In discussion about his recent book with Stephen Hawking, “The Grand Design”, Leonard Mlodinow commented on the lack of a scientific definition of consciousness. This is the difficulty that physicists have in embracing the concept within quantum mechanics that reality is observer created.

 However, the fact that it is difficult to define does not mean that it is not operational in the manifestation of observed reality. In fact, the quantum entanglement that exists allows us in the double slit experiment to observe the outcome that we expect and prepare for is the proof of the interaction of reality with our consciousness.

 In fact Sir Roger Penrose in his concept of orchestrated reality really tries to connect Planck’s constant and quantum gravity to define the requirement for “self-coherence” of an object. This requirement defining the amount of time possible for multiple coherent states to co-exist would tend to make an object more “real” the larger it got, being able to spend less time in multiple states.

 This attempts to make the process of self-coherence an occurrence dependent only on physics. The question arises that if the observation by consciousness results in the appearance of an object then which consciousness is associated with the self-coherence of the object. Is it that of the observer? If so, then what happens when the observer is absent? Is there a time when there is not an observer?

 These questions only arise when we make the assumption that the consciousness observing has an association only with biology. This is a problem since we know that biology did not precede the prime event that we perceive, the big bang. This requires us to change our definition of consciousness to be open to the fact that the consciousness associated with self-coherence would be necessarily the consciousness of the self-cohering object or event, arising from a larger pre-existing consciousness.

If we do not provide this logical reasoning, then we are left with the idea that the presence of the moon requires our consciousness, giving rise to the famous comment by Albert Einstein that he would like to believe the moon was still there, even if he wasn’t looking at it.

 There is a model of consciousness rooted in quantum biological behavior proposed by Fitz-Albert Popp. This is a mathematical model which looks at the expectation of an event and compares mathematically the expected and the actual event. Again, this is presented as a model for the explanation of human consciousness. It provides a mathematical definition that could go with the proposed model of Penrose and Homeroff about the functioning of human consciousness.

 By defining this model of human consciousness we can logically take the principles of this concept and extend them to a more general definition of consciousness in terms of collective reality.

 This would provide more of a basis for understanding how a quantum computer model’s behavior could generate collective events that we know as reality.

 The real significance of such a definition is that it would provide a means for testing these concepts that speak to the interaction of consciousness and reality. In so doing it would allow is to provide a demonstrable measurable effect.

 Even in the absence of such it is still possible to make use of this information in a practical fashion. It is clear that consciousness has an effect and that it determines biology rather than the other way around.

 Consciousness can be streamlined by using meditative techniques. By improving techniques of focusing and maintaining consciousness with these techniques a clear picture of the desired expected result can be maintained.