Consciousness as an active part in modern physics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the relationship between consciousness and modern physics, particularly in the context of general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM). It examines the philosophical implications of materialism versus dualism in understanding consciousness and its connection to physical reality.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a dualistic view of consciousness is necessary to explain its relationship with modern physics, as opposed to a purely materialistic perspective.
  • One participant argues that in GR, the concept of a 4-dimensional manifold is essential and that consciousness experiences only a single "slice" of this manifold, corresponding to the present moment.
  • Another participant questions how entropy relates to the experience of time and consciousness, suggesting that the arrow of time, defined by increasing entropy, may play a role in understanding conscious experience.
  • There is a discussion about the meaning of a "timeslice," with concerns raised about whether conscious events can be accurately mapped to spatial snapshots of the brain, given that consciousness may involve temporal processes.
  • One participant suggests that cognitive functions, such as memory storage, might create an illusion of the flow of "now," potentially offering an alternative explanation for the experience of consciousness without requiring a direct mapping to physical reality.
  • Speculation is made about the possibility of viewing conscious experience as mediated through a "window" that is not a physical degree of freedom, indicating a more complex relationship between consciousness and physical reality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of consciousness and its relationship to physical theories, with no consensus reached on the validity of the proposed models or interpretations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes speculative ideas and acknowledges the complexity of mapping consciousness to physical structures, highlighting the need for further exploration of these concepts.

  • #61
Hi,
I've read this, and you're links, and have been enjoying the 'why not knowledge' thread. I didn't want to interrupt that thread, but as my eyes are hurting too much to re-read again, and I'm not sure if I am following precisely, I wonder if you wouldn't mind clarifying a couple of things for me. Firstly, are you talking more about a many minds idea than many worlds interpretation, in both this and the other thread? It strikes me that you are with how you talk about perception. The second question is probably ridiculous, but, could a different way of looking at either many worlds or minds be- giving time extra co-ordinates?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
fi said:
Firstly, are you talking more about a many minds idea than many worlds interpretation, in both this and the other thread?

I never could really figure out what's the difference ! What you have, in all these different "flavors" is that the quantum state of the world has your bodystate entangled with other stuff, and "you" are clearly only aware of only one of these states. In fact, if you didn't state this, I would presume that you are aware of your *entire* bodystate (distributed over all those terms), and that you would have a kind of mega-quantum experience (experiencing all those different states "at once").
So I don't see how one can talk about a "many worlds" interpretation without having "many minds", or at least one mind, attached to one term, which is yours. The entire discussion is then on how to link the different states to a "probability for it to be YOUR state". When we say "many worlds" or "many minds" it seems almost implicitly that they have to be counted, and that you are "one of them" with equal probability.
And the problem is that these wordings give the view a much more mystical sound than it is actually meant to be (at least, for me).

The original name, "relative state interpretation", seems to be much more free from all these extra considerations.
 
  • #63
Thank you, I was probably mistaken, thinking the difference between them was that the many minds interpretation (forgive my simple terminology) split the one mind into, firstly, a (or many) subjective reciever(s) of quantum information, which in recieving- entangling, allowing, secondly, the other part of the mind to objectively percieve classicism. The difference being this subjective recieving/objective percieving split. I realize there is a lot more to the whole hypothesis than concerning this little point, regardless!
I see that the terms are terrribly confusing, I hope I haven't read anything mystical into it, and I do see that my second question was, as expected, ridiculous.
'Relative state interpretation' does seem clearer, I guess, yet I haven't figured out how it is relative!
Thanks again for your help.
 

Similar threads

Epothilone B study connected to 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' Model
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate Modern Physics, The Observer, and free-will
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Consciousness and the Attention Schema Theory - Meaningful?
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
14K
Undergrad No Special Reason for Thinking Consciousness Special in QM
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Admissions Seeking Feedback on my Physics Personal Statement for Uni Application
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Is Consciousness Simple or Complex?
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
13K
Graduate The Exceptional Jordan Algebra in physics
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Graduate Do we have "Newtonian space-time" in classical physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Is Consciousness Solely a Product of the Brain?
  • · Replies 135 ·
5
Replies
135
Views
24K
  • Poll Poll
Is Consciousness Beyond Physical Explanation?
  • · Replies 246 ·
9
Replies
246
Views
34K