E. Eijkman, August 1998

1- Science and the properties of consciousness.

2- Consciousness and matter; consciousness of the universe.

3- Consciousness and life; three forms of consciousness.

4- Consciousness and its role in religion, neurophysiology and physics.

It is a major undertaking to define consciousness for two reasons. First the term has been used in different disciplines differently and secondly one readily creates a vicious circle for instance by stating that people are conscious of their consciousness and therefore consciousness exists.

Rather than starting from personal experience it is preferable to define properties of consciousness beforehand and to judge thereafter if it leads to a notion that may be recognized in the world around us and in our personal experiences. It is also important to restrict the number of properties in the definition as much as possible because a minimum set of simple properties will maximize its applicability while we set out to advocate that consciousness is a universal phenomenon in mind and matter.

The most fundamental aspect of consciousness is the ability to sense "existence" in general. The second and no less important property is the appraisal that accompanies the experience of existence. If an immaterial consciousness could influence the material world it could be guided meaningfully by the appraisal which accompanies all existence. Here we will postulate that any object has access to consciousness and therefore will have the ability to make its own existence known and consequently "feel" its own existence. At the same time any object experiences the presence of other existences in as far as the complexity of its material structure permits it. So consciousness is not restricted to living creatures but it is also a quality of non-living material things. As we will see later modern physics is supporting this notion, if the simple definition of consciousness is used.

We are used to the idea that experiences can be stored in a memory of material nature allowing for retrieval of information by means of signals of physical nature. If the material structure of memory is lost then as a consequence also the information it contained is lost. Consciousness, however, does not possess a material substance and it cannot send out physical signals containing required information. Instead its influence is always and everywhere present and its knowledge about existences and their appraisals can be retrieved whenever the structure of the material receiver permits it. Therefore it is to be expected that small particles will have a very simple level of consciousness permitting them to be aware of particles of similar simple nature, whereas more complex organisations have more extensive possibilities of experiencing other more complex existences with their appraisals to match.

The content of the notion of appraisals needs some further elaboration at this point. Appraisal presupposes a rating system used to value an existence according to some standard. Our search for a universal consciousness asks for a more general validity of this standard, otherwise a chaotic and useless system of appraisals would result. This, in turn, means that general validity is derived from an ideal that is used as a yard-stick to compose an appraisal. An appraisal of greater preference is made available for all consciousness if a better match to the ideal is obtained.

The question who or what determines the ideal existence is a matter of belief and seems to be important to all people. Some believe in blind fate dictating the survival of the fittest. In this belief there is an inevitable development of nature according to a theoretical structure of mathematical signature. The sense of a meaningful purpose of the ideal standard is absent here. Others believe in a Supreme Being who determines the purpose of all things and sets the standard for good and bad. The choice of belief has important consequences for opinions about the evolution of nature and the possible moral tasks of mankind. These topics will be discussed later on.

There is another consequence of our definition of appraisals of consciousness. Appraisals will serve a purpose only if consciousness has the means to exercise a certain influence upon material things. Our daily experience does not provide us with clear physical evidence that this is the case. Nevertheless physical principles of uncertainty leave sufficient room for a subtle influence of material processes. And indeed, many of us have had experiences of presumable metaphysical influence upon a physical process, which then is commonly called the "influence of the mind". However, it must also be realised that experiments trying to repeat the phenomenon fail in practice. The influence of consciousness if it exists is subtle, spurious and difficult to approach in repeated experiments. When evolution is discussed and the place of religion is considered, the problem returns to its full extent.

 In résumé we have proposed a universal consciousness that can experience existences. This experience can be enriched by an appraisal of existences in connection with usefulness or purpose. General moral standards of "Evil" and "Virtue" find their roots in these appraisals. Moreover, the contents of consciousness are always and everywhere available. However, the ample availability is only operational if the receiving part is of sufficient sophistication to appreciate the implications of the reception. There is no material memory for the contents of consciousness. Thus there is no way to send physical signals in order to obtain required information, but there is no need to do so, as the contents of consciousness are available at any time.

We will now try to apply our definition of consciousness to the simplest forms of energy and matter and subsequently to living creatures. In this process we have to bear in mind that complexity of the receiving structure will influence the possible extent of reception of knowledge which consciousness has to offer.

