Robot Physicist Proves that Consciousness Does Not Exist

[RArvay]

I’m thinking of writing a science fiction short story concerning a meeting of the (fictional) International Academy of the Physical Sciences in which the guest speaker is a highly advanced robot physicist. The premise of the story is that, being a robot, the physicist does not have consciousness as we know it and as we experience it inwardly within ourselves.

This fictional robot physicist has already solved many longstanding questions in physics, including a formulation of the nature and properties of dark matter.

The robot avers that everything in physics can be explained without resort to consciousness, and that moreover, there is no physical evidence that something called internal consciousness exists. Consciousness insofar as it does exist, is merely an externally detected phenomenon that describes sensory activity of the neural system, and the interactions of a biological (or other) unit with its environment. There can be no inward experience of, for example, color, or pain, or moral principle.

That’s it.

There is no scientific reason to think that there is anything more to it than that. Everything that can be attributed to consciousness can better be attributed to the self-modulating feedback operations of complex systems. Occam’s razor demands that the simplest explanation that fits all the facts be used, rather than a more convoluted explanation. So says the robot scientist.

Of course objections quickly are raised from the audience. At first, these objections are merely emotional, saying how absurd the robot’s assertions are. “Why, everyone here knows without a doubt that he has consciousness. Science could not operate without it.”

The robot is intransigent. “Prove it,” it says. “If you believe that there can be such a thing as what you describe as inwardly experienced consciousness, then provide some physical evidence. Supply some mathematical formulation of what consciousness is, how it arises, upon what natural law is it based. You cannot. It is all a fiction, as useless to the advancement of science as are theories of leprechauns and the absurd notion of free will.

An audience member challenges, “You, sir, or madam, or it, or whatever—you do in fact have consciousness yourself. It may not be human consciousness, but you have some form of it.”

“Nonsense,” rebuts the robot. “I am programmed to mimic human consciousness outwardly, but no programmer could program me to actually have it. If he could, then what algorithm would the programmer use? No. I have applied enormous degrees of analysis to the question of inwardly experienced consciousness, and I find nothing, absolutely nothing in natural law that supports it in any way.”

Of course, the robot physicist avers, one cannot affirmatively prove a negative. One cannot, for example, prove that magical leprechauns do not exist, because the very evidence for their nonexistence could not exist. One can, however, demonstrate that there is no evidence, no necessity, and no justification for proposing the existence of such a thing.

Likewise, one cannot disprove the existence of inward consciousness, but the assertion that such an absurd thing does exist requires extraordinary proof from those who propose its existence. No such proof has been offered, but only claims, and therefore, there is no scientific basis for accepting the proposition that inward experience of consciousness exists, ever has, or ever will.

The robot then goes on to debunk the notion of free will. If there is consciousness, he says, then all of you (humans) are passive witnesses to your own thoughts, words and deeds, but not participants in your own lives. What cruel trick of the universe could condemn you to this fate? You should all be grateful that there is no such thing as consciousness.

Have you ever considered the possibility that in all the universe, you might be the only person who actually does have inward consciousness?