it can be invoked to explain a mysterious phenomenon without removing much of the mystery, quantum-physical explanations being high mysterious themselves. [But ] why should it be less scarydegradingreductionist or counter-intuitive that me-ness emerges from the collapse of a wave functiuon than from neuronal activity?53 Fundamental properties of the universe is a big one. Grush and Churchland dont like them one bit, but I am not even sure they speak their own entire truth (their tongue in cheek, at more than one level of irony, aside), a point that I will come back to before the end of this chapter. Counter their argument, counter the position they make explicit, the quantum brain is a powerful metaphor, an alternative universe grounded in at least a patina of science, and a worthy stand-in for the wonders of personal identity in the belly of a society that requires a physical atlasa superpositional, every-which-way atlas if need be for anything to have standing or legitimacy, even to oneself, in fact especially to ones private censor and witness. We doubt everything now, so the quantum realm puts a little ripple into that doubt, which allows our existential faith to make a bashful appearance alongside existential despair. The quantum brain doesnt have to stop at the boundary of matter. With his colleague Stanford neuroscientist Karl Pribram, David Bohm explained the functioning of the brain as a hologram in accordance with the waveforms of quantum mathematical functions (a so-called holonomic brain). Echoing elements of panpsychism, he also took the position that the contradictions between quantum and relativity theories indicated a deeper truth, an implicate order (he called it) from which the universe arose as an explicate order. Mind and matter are

both projections of implicate into explicate order. Matter in explicate space explains nothing about itself or consciousness, but its mysteries are energetically equivalent to those of consciousness and point back to implicate order.54 Even that brilliant modeler of the quantum brain (Bohm) suffered from such extreme depression that he willingly underwent electroconvulsive therapy late in life, a seeming contradiction of his own paradigm, as there seemed no other option. The master of the holonomic brain submitted under duress to the concreteness of the neuron. But, at some point in this madness, dont we all? My own provisional preference is that the quantum particle, the quantum brain, and the quantum metaphor exist as spin-offs of the quantum intelligence of the universe, rather than that the quantum mind maps onto a quantum brain that generates a quantum waveform of consciousness. I will come back to this topic with a very different sort of modeling in the Cosmic Eternity System in Volume Three. 31. Rick Grush and Patricia Smith Churchland, Gaps in Penroses Toilings, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2, No. 1, 1995, p. 10. 32. ibid, p. 27. 33. ibid., p. 10. 34. Jeffrey Satinover, The Quauntum Brain: The Search for Freedom and the Next Generation of Man (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2002). 35. The Universes We Still Dont Know by Steven Weinberg, The New York Review of Books, February 10, 2011, Volume LVIII, Number 2, p. 32. 36. Rick Grush and Patricia Smith Churchland, Gaps in Penroses Toilings, pp. 13-14. 37. Roger Penrose, The Emperors New Mind (New York: Doubleday/Vintage Books, 1990). 38. S. R. Hameroff, Quantum coherence in microtubules, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1 (1), 1994, pp. 91-118. 39. Rick Grush and Patricia Smith Churchland, Gaps in Penroses Toilings, p. 11. 40. Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). 41. Rick Grush and Patricia Smith Churchland, Gaps in Penroses Toilings, p. 25. 42. ibid. 43. ibid. 44. ibid, p. 24. 45. ibid, p. 26. 46. Henry Stapp, Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Accommodate Consciousness but Quantum Mechanics Can, http://www.nonlocal.com/hbar/qbrain.html#quantumparadigm), no date. 47. David Chalmers in Galen Strawn, Peter Carruthers, Frank Jackson, and William G. Lycan (editors) Consciousness and Its Place in Nature

(Exeter, England: Imprint Academic, 2006). 48. Istvn Dienes, The Quantum Brain and the Topological Consciousness http://www.slideshare.net/Dienes/tha-quantum-brainand-the-topological-consciousness-field-presentation, 2011. 49. ibid. 50. ibid (rearranged). Much of the information in this article is drawn from August Stern, The Quantum Brain: Theory and Implications, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1994, and August Stern, Quantum Theoretic Machines: What is Thought from the Point of View of Physics (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2000). 51. From multiverse through dreamed being is co-created with Frederick Ware. 52. Chalmers, op. cit. 53. Rick Grush and Patricia Smith Churchland, Gaps in Penroses Toilings, pp. 27-28. 54. David Bohn, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (Oxford, England: Routledge, 2002).