What Can Physics Tell Us About Consciousness? -- ChrisFields

Physics and particularly quantum physics are often invoked in discussions of consciousness. But what can physics actually tell us? I will first discuss what physics does not tell us: physics
does not provide any criteria with which to distinguish conscious systems from non-conscious systems. As far as physics is concerned, consciousness is like free will - it characterizes
either nothing or everything. Since we are conscious, it is reasonable to regard everything else as conscious, too. If we make this assumption, the question of interest becomes: what systems
are conscious of what? Physics is fundamentally a theory of interaction, so it can tell us a lot about this. The first thing it tells us is that being conscious of something requires expending energy. How much energy a system can expend determines how much it can be conscious of. This energy requirement has surprising consequences, some of which I will describe.

[wulphstein]

The final answer is: there exists a quantum entanglement field that exists everywhere and experiences consciousness. All the brain does is modulate this consciousness and cause it to experiences additional things. You heard it here first.

[AndrewKnightMIT]

The fact that you ended the lecture by saying "What does this mean? I don't know" actually lends you HUGE credibility. I enjoyed your talk. I don't know exactly whether I buy your arguments, but at least they made me think, and your lack of hubris makes me more likely to tune in to your next talk!

[stanleywallenscienceandpho]

Roger Penrose thinks that quantum theory is necessary to know how the mind works. If you do not know him google him, he has written several books and is a prominent cosmologist. The Emperor's New Mind is one of them If I remember correctly.

[sodiumsalt]

I would like to see a more detailed derivation of the cosmological constant from the observer system. It's easy to see that if you choose anything but 10 Km, and if you're not just counting stars, the derivation breaks down. A more polished approach where the number of on bits of a voxel approaches zero as we go farther from the observer, would probably lead to a more complicated yet maybe, a solution to the vacuum catastrophe

[sergepatlavskiy]

Yes, all systems are "observers" in sense that they can record the events. But not all systems are the subjects of cognitive activity -- those who can understand the meaning of the event, and draw information (new knowledge) from that event. That is why I make a difference between physical frame of reference (which is linked with "observer") and cognitive frame of reference (which is linked with the subject of cognitive activity). Consequently, we have to consider as physical models, so informational models. Now then, to formalize (to account for) consciousness we have to use a system of models, but not the physical models alone.

[margrietoregan]

13:34
right most most scientists I would say are epiphenomenon list about
13:40
consciousness because they can't answer this question and this is I would say
13:47
the most important question to ask about any scientific idea whatsoever and maybe
13:53
all ideas period so what interesting idea may be but what's it good for what
14:00
does it actually allow you to do okay so that's what the rest of the talks about
14:05
what can consciousness and in particular consciousness being fundamental tell us
14:11
precisely about physics so first let's do a warm-up exercise and
14:17
the warm-up exercise has to do with answering the question what is quantum mechanics what does it mean to say
14:22
something as quantum what does it mean to say something is a quantum system okay so let's start everything is an
14:29
observer so in particular this nice little biomolecule called rhodopsin
14:35
which there's tons of in your eyes is an observer because everything's that
14:41
observer and we know a lot about rhodopsin Wow
14:46
rhodopsin the text light when it detects
14:52
light it changes safe shape and that's the first step in you knowing out that
14:58
knowing that there's a light out there from a biochemical point of view through Dobson changes shape and you say oh like
15:04
cool okay so let's assume that rhodopsin is an actually optimal observer
15:10
thermodynamically and that means something very precise it means that the
15:16
amount of energy that rhodopsin needs to
15:21
spend is exactly this the point 7 converts you to bits it's just the

[portantwas]

When is something an 'observer' rather than just a 'measurement' of transferring energy? Or is it that consciousness is nonexistent and it is just a higher level of complexity but still merely an exchange of energy/information in a system? I think I lost the thread of what he was aiming at. I'm not sure using the words 'conscious', 'observer', 'measurement', 'exchange of information/energy' interchangeably is that helpful. I'm even more confused now.

[buzz-es]

A guy walks into a lecture with a rock in his hand, he hits the speaker in the side of the head with the rock. The guy says; "Don't worry, physics tells us there's no such thing as subjective material objects".

[dronea]

In the very first slide shouldn't it be; What can Physics tell us about. ..?
Not "tells" us?
Or: "What Physics tells us about consciousness."

[tomg]

Excellent presentation, with what are, (to me for one), amazing results from the underlying assumptions (consciousness being fundamental). I think this may well be the start of the next true 'leap' in human understanding of the 'physical world'- ie physics, as Penrose suggests will occur through developing an accurate model of consciouness.

[margrietoregan]

see is not is not completely unique to us that other observers could see
11:31
roughly the same thing now the way that assumption gets fleshed now is with the
11:38
claim that measurement and observation are just physical interaction so if you
11:44
read the literature you'll find statements like The Observer is just a physical system that is entangled with
11:50
the system of interest so the observer is just some physical system or other
11:56
you don't have to specify what kind that's interacting with enhancing quantum theory entangled with whatever
12:02
it's observed and that entanglement is what allows information to flow back and forth now that means in the language of
12:11
physics which is by intention non ambiguous and very precise that
12:16
observation is exactly the same thing as physical interaction it's not a
12:23
different aspect of physical interaction it's the same thing those are just two words for the same kind of event well
12:31
what does that mean that means that all systems are observers right if
12:37
observation is just physical interaction then you know this is physically
12:43
interacting with the table so this is an observer right it detects the table and
12:48
the table is an observer it detects the cup so all systems are observers so if
12:56
consciousness has something to do with observation consciousness has to be
13:02
fundamental and most of us at least believe that
13:07
this has something to do with observation if I wasn't conscious I wouldn't be observing anything
13:14
so if observation is interaction and consciousness has is important for
13:21
observation then everything must be conscious now of course lots of people don't okay well this is the next slide
13:29
so up
13:34
right most most scientists I would say are epiphenomenon list about
13:40
consciousness because they can't answer this question and this is I would say

[ezioberolo]

So is we detect light from a galaxy that is many light years away, we are able to affect it? A galaxy which in fact may no longer exist or may have moved beyond visible space

[MeRetroGamer]

This is just the most clever and most accurate description I've heard about physics, and it gives us a huge reason to think that physics are actually about consciousness.

[mindofmayhem.]

Consciousness is that which FORCES all to exist. Replace observer with forced participant.

[williamolenchenko]

He says that information is physical. Then he says the physical world does not exist, it is just information. Seems like a contradiction.

[melmill]

tThe amount of math this requires is way above my mental pay grade.

[davidaustin]

a lot of it makes sense, but sure feels a lot like numerology (especially when he calculates the cosmological constant from the PDA loop). I also think he doesn't really talk about the really interesting stuff that makes up what most people consider a fundamental part of true consciousness ... or at least in the sense that most people understand it: the ability to make decisions as an "agent", which exercises agency. He even briefly admits this, and then the lecture ends.

[robbyr]

Within the first minute he says 'as you all know' physics tell us 1) there are no objective material objects & 2) conscious has to be fundamental. While those propositions may be true, I think it's VERY debatable as to whether 'physics' as a consensus scientific discipline, even in its speculative branches tells us this, & certainly not to a degree warranting 'you all know'.

[jeremiwieczorek]

Interaction as measurement as observation. Does electron need photon to jump from one state to another or maybe light balances atoms separating charges of protons and electrons much like QED describes interactions(observation) by exchange of photon. Some say that far from light matter can be invisible(dark, abundant and ultra dense).

Information's entropy gives us what we previously didn't know. Measurement is intended to gain information and so is observation and interaction but you only gain if after observation you know something you didn't know before. Entropy measures our ignorance. Planck invented h as an attempt to quantize light, basic unit of action for informations extraction via observation. Interaction for balancing observers, to bring order to chaos. Balance raises entropy, more configurations are essential for evolution and complexity growth in expanding Universe. The most complex structure we know of is brain. It generates conscious field for the most efficient observer who can simplify singularities, synthesize similarities and find symmetries using complex plain with imaginary unit as boundary separating individual observer extracting information from entangled environment using tools like wave functions for particles detection or parallel vector transportation to measure curvature of potential field and its dynamics, back engineering fusion, lasers in accelerators and gravitational wave detectors, neutrino detectors, telescopes, satellites and space stations.

[MyContext]

This was a lot of sophistry. It is the case that we depend on our cognitive ability to make claims about what we call reality, but based on what we understand reality is NOT dependent on our notions. It is us who are attempting to understand reality.