Rock Conscious Being?

Jan 18, 2023
Hi. I don't know much about quantum mechanics but I've been listening to some podcast and I think I understand so I have a question. I have a rock in my hand. Is the rock a conscious being having an experience as a nonconscious object in this 3D reality?
May 8, 2022
David Bohm proposed that inanimate objects still experience an "unfolding" of the "Implicate order" into an expressed "Explicate order", but it does not need to be self-aware for these potentials to become expressed in reality in a constant process of "becoming".

Not all patterns are conscious. Consciousness emerges from certain patterns or fields when it's quantum information distributing system creates a pattern that is able to experience and "select" from the constant flow of incoming wave patterns. Anil Seth calls it a "best guess" or a "controlled hallucination".

Quantum Mind
David Bohm viewed quantum theory and relativity as contradictory, which implied a more fundamental level in the universe.[11] He claimed that both quantum theory and relativity pointed to this deeper theory, which he formulated as a quantum field theory. This more fundamental level was proposed to represent an undivided wholeness and an implicate order, from which arises the explicate order of the universe as we experience it.
Bohm's proposed order applies both to matter and consciousness. He suggested that it could explain the relationship between them. He saw mind and matter as projections into our explicate order from the underlying implicate order. Bohm claimed that when we look at matter, we see nothing that helps us to understand consciousness.
Bohm discussed the experience of listening to music. He believed that the feeling of movement and change that make up our experience of music derive from holding the immediate past and the present in the brain together. The musical notes from the past are transformations rather than memories. The notes that were implicated in the immediate past become explicate in the present. Bohm viewed this as consciousness emerging from the implicate order.
Bohm saw the movement, change or flow, and the coherence of experiences, such as listening to music, as a manifestation of the implicate order. He claimed to derive evidence for this from Jean Piaget's work on infants.[12] He held these studies to show that young children learn about time and space because they have a "hard-wired" understanding of movement as part of the implicate order. He compared this hard-wiring to Chomsky's theory that grammar is hard-wired into human brains.
Bohm never proposed a specific means by which his proposal could be falsified, nor a neural mechanism through which his "implicate order" could emerge in a way relevant to consciousness.[11] He later collaborated on Karl Pribram's holonomic brain theory as a model of quantum consciousness.[13]
According to philosopher Paavo Pylkkänen, Bohm's suggestion "leads naturally to the assumption that the physical correlate of the logical thinking process is at the classically describable level of the brain, while the basic thinking process is at the quantum-theoretically describable level".[14]
It was suggested by theoretical physicists David Bohm and Basil Hiley that mind and matter both emerge from an "implicate order".[15]
Bohm and Hiley's approach to mind and matter is supported by philosopher Paavo Pylkkänen.[16] Pylkkänen underlines "unpredictable, uncontrollable, indivisible and non-logical" features of conscious thought and draws parallels to a philosophical movement some call "post-phenomenology", in particular to Pauli Pylkkö's notion of the "aconceptual experience", an unstructured, unarticulated and pre-logical experience.[17]

It kind of depends on your interpretation of "experience" and "experiencing".

Roger Penrose proposes that quantum events are causal to a momentary "experience" and wave function collapse is causal to observation instead of observation being causal to wave function collapse (the exact opposite).

I like the concept of "wave collapse is causal to observation" better and simpler than the standard version.

Plus it agrees with David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"
Last edited: