Do Particles Have Consciousness? (qz.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Quartz: Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it's the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter. This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the "panpsychist" view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose...

"Physical science tells us a lot less about the nature of matter than we tend to assume," says Philip Goff, a philosophy professor at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary. "Arthