Does MWI Adequately Address the Hard Problem of Consciousness?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Blue Scallop
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hard Mwi
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics and its inadequacy in addressing the Hard Problem of Consciousness, as defined by David Chalmers. Participants argue that MWI assumes a classical view of the brain and fails to account for the qualitative aspects of consciousness, or qualia. The conversation highlights the need for references or peer-reviewed papers that connect MWI with the Hard Problem, emphasizing that MWI primarily addresses only the "easy problems" of consciousness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics
  • Familiarity with the Hard Problem of Consciousness as proposed by David Chalmers
  • Knowledge of quantum mechanics concepts such as the double slit experiment
  • Awareness of the distinction between "easy problems" and "hard problems" in consciousness studies
NEXT STEPS
  • Research peer-reviewed papers on the intersection of MWI and consciousness
  • Study the implications of the Hard Problem of Consciousness in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the concept of Consistent Histories in relation to consciousness
  • Investigate alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics that address consciousness
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers of mind, physicists exploring quantum interpretations, cognitive scientists, and anyone interested in the relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics.

Blue Scallop
Messages
290
Reaction score
17
Did you notice MWI assumes the brain is classical and when we watched the double slit, "that observer will "split" as well--one version of him for each way the double slit experiment came out."

MWI assumes the so called easy problems only. Before I proceed. Please read short paragraph of :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

"The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences—how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes.[1] David Chalmers, who introduced the term "hard problem" of consciousness,[2] contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he argues that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".[3]"

Here is a logical question.

If the Hard Problem will involve a new field.. like the conscious field. In MWI, will your brain and the conscious field split as well when you watch the double slit experiment? Or will it turn MWI into say Consistent Histories where the conscious field guide the histories?

All right. I need papers or references regarding this. I didn't start this thread for us to speculate which is against forums rule. I mentioned all this just to ask what physicists have discussed this and what they say. It's important as MWI assume the Soft Problem. You need to take into account the Hard Problem too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Blue Scallop said:
Did you notice MWI assumes the brain is classical and when we watched the double slit, "that observer will "split" as well--one version of him for each way the double slit experiment came out."
This thread has been closed.

Can you provide any sort of serious (peer-reviewed or mainstream textbook) support for that statement about MWI?
If you or someone else can, PM me or any other mentor with the reference, and we can reopen the thread. But until then the thread is closed, as it is not at all clear that it is based on a solid premise.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 198 ·
7
Replies
198
Views
15K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
10K