In physics the model of the universe as clockwork of mechanical bodies has prevailed for some time. In this view the laws of mechanics would offer a complete explanation of bodily motions which in principle could be predicted with utmost accuracy. However, this idea proved to be false. First long-term predictions cannot be made as position and velocity can only be measured with restricted accuracy and very small inaccuracies could have very large long-term effects. Secondly, the local connection between cause and effect in quantum mechanics appeared not as firmly established as it was assumed previously. The discussion between Bohr and Einstein has been of great importance to point out the problems involved. Bohr [2] probably has made it clear for the first time, that a local cause should not have a mere local effect. Since 1970 experiments have been set up to throw some light on this topic. In 1981 a decisive experiment has been done by the Frenchmen Aspect [1]. For some physicists the outcome of these experiments has far reaching consequences, which is the reason why we will discuss it in more detail.

Some energy quantum states may give rise under proper conditions to the formation of two particles, for instance, a positron and an electron, which move away from each other. If the original quantum state did not posses spin (i.e. a specific rotation), then the two particles should have an opposite spin as a result of a law of conservation. In experiments one of the particles may then be given a change of spin. Now it appears that the other particle changes its spin in order to maintain conservation of spin for the two particles together. This change occurs with no measurable delay (!) and is independent of the distance (!) of the particles. A quantum state, which gives rise to two wavelets of light (photons) may show similar effects for their direction of vibration. Again, if the direction of vibration of one of the photons is changed the other photon changes immediately in such a way that conservation of energy and impulse for both photons is maintained irrespective of their distance.

These experimental facts may lead us to amazing conclusions [8]. Our definition of consciousness is applicable for pairs of very small particles! The state of one of the pair is noted at once and evaluated by the other particle of the pair irrespective of their distance. Both particles are conscious of both their states. Both particles have preserved some form of unity despite the fact that they are separated in space. Their bond and their appraisal of each others state is in accordance with our definition of consciousness [3],[7]. Even more pronounced is this conclusion if it is realised that it is commonly accepted that the universe has begun as a single quantum state (the big bang). By very many fission processes space has been created and filled with very many particles being conscious of other particles. We propose to call this the universal consciousness of matter and radiation. This is an expression of the modern view that matter in the universe remained in a sense an inseparable unity despite its spatial separation. In such a world it is plausible that the effect of a local action is not locally restricted but may be noted and evaluated throughout the universe.

The notion of a conscious universe may have some appeal. However, the question arises which consequences we expect for physical processes [3] on a very small and a larger scale. On the one hand physical laws form a rather rigid system for material behaviour, on the other hand as we mentioned before there is sufficient uncertainty in the state of particles for a subtle influence by consciousness on the quantum states itself, which may result in physical signals. Despite the fact that these signals come into existence by action of consciousness they have totally different properties than consciousness itself because they obey physical laws.

In contrast with consciousness physical signals have a restricted spatial effect and they travel through space with a velocity not exceeding the velocity of light. A simple case may serve as an example. Somewhere in space a sodium atom with an electron at an excited energy level is "convinced" to send an energy quantum into space. After some time of travel this quantum is captured by another sodium atom putting one of his electrons in a higher energy level. One can describe this chain of events by stating that the second atom has received a signal, which it has stored in a material memory. This is the action of consciousness followed by a physical transfer of information, which after storage is available only locally.

Since physicists have discovered that the speed of light is constant or in other words is independent of the speed of the light source or of the speed of the receiver, many ideas about matter and cosmos have been changed radically. It seems that every particle has a connection with any other particle. This connection has the property of propagating electromagnetic waves such as light waves. The connection belongs to one particle in particular and travels with the particle through space. If another particle emits a light quantum in the direction of the first particle it sets up an electromagnetic disturbance in the connection belonging to this first particle. This disturbance begins a voyage to the center of the first particle with the velocity of light and independent of the velocity of the particle. The frequency of the disturbance, however, depends on the velocity difference of the two particles which determines how the connection "travels" over the emitting particle. The physical theory of relativity describes the consequences of this phenomenon, which have been confirmed repeatedly in many experimental conditions. As a consequence of this theory we must accept that any particle can receive information from any other particle in the universe, for instance, by emitted quanta of energy. This process differs in essence from the influence of consciousness, which is always present, instantaneous, independent of any distance and accompanied by an appraisal of the state informed of.

The attempt to describe human consciousness is presumably as old as literature itself and a survey of different descriptions would not be possible in this article. A visionary study has been published in the forties by Teilhard de Chardin [13], which shows surprisingly modern opinions. He advocates the omnipresence of consciousness and the growth of human consciousness up to a future point, that he calls Omega. Many attempts have been made to figure out a model that would represent the reality of the feeling that human personality has a non-material component. Mostly the result shows a remarkable touch of irresolution. Sometimes an indication of experimental approach is given. Jung [7] defines a common subconscious reservoir from which anyone can extract ideas. Sheldrake [12] postulates a so-called morfogenetic field that could serve as a powerful means to share new ideas without physical communication. However, experimental evidence for those sources of information is not generally accepted. Pinker [10] among others wants to locate consciousness in the brain. He admits, nevertheless, that the problem how some brain activities successfully reach consciousness and in turn can influence other brain activities is not solved even in principle, despite the fact that in his view it should be a physiological process.

Perhaps it is better to abandon the idea that consciousness is a kind of material memory store with information to extract on demand. Instead living creatures also have a consciousness that experiences their own existence and other existences. And living creatures also find these experiences accompanied by an appraisal of these existences. This experience is always there when the organism is fit to perceive. However, it is not possible to send specific questions to consciousness and get the new information required. Such facility would not be useful because consciousness always offer a complete repertoire that can be received if the receiving party has sufficient capabilities to understand. For specific information of knowledge and facts it is necessary to inquire an encyclopedia with a material physical memory and this is not provided for by consciousness.

In literature three forms of consciousness are regularly mentioned: self-consciousness, group-consciousness and universal consciousness. Self-consciousness is particularly strong for human beings and probably for all living creatures. Because this consciousness has grown during the development of the individual, his material structure is precisely capable to experience self-awareness and self-appraisal. Nevertheless, many writers (e.g. [4], [5] ) find the assumption of consciousness as a separate capacity unnecessary and therefore objectionable. They maintain that processes of the brain sufficiently explain feelings of self-consciousness. However, most people are convinced that they are conscious of themselves and of other fellow human beings in mutual relations and in a manner different from other experiences. And the discussion starts whether such feelings are random products of brain activity or that a subtle suggestion about all existence with their good and bad sides stems from outside the brain. The discussion is difficult because it is almost impossible to prove whether a certain idea does not have its origin in random processes or stems from a forgotten physical source of information elsewhere.

A second form of consciousness is the so-called group-consciousness. A group of living creatures may generate a separate form of consciousness if they are acting together in synergy for some time. The result may be an evolution of a common goal. The appraisal of this goal is strongly positive and the group acts as a unity to achieve the common aim. Bird migration, schools of fish and in general flocks of animals may be suggestive for this kind of consciousness. Beforehand it is not clear that a separate form of consciousness is necessary to assume. It could just as well be an integral part of a general universal consciousness. There are some facts, however, which make the idea of a more separate consciousness attractive. Group-consciousness may radiate very strong effects especially for groups of humans. Examples are: the gangs of youngsters with appraisals leading to sometimes extremely violent vandalism, political and religious extremists who often persecute non-believers violently, large groups of young people going into ecstasy by the music of pop concerts. All these examples demonstrate the strong effects of interactions leading to goals that are despised by the rest of the community but are applauded by the members of the group. It is a remarkable fact, that by dissolving the group also the positive appraisal of their common goal is frequently dissolved and the former members of the group do not quite understand how they could have been so positive about it. This phenomenon is perhaps a good reason to think that the more volatile group-consciousness is not fully integrated in the universal consciousness. One cannot help to question the usefulness of group-consciousness but in doing so it is recognised that in the early days of existence of mankind an enforcement of a common aim of a small group of people must have been an advantage. Today with societies of millions of people the extreme drive of small groups is seldomly benevolent.

In short we can observe that if many individuals are busy with the same subject a common structure evolves in them. This structure brings about a common consciousness that can be felt strongly and can have an enforcing effect upon their activity. However, the appraisals that go along with this consciousness are no longer controlled by the universal consciousness and may deviate grossly from appraisals felt by other people. The temporary cooperation of self-consciousness and group-consciousness in which the latter dominates involves strong emotional feelings, which have not been sufficiently investigated. Groups, of which the members experience a mutual influence of consciousness, need not be large, because there are also frequent reports of two individuals suddenly having identical thoughts which they later recognise with astonishment. The individuals in question always have a large common field of interests. This is understandable from the point of view that consciousness is effective if the receiver has the proper structure to understand the content of the message and that similar structures are the best suited to exchange such messages. The other side of the picture is that similar contents of memory make the occurrence of similar thoughts quite probable and the denial of non-physical messages easy. However, the frequency of occurrence of, for instance, picking up the telephone at the same time by two people wishing to speak to each other is mainly special because the thought occurs practically simultaneously. This justifies the assumption of a special interaction that does not depend on physical parameters besides the required similarity of the interacting individuals.

 Finally the third form of consciousness is universal consciousness. It is the most extensive and stable form of consciousness. Its appraisals of present existences play an important role in new developments and probably evolve in the course of time. Consciousness of individuals set up by daily experience in life may contribute to the universal consciousness. It is comparable to its contribution to group-consciousness but in a more stable manner, as it may survive as part of universal consciousness if the physical life of the individual ceases to exist. This can be considered as the basis for the feeling that after death an immaterial soul can outlive the physical body. However, such survival can only be possible if the appraisals of the individual consciousness do not totally contradict those of the universal consciousness.

It is clear that we arrived at discussions in the domain of religion and metaphysics and therefore we will try to seek the connection between science and religion more systematically. 

Regularly the interest of scientists for subjects as mind and consciousness seems to revive vividly (e. g. [3], [9]) and extreme points of view attract more attention than they had before. Presumably this is caused by the advance of knowledge in general and more especially in the field of brain physiology and evolution. Some firmly held positions in religious convictions are no longer tenable and the reactions of scientists are rather arrogant. We will discuss this struggle and pursue the matter by insisting on a new formulation of the widely felt need to provide human existence with a non-material component. It is clear by now that we will call this the component of personal consciousness. In the following discussion we will try to indicate that convictions in science and in religion can be reconciled if more tolerance is exercised for the methods and the sources of those two domains.

Neurophysiology aided by physical and chemical methods has developed into an exact science that can make many phenomena understandable, which were mysterious in early days. Epileptic attacks some psychological disorders and restrictions in perceptions and bodily movements are understood at least in essence. Psychic illnesses have been made diseases of the brain, emotions and motivations are explained by certain states of the brain, which can be influenced by pharmaceuticals at will. All this gave to neurophysiology the status of an exact science such as physics have had for a long time. So neurophysiology operates with fixed laws established by experimental facts and new hypotheses have to be testable or else should be removed from the discussion platform. It is remarkable that where other branches of science have taken up the positivistic position with conviction scientists in physics cautiously leave some room for existing mechanisms, which are not strictly repeatable or demonstrable in experiments and are nevertheless accepted as facts. Even in mathematics it is accepted that there are propositions which must be true but which cannot be proven. Neurophysiologists, on the other hand, seem in general to be quite satisfied with their exactness and reject any hypothesis that has not been demonstrated in repeatable experiments. In this sense the consciousness of the individual reduces to the memory of stories that someone has told himself and others. The storage in memory completely determines the individual. Any other addition to the notion of consciousness is abundant and scientifically unsound [4], [5], [6]. A very remarkable consequence of this attitude is that neurophysiologists, who always despised mechanical models of the brain, are now forced to recognise that in principle, though perhaps not achievable in practice, the possibility exists to store the information of human memory in computer memory. This simulation would have a human consciousness and perhaps could not be denied the human rights. Also all further information of the human body can be stored and then considered as a complete individual [4], [6]. Of course, the enormous extrapolations in these consequences make everybody suspicious, because superficial understanding of brain functions and operation of hormones does not guarantee a complete representation of human ideals and human endeavour. However, to choose for an immaterial consciousness as a completion of human personality is also an audacious assumption.

A similar situation has arisen for biologists while developing models for evolution. The time for evolving changes is longer than we can imagine with confidence and the proven possibilities for the origin of random mutations seem sufficiently large. It is tempting to consider these circumstances explicative for the existence of the present species, which by the "power of evolution" could originate and by the "survival of the fittest" could keep themselves alive. This point of view has far reaching consequences. First the evolution of man in its present form is a result of many coincidences. So there is ground for the assumption that if the evolution process were repeated an intelligent life form would have got an outlook quite different from the present human form. Further a control of evolution by universal consciousness would be out of place and finally any moral considerations cannot be expected from the natural process other than the advantage of the fittest of the moment. Nature is in principle indifferent for ethics and moral. It must be an accident of nature in this view that humans are enchanted by beautiful colours of flowers and by music or inclined to care for the weak and helpless. The principle of evolution is certainly effective in bringing about variations of species and survival of the fittest demonstrably works well. However, those principles are declared the only selection mechanism and this is a formidable extrapolation. In contrast with this the assumption of a subtle controlling action by a universal consciousness will be a valuable addition better suited to understand the existence of moral and ethics. Of course, this controlling force cannot be asked for more information and is therefore difficult to prove experimentally.

Also physicists sometimes had the feeling that a complete theory would be at hand. After the early version of the complete theory of clockwork of mechanical bodies and particles, we have nowadays the expectation of "a Theory of Everything" putting theoretical physicists out of work because physics would only be an application of firmly established and invariable principles. Others, however, point to this new extrapolation and stress the fact that in modern physics the principal indeterminacy in measured variables will create a new playground for theorising. One of possible theories presumes a mechanism of consciousness which has the opportunity to "fill" the indeterminacy in order to be able to control in a meaningful way the natural processes which otherwise in their indeterminate state would be a gamble not described by physical law. Instead we would have a universal and cosmic consciousness that we have defined above and for which some experimental facts are suggestive.

Surely spiritual matters and consciousness have always been the domain of religious study. 3000 years of written history are ample proof of that. It is understandable that there is hardly any mutual inspiration of religion and science, because during 2500 years science had to contribute practically no trustworthy ideas. Bearing in mind the practices of astrology and alchemy one can have apprehension for the reserves of religious leaders in those days. Blame against religion is held of being opium for the people because of its repression of new ideas. This is not justified for everyone who realises the large cultural and psychological merits of religion for society. During centuries religious activities have functioned as a platform for the celebration of the mysteries of life and the formulation of good and bad in order to counteract personal egoism. However, all these considerations do not clarify the fact that science and religious institutions do not seem to be willing or able to try at least to understand and value each others position. Despite the fact that we may have sympathy for the practice of religion one cannot be blind for the very obsolete terminology of religious scholars and leaders. The ridiculous condemnations of Galilei and of evolution theory are striking examples and demonstrate the missed opportunity to correct the interpretation of biblical texts. Indeed, the holy books are translated regularly in modern language but the translators neglect to stress the fact that the language used in the original text was understandable in the old days but is presently much less so. The terminology, for instance, to describe the essence of God may have been adequate a thousand years ago the same words presently may sound threatening rigid. In this way the gap between religious dogma and experimental science is widening. Therefore the time is right for a relational formulation trying to reconcile as much as possible the special views of both religion and science. We may perhaps have the hope that leaders of religion and of the scientific community find the courage to create space for the discussion about a greater harmony between science, religion, ethics and moral.

 Many of us feel a deep respect for the wisdom radiating from the old religious writings, which also for modern people contain valuable lessons. Further we must be positive about the honest work done in science. The honorable principles of testability and of repeatability have taken care for the rejection of rigid biases. Finally one should take seriously the "intuitions" of innumerable human beings about the existence of an immaterial self, surviving death and about the conviction of a purposeful evolution that will cause a growth to a better world.

The three domains of religion science and intuition seem to be no longer in concordance because terminology of each of them is not accepted by one of the others. Even the thought of acceptance is a threat for the identity for each domain. For religion the demand for experimental evidence as proof for acceptance of religious truth is threatening just as is listening to one's own intuition as source of truth. For science it is impossible to accept holy books as inspiration for scientific hypotheses. Correct as all this may be it still must be possible to bring these three worlds in relation to each other by choosing a proper terminology, which recognises their undisputed value in human life. The purpose of dialogue will be to give credit to the methods of each domain if there is no overlap of subjects and to create an opportunity for preservation on the one hand and for development on the other when the subject of thought appears the same or partly overlapping. We are bound to look for relations in different domains because there is no doubt that such relations are reality. Intuitions are often at the root of new discoveries and of new theories in science. Theology is most certainly influenced by the progress of scientific thought. Finally despite the fact that many scientists will deny the influence of the religious heritage on the way in which progress was made, many physicists, for instance, mention the relation between the existence of God as creator of the universe and the theories they work on.

What is needed is a framework for a free discussion about the connections that apparently present themselves in the three domains. In fact such framework exists for centuries and longer than physics itself. In philosophy and more specifically in metaphysics discussions can be held for relations that need not immediately be tested for acceptability in holy scripts or verification in physical experiments. It is proposed to relate the three domains each with their own sources of knowledge. An item in one of the knowledge bases does not necessarily have to be recognised in one of the other domains if it does not comply with the rules of verification. In accordance with the above discussion the three domains are religion, science and the domain of intuition and feelings. Those should be discussed and compared in metaphysics of mind and consciousness.

The next few questions will now attract our attention. First we shall have to try to discuss the possibilities of interaction of individuals with universal consciousness and next we have to explore circumstances for demonstration of this interaction. Finally there is the problem of manifestation of interaction between individuals via their personal consciousness. In discussing the first question we have to realise ourselves, that universal consciousness is a subtle counselor and does not have the quality of a dictatorship. Instead it comprises an enduring declaration of intention that can be perceived, selected and stored by material configurations. A condition for the transfer is the readiness of the configuration concerned or in other words the declaration of intention must find an easy fit on present structures. The purpose is then to give attention to the accompanying appraisal in future moments of choice. The universal consciousness may in this way exercise influence on material substances by labeling appropriate or objectionable configurations with positive or negative notes. At the moment of choice such notes may determine which configuration has preference although a different choice may very well be made on other grounds. Not only configurations but also processes can be slightly controlled from the outside. For instance, the evolutionary process seems to be governed by a random and chaotic mechanism whereby new species come into existence and are tested for fitness subsequently. However, this process is not always completely determined and comes to crossroads where small influences can make the difference in the road taken. Evolution as we observe it tends to develop ever more complicated organisms that can withstand the threat of millions of often-aggressive unicellular organisms. This outcome is by no means self-evident and can be considered as the result of a purposeful control.

Worldwide human activity often is governed by political fashions, which are temporary. This is hard to understand without a leading principle and a generally felt appraisal of that activity. In Europe before the twentieth century it was a common belief that it was proper to colonise and to propagate western civilisation and its culture. In the second half of the twentieth century the same attempts were considered as a gross violation of the human rights. Nowadays the pro's and cons of both opinions become clear without leading to a consensus on the issue of giving a helping hand to developing countries. In science there is a lively and costly interest for astronomical research also for star systems that cannot be reached in reasonable time. Nevertheless governments provide the costly means and the public interest is remarkably high. "The man on the moon" of Kennedy has been an extravagant spending of public funds where perhaps other projects would have been more obvious also politically. It is even more remarkable that the economic advantages of this attempt such as the rapid development of the Personal Computer have been so obvious. It is difficult to deny that sudden public interests and following activities often do not originate from economic profit or self-interest or survival strategies but that an intuition is followed subtly proposed as ideal developments for a future that we ourselves cannot yet see clearly. Some theories and technical or sociological developments seem to "hang in the air" and rather suddenly break through. The source of these inspirations is to be found in a universal consciousness which generates a general picture of steady progress notwithstanding all kinds of stupid and heartbreaking accidents. Individual consciousness also is characterised by unsuspected suggestions of activities. Consciousness never provides one with detailed knowledge about subjects not known before; it rather clarifies a difficult choice and advises for or against possible solutions. The source of advice may be the universal consciousness or the consciousness of another individual who has been busy with the same problem and has come to a suitable solution.  

In the last part of this paper we will question the practical implications of the present hypotheses and the possibilities of experimental verification. To begin with we have to remind ourselves that transfer of the content of consciousness cannot be signaled in the way we are used to in daily life with speech, radio or telephone. There is no "press a button" mechanism. There has to be an extensive similarity between individuals for a transfer of the sense of existence and the related appraisal before transfer between both individual forms of consciousness can take place. This throws some doubt on the generation of effective consciousness in automatic computers or robots, as their structure is alien to the structure of living organisms. On the other hand one should expect that the "test-tube man" could play his role in the concert of universal and personal consciousnesses.

Many experiments performed to proof the existence of transfer of information without physical signals were done with the precaution, that sender and receiver had as little information as possible about each other. This is right for the purpose of a scientific experiment, but it is detrimental for transfer of the content of consciousness, because there the demand of similarity of structure and brain activity prevails. Indeed the scientific experimental demands for experiments and the demands for demonstrating consciousness do not agree easily. It would nevertheless be worth while to seek a modus vivendi between the different demands in order to look for significant interactions between consciousnesses in about the same manner as Sheldrake [12] advocates in trying to demonstrate "morphic resonance".

In order to investigate the plausibility of the general influence brought about by universal consciousness one has to look for a guiding control. The hypotheses formulated above indicate that this guidance is best described as presentations of appraisals of possible choices. This means that some choices are labelled more positive than others. What are the grounds for these judgements? This is the principal question we have to deal with. Positive or negative values can only be derived in a coherent manner by comparison with a norm. These norms can be useful if they serve a specific goal or a specific moral. Evolution guided by universal consciousness serves the purpose of generating species with ever increasing complexity which will be better equipped for understanding the goals of consciousness and the purpose of nature. Especially, where scientists emphasise the absence of purpose and moral in physical laws, it is quite remarkable that a purpose in evolution is felt by many of us and that moral is experienced as a touchstone by most of us. It is a strong argument for a universal consciousness as carrier of principles of good and bad. There are a number of afterthoughts regarding this argument. First we have to take into account that for a part moral is changing with time and so we should not consider the norms in universal consciousness as unchangeable. Secondly religions as guardians of moral often have misused this position by selectively applying the norms for good and bad so that they could strengthen their position and explain away their "crimes of war" against their enemies. In historical perspective these aberrations are relatively easily traceable and can be recognised as one of many examples of dominance of deteriorated group-consciousness over universal consciousness. As was said before the adverse effects of group-consciousness can become so strong that large groups of people perform actions, which later they regret very much because they have to admit that these acts were utterly wrong. In those cases universal consciousness could not prevent the formation of a group-consciousness with goals that were in conflict with the universal norm. The same can happen to a single individual. It is significant that criminals know very well afterwards that they have been wrong. Yet apparently with the choice for their criminal behaviour they have seen a dazzling self-interest overruling the universal norm in consciousness. In this connection the possibility of a devilish consciousness comes to mind trying to sabotage the appraisals of universal consciousness by providing positive labels for wrong acts. Many religions provide for stories of "evil spirits" and the personified struggle between good and bad is a dominant theme in literature. There are, however, two reasons to reject the idea of immaterial evil spirits. First this evil consciousness has no consistent goals or ideals and its organisation cannot be understood because its results lead to nowhere. Secondly blind evolution with its emphasis on the survival of the species and its fittest members give ample opportunity for egotistic motives. Therefore it is not necessary to assume an extra motive manipulated by an evil genius. Indeed the existence of firm simple principles of evolution in the absence of moral and ethic foundations results in egocentricity of living organisms. In contrast with this we need a purposeful ethic and moral controlling principle to clarify the noticeable positive influence as opposed to the egotistic evolution. Universal consciousness provides us with this positive influence by a subtle but always present appraisal.

[1] A. Aspect, J.Dalibard, and G.Roger Physical Review Letters, 1981,47,p.460

[2] N. Bohr,"Causality and complementarity", Philosophy of Science, 4

[3] F. Capra, "The Role of physics in the Current Change of Paradigms" in The World View of Contemporary Physics

[4] D.C. Dennett, "Consciousness Explained", 1991

[5] S.J. Gould, "Ever since Darwin", Norton 1977

[6] D.R. Hofstadter, D.C. Dennett, "The Mind’s I" ,Basic Books,Inc. 1981

[7] C.G. Jung, "Psychology of the Unconscious",1916

[8] M. Kafatos, and R. Nadeau, "The Conscious Universe" ,Springer 1990

[9] R. Penrose, " The Emperor’s new Mind" ,Oxford University Press 1989

[10] S. Pinker, "How the Mind Works" Penguin Books 1998

[11] C. Sagan, "The Demon Haunted World" ,Headine Book Publ. 1996

[12] R. Sheldrake, "The Presence of the Past : Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature", Collins,London

[13] P. Teilhard de Chardin, "Le Phénomène humain" Paris