Representation of consciousness from the 17th century.
This weeks post from Scarlett de Coucier offers a brief introduction to Quantum Consciousness.
The question of the quantum nature of mind is not one to which the answer is ‘known’ in any sense, even among the scientific community. Nonetheless, light is gradually being shed on the links between quantum theory and consciousness. But how can a theory of physics have wide-ranging implications for an area that has long been thought of as having its place somewhere between psychology and biology? It would appear that the world as we know it is not so linear as it initially seems.
Yes, causes have effects; yes, these effects or reactions are generally equal and opposite. But sometimes things are a little more complicated. Sometimes a reaction can be prompted by something so small that its effect would be predicted to be negligible; this is similar to the well-known “butterly flaps its wings in the Amazon, and a tornado happens in Texas” effect. Penrose’s“>Penrose and Lockwood are probably two of the best-known names in the world of quantum consciousness.
Penrose’s chapters on Goedelian theory and its implications for artificial (and hence non-artificial) intelligence are excellent, and accessible to those with an interest in the subject. Lockwood’s Mind, Brain and the Quantum: The Compound ‘I’
Briefly, David Hilbert in 1899 posited a mathematical system of axioms and rules through which it would be possible to decide the truth or falsity of any mathematical proposition correctly formed within it. Goedel, however, goes on to disprove Hilbert’s proposal by means of the creation of an arithmetical proposition which is not proven within the system, a full description of which can be found in Penrose’s book.
What does this have to do with consciousness? In discussing the idea of whether artificially intelligent objects can become conscious, we have four possible routes:
I. Yes, they can – all thought is merely computation, and the feeling that we are conscious is evoked by the carrying out of appropriate computations.
II. Probably – consciousness is a feature of the brain’s physical action. Any physical action can be simulated computationally, but this may not be enough on its own to evoke awareness.
III. No, they cannot – although consciousness is a feature of physical action in the brain, it cannot even be simulated computationally.
IV. No, they cannot – consciousness cannot even be explained in any scientific, physical or computational terms, let alone simulated by them.
If Goedel’s theorem can be applied to consciousness – which, if consciousness can be computationally simulated, then it can be, for computation implies a mathematical system of rules – then neither I nor II can be true. Why? Because part of Goedel’s theorem implies that human intuition cannot be reduced to a set of rules. IV also cannot be true, as it discounts consciousness being explained in ‘any scientific terms’, thus Goedelian theory would be invalid anyway. We are therefore left with III: Consciousness is a feature of physical action in the brain, but it cannot even be simulated computationally.
Personally, I am interested in how this could lead us towards a Platonist view of consciousness, but that is another story. In essence, what Goedelian theory seems to do is explain that nothing is truly explicable; that the mind, the conscious awareness that we all have to one degree or another, is not reducible to a set of comprehensible rules. The mind was, is, and remains a mystery.
What do you think? Are mind and consciousness synonymous? Is it possible to simulate them? Does quantum theory have any implications for psychology, or are we barking up the wrong tree? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
About the author: Scarlett de Courcier - is Publisher Manager at Unruly Media, and is known among colleagues as the ’social media junkie’. In addition she is Acting Research Assistant at Oxford University . Check her profile on LinkedIn
