Will physics ever be able to explain consciousness?
Physics had certainly opened the door in explaining consciousness for over a century ago and the pioneers in this field (Einstein and colleagues) shows that Quantum Theory and consciousness to be mutually exclusive, otherwise there never would be any human means of discovering it; ever. Quantum Phenomenon and consciousness being mutually exclusive would mean that Quantum Phenomenon would remain out of the human frame of reference indefinitely. The fact that we have seen it, detected it, measured and quantified it means that there is overlap between consciousness and the Quantum realm.
Therefore, they (the founders of Quantum Theory) set about discovery experiments to determine which possibilities were true, one the irreversible result of the other, or the two being interdependent, or simply that they coexist. Every experiment seems to produce more questions than answers. To this day, over a century later, we do not actually know with great certainty anything of the Quantum Realm; we can only describe various phenomenon, usually in loose terms.
Special Relativity demands an observer, actually, it is the fundamental difference noted by two conscious observers in two separate frames of reference. Without at least two conscious, and they must be sentient, conscious beings, observers, Special Relativity has no meaning. There is no mechanistic approach to Special Relativity that eliminates the conscious observer. The observed temporal phenomenon in Special Relativity is time dependent, time is purely corporeal, cognitive.
As an example of idol confusion confabulated by urban myth, it is a common misconception that Einstein refuted both Quantum Theory and was also an Atheist, based on one sentence taken out of context and passed down through history as a one-liner, ‘God does not play dice…’ Einstein founded Quantum Physics. As his colleagues were concluding, or at least debating that Consciousness, Einstein was trying to milk an irrefutable argument for that statement out of them. This was not a contest; this was a group process, some taking one point, the others taking the counter point. He was saying, ‘everything is by design, by someone, it appears that we are playing a huge role in that, but we have to irrefutably prove it. If not, then we have to irrefutably prove that as well.’ Therefore, his arguments, intended to derive an irrefutable argument from his colleagues for our generation is now misinterpreted as refuting the subject. His refute was that probability alone, as some of his colleagues were suggesting, did not describe the universe. He was not suggesting clockwork, mechanical universe, as Newton did; merely that probability was not the root function of the universe. He did hate Quantum Mechanics as Schrodinger described it as a probability Wave Function. That was the ‘God does not play dice’ statement, it was directed at Schrodinger and his band. Einstein thought there was a greater design than probability to Quantum Mechanics. He died with pencil in hand looking for that Unified Field.
Later, Einstein and his colleagues eventually all died, and the next generation, who were also incapable of defining Consciousness, worked up models that negated Consciousness. Then, the next (third) generation (keep in mind we are dealing with over a century here) angrily refuted the role of Consciousness altogether, and even proposed that Consciousness is an artifact of quantum behavior, not the other way around. If they had known the arguments, word for word and in context, of the founders of Quantum Theory these younger generations of scientists would not have proceeded along this path. Today the term consciousness is left to the esoteric and philosophical, completely omitted from Qunatum Theory altogether.
Consciousness they say is being the result of mundane electro-chemical activity in the brain, a process so uncharacterized it qualifies as magic. We can detect electrochemical processes on the surface of the brain. However, to date there is no clue regarding any relationship between this electrochemical activity and consciousness. In fact, these electrochemical processes continue for some time after death, another undefined phenomenon (so is life). EEGs can show activity for hours to even days after death. On the other hand, it is well characterized that EEGs can be completely flat lined when a person is well alive. There is no definition for consciousness with respect to anything detectable or quantifiable in any field of science. Therefore, no connections can be made to characterize it with respect to electrochemical activity or any other known phenomenon. We will therefore dismiss any and all attempts at definitions for consciousness that even suggest a relationship to anything detectable or quantifiable by any means.
To conclude, consciousness isn’t an emergent property of the brain as your brain cannot possibly be the cause of Consciousness, because your physical brain is a construct of Consciousness. Without your Consciousness, your physical brain does not now nor did it ever exist. If we really want to understand who we are, scientist must take further, what the founders of Quantum Physics began over a century ago, not hush and bury it up.
I leave you with aquote
“Billions of years it’s taken to evolve human consciousness… The miracle of all existence… More important than anything in the whole universe. What can the stars do? Nothing but sit on their axis And the sun, shooting flames 280,000 miles high. So what? Wasting all its natural resources. Can the sun think? Is it conscious?
— C. Chaplin (film “Limelight”)
https://Cwww.quora.com/Will-physics-ever-be-able-to-explain-consciousness/answer/Ali-Abubakar-Sadiq
Comments
Post a Comment