Nature of Mind is admittedly one of the perennial problem areas that lie right at the ill-defined border of Physics and Philosophy. But we are not sure whether Mind or Self as well as Consciousness can be seen as a natural phenomenon on an equal footing with Motion, Propagation of Heat and Light …. and like , which can be made sense within the accepted framework of ‘explanatory ‘ scientific methodology . We don’t even know, whether Mind or consciousness is something that can be captured within the framework of a standard Law-like mechanism.
In fact, History of development of Physical science - famously within a Cartesian division, remained insensitive to the issue of Mind/consciousness. But it is curious to note at the same time that , different epistemological difficulties of different orders surfaced time to time during the developments of Physics during the last Century had been often accepted as reliable pointers towards or even key for the physical explanation of consciousness ! Epistemological difficulties in Quantum mechanics are well known to have served for a long time as a heuristic embryo to offer some hints for the problem of Mind and consciousness. It is believed by many leading Physicists ( for example , Bohm 1980 ; Stapp 1993 ; Penrose 1989 ; Wigner 1961 ) that , the interpretational difficulties in Quantum mechanics have something to do with the issues of consciousness .
However, the Question that matters is fundamentally about what constitutes an explanation of Mind or consciousness. The concept of Supervenience - relation between the two sets of properties, seems to provide a viable framework at least for starting discussion. If Mind/ consciousness is taken to be the B-Facts ( one set of properties )pertaining to higher level , for example , and the Physical facts as A-Facts ( set of properties pertaining to some lower level ) … , the Question is , How much of the Physical facts can be delineated to confirm Mind/consciousness as supervenient ?
This is admittedly one of the trickiest Questions to answer. However, the issue is that, the Physical facts are about Dynamic structures of Field and their interactions …, and these structures can only seem to confirm further Physical facts of another level , though different in order of complexity .. So how about understanding Mind and Consciousness as supervenient out of Physical facts only..!
Good question! The approach of von Neumann-Wigner-Stapp was not intended to explain consciousness, but to explain measurement issues (in the context of the Copenhagen interpretation) using a non-physical concept of consciousness.
The above formulation correctly states that "the Question that matters is fundamentally about what constitutes an explanation of Mind or consciousness", or, in other words, how quantum theory can help to explain or better understand consciousness.
My "yes" answer is that an extended theory of reality based on quantum theory can help us to account for the kind of physical-informational process that makes possible the emergence of consciousness from the potentialities of Nature - or to account for the right kind of physical-informational system that can instantiate conscious phenomena.
This extended framework would include the basics of quantum theory added with nonequilibrium thermodynamics and some variety of M-string approach. Thermodynamics is necessary to explain decoherence and what has been called "recoherence" (the formation of superposed and entangled macro states in biological conditions). The consideration of elementary waveforms in the style of string theories is needed to give a physical basis for the subjective qualities that we consciously experience (our feelings and perceptual "qualia").
Also a philosophical change of paradigm on the very concept of consciousnes is needeed. Computers and intelligent robots have shown us the possibility of high level information processing, memory storage and control of action, without the slightest degree of consciousness being instantiated. At the same time, neuroscientists have shown the importance of emotions and feelings for consciousness. This conceptual change leads to the abandon of the classical concept of consciousness as information processing, or possession of knowledge, or the capacity of attention and/or rational decison-making (in brief, the concept of cognitive consciousness) in favor a concept of affective consciousness (assuming that feeling, not knowing, is the mark of conscious activity).
Those who are interested in these topics will find related publications in my RG page.
Thanks for your response ! You see the central hard core of the issue of interpretational difficulties( with Measurement Problem as its subclass ) is almost all about the ambiguities centered around a single question - whether the standard formalism can be understood / interpreted ( made epistemic sense ) preserving the essence of what we ‘normally’ understand as synonymous to Real/IS … , or not . And so far you start with Schrodinger Equation (what you have to!) , and rely on Born’s rule to make epistemic sense of this equation.. , you can’t be faithful to the possibility of preserving any components of Realism, at least the way we ‘normally’ understand the term ‘Real’ . The problem simply aggravates itself as we get ahead from single particle quantum mechanics to 2/ many particles..
Anyway, immense literature is there on this debate.. , let us not get further on this.. My question was about the possibility /relevance of invoking the concept of Supervenience to address this difficulty.
If I correctly understand your approach , you say ( effectively ) that Quantum mechanics alone is not adequate to understand the emergence of consciousness as something more than just high level of information processing instantiated by intelligent Robots .. Though I don’t know about M-String Theory or non equilibrium Thermodynamics as you mentioned.. , I can still appreciate your point. So let me now put the next question in this context – whether Quantum mechanics , non Equilibrium Thermodynamics and some variety of M-String Theory approach taken together can be considered as essential A-Facts which can ensure Consciousness as emergent / Supervenient B-Facts ?
Also we know from History of Physics about the formidable difficulties in this ‘taking together’ business..! Could you kindly brief that, where the current research actually stands in question of making the formal sense of ‘taking these components together’ ?
Dear Debajyoty, I would claim that the three physical theories above are necessary but still not sufficient to fully explain the existence of consciousness (or in other words to solve the Hard Problem). At this moment only philosophical solutions are available - for instance, my proposal of Triple-Aspect Monism.
Thanks ! Can you please provide any link or so to your proposal of Triple-Aspect Monism ?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences