The Consciousness Conundrum

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

The Consciousness Conundrum

Postby RArvay » Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:03 am

.
It has been widely recognized that the phenomenon known as consciousness is an unsolved mystery of science. Consciousness is radically and fundamentally unlike any other phenomenon we observe in nature, because for one, it is the only phenomenon known to perceive itself.

There are profound implications that flow from this mystery. The phenomenon of consciousness challenges our fundamental notions of physics. For, while everything in the natural material world can be explained in terms of other material things, or in terms of mathematical relationships, it is not demonstrably so with consciousness. While we can draw a causative relationship between the brain and consciousness, there is a very large gap between that outwardly observable physical basis, and our inward experience. The subjective output (our inward experience) seems utterly unlike the objective input (atoms and neurons). There is not even a plausible hypothesis which produces that inward experience, and we cannot even define it.

This is why the conundrum reaches to the very foundations of material existence. No other scientific mystery is quite like it, for in a sense, consciousness is what we are. It violates the truism which says that the eye cannot see itself.

To explore the question of what consciousness is, requires one to at least consider a departure from the traditional assumptions of physics, assumptions which have not only failed to define our inward experience of consciousness, (as opposed to the outward appearance), but which may have actually led us away from the answer. Such departures are ordinarily relegated to the realms of philosophy and metaphysics, which do not lend themselves handily to the scientific method. Yet, the scientific method, in isolation, is proving to be inadequate to define fundamental realities, of which consciousness may be one, alongside for example, space-time and mass-energy.

Conventional physics proceeds on the premise that physical reality could, in principle, exist with no conscious beings to perceive it. Perhaps the strongest evidence for this premise is that in its early stages, the universe contained no conscious creatures, yet the universe existed. That evidence, however, is misinterpreted. One might equally well argue that in its very early stages, the universe had no stars, but it had the potential for producing stars, and indeed, the inevitability that it would produce them. The universe was, in a sense, pre-programmed to be what it is today, stars and all. Did that pre-programming include conscious life? If so, then it is reasonable to propose that human consciousness is as embedded in the laws of nature as is the existence of stars.

This proposal might be considered too awkward to be taken seriously, except for the inexplicable peculiarity of inward consciousness, which is radically and fundamentally unlike any other phenomenon we observe in nature, because for one, it is the only known phenomenon that observes itself.

Of one thing we can be sure, which is that consciousness does exist. Its existence is indisputable for any conscious person. There are many ironies involved with that. By its very nature, none of us can (to others) prove himself conscious, nor can any of them prove to us that they possess this peculiar property of inward consciousness. We therefore live in a sort of isolation, attributing to others what we experience in ourselves, but never being able to be absolutely certain. For example, computer programs have been written that mimic human responses to verbal inputs so authentically that at first it is difficult to detect that the computer is not inwardly conscious.

Indeed, a philosophically plausible scenario (solipsism) has been suggested, holding that nothing exists except your own consciousness, and that everything else is an illusion, including the entire universe and other people. Taken too seriously, solipsism could enable sociopathic deeds of a horrific nature.

Here we reach the core of the problem, the question which consciousness forces us to pose. What is real? Is it that which is perceived, or can it include that which can never be perceived? What is reality? In order to sensibly confront such questions, we must go one step further than mere consciousness, and ask ourselves whether we have free will.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Many scientists declare that they have no free will. In so doing, they claim (whether intentionally or not) to be puppets on a cosmic string. They claim that everything they think, say and do is dictated by blind, indifferent forces of nature. They claim to be conscious observers of their own lives, but not volitional participants. If I may adapt a statement by JBS Haldane, they regard their scientific findings as being neurologically sound, but since those findings are dictated to them by the nature they study, they can have no means of proving that those findings reflect physical reality.

Reflecting upon the preceding paragraph, it should become clear that the denial of free will is as absurd as for one to deny that he is conscious.

Natural materialists assert that the existence of volitional autonomy (free will) would violate the principle of causation in nature, causation that must always dictate a specific outcome, or at least, a statistical one, but an outcome under no other control. Their evidence revolves around the fact that free will can be constrained or even overpowered under certain circumstances, and therefore, they conclude that free will not only does not exist, but also that, it cannot.

Again, if the observed fact of inward consciousness defies not only explanation but even definition, then can we summarily dismiss the concept that we can exercise free will?

Here is where we must consider whether (and how far) to depart from tradition. Just as relativity and quantum theories forced a paradigm shift in physics, so also must we push against the boundaries of our present paradigm, the one we call natural materialism.
.
RArvay
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:14 am

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library