1

Straight question - is explaining (or at least understanding) consciousness in the realm of physics?

Detailed question:

We know that consciousness exists. Or rather, I know that I have it. The rest of you may not be conscious, but I know that I am, so it exists. Since it's the goal of physics to explain everything in the universe (even indirectly), I feel that sooner or later, we have to tackle how consciousness arises.

With many other phenomena, we see a straightforward link between the fundamental laws of physics and the phenomena in question.

Examples:

Economics -> human psychology -> evolutionary biology -> biology -> chemistry -> physics

Climate science -> thermodynamics/weather/geology etc -> physics

Fluid mechanics -> collected movements of particles -> physics

So with most other phenomena, we see the links between them and physics. The links may be too numerous to compute, but there's nothing mysterious about these links. We can easily observe and measure these links, no problem.

With consciousness however, there appear to be no direct links to explain how subjective experience can possibly arise from the interaction of particles. Could this be because consciousness arises as an emergent phenomena in the evolution of the human brain? Emergent phenomena are outside the bounds of conventional reductionist physics, but many physicist still consider them to be physics based. For a full throated defense of this view soo this video of a lecture by Ed Witten.

What do you think? Is consciousness in the domain of physics, or is it outside?

Lewis Miller
  • 6,004
Bhagwad Jal Park
  • 391
  • 1
    It's the job of physics to explain observations that can be reproduced (checked) by multiple people/groups. How would anybody else check your assertion that you are aware of your own existence? They can check your reactions to various stimuli, but that's not what you're asking about. – Chiral Anomaly Sep 21 '21 at 14:34
  • 2
    By the way, I disagree with the "opinion-based" reason for closing the question (which occurred while I was writing my first comment). This is not a matter of opinion. Consciousness as defined in the question is unequivocally beyond the scope of physics (even though it is also unequivocally one of the most important of all facts!). – Chiral Anomaly Sep 21 '21 at 14:34
  • You may want top consult this thread: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/625503/247642 It is correct to say that physical phenomena underlie everything, but it is not correct to claim that physics explains everything. – Roger V. Sep 21 '21 at 14:38
  • 3
    Questions about "whether it is the business of physics to explain X" are usually not physics questions, but philosophy of physics questions and hence belong the that SE. – Anders Sandberg Sep 21 '21 at 14:49
  • @ChiralAnomaly Could not the existence awareness assertion be checked by noting the reaction to a self image? After all the mirror test is how we test whether animals are self aware. – Lewis Miller Sep 21 '21 at 21:25
  • 2
    @LewisMiller Unfortunately, such a test only shows outward reactions. It could be a non-aware machine that receives its mirror image as an input, and outputs a "surprised" reaction. The test doesn't rigorously show consciousness...As far as we know, consciousness cannot be measured externally. – Bhagwad Jal Park Sep 21 '21 at 21:43
  • @ChiralAnomaly While you're right, I can't help but feel that it's too limiting a definition of physics. It would imply (for example), that a single person could NEVER be scientific and do physics. It would mean that between 1915 and 1918, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity wasn't a "scientific" theory because no experiment could be conducted to verify/falsify it. It would imply that the prediction of gravitational waves wasn't "scientific" for 100 years because no one could conceive of experiments that would detect them. Ditto for String Theory etc. I don't have easy answers to this... – Bhagwad Jal Park Sep 21 '21 at 21:46
  • 1
    Straight answer: no way ever. – my2cts Sep 21 '21 at 21:54
  • I suggest you have a look at " The Algenra oh Conscience" by V Lefebvre – Lewis Miller Sep 22 '21 at 01:08
  • There is considerable evidence to suggest that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon associated with the evolution of the human brain (perhaps other species as well). Brains of all species are complex nonlinear neural networks that have evolved for the purpose of pattern recognition and storage (memory). These patterns (both recalled and contemporaneous) are then used for decision making. Emergent phenomena are so called because they are so difficult to explain from first principles, yet their proliferation in areas such as condensed matter physics is testament to their physical nature. – Lewis Miller Sep 22 '21 at 15:21
  • This lecture by Ed Witten gives a nice explanation for how emergent phenomena arise in various fields of physics: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=emergent+phenomena+physics&docid=608033353394303908&mid=08D1C90EAF943327699408D1C90EAF9433276994&view=detail&FORM=VIRE – Lewis Miller Sep 22 '21 at 15:24
  • 1
    While emergent phenomena might be difficult to calculate, it's not impossible in principle. One might say we need other laws simply because we don't have computers powerful enough to simulate all the consequences of first principles. However, even the most sophisticated computing power would apparently fail to explain how a subjective experience arises from interacting particles (hard problem). – Bhagwad Jal Park Sep 22 '21 at 15:24
  • 1
    @LewisMiller In fact, to run with your reference, Ed Witten himself says this "I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent. Biologists and perhaps physicists will understand much better how the brain works. But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious. I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness... " http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2016/08/physicist-ed-witten-on-consciousness-i.html – Bhagwad Jal Park Sep 22 '21 at 15:27
  • I think some hints to this mystery can be found in the previously cited book by Lefebvre. I have further edited the post in the hope that it will be reopened. If that happens I'll attempt an answer – Lewis Miller Sep 22 '21 at 16:08
  • 1
    @BhagwadJalPark Regarding your definition of physics comment to Chiral, note that there is a vast philosophical difference between “testable in practice” and “testable in principle.” GR makes measurable predictions which differ from previous theories, so the fact that Einstein himself was not prepared to carry those experiments out immediately is immaterial. On the other hand, it is not possible even in principle to definitively distinguish a conscious response from a convincing automated one. Perhaps a less restrictive definition of consciousness would be testable, though. – J. Murray Sep 22 '21 at 16:37

0 Answers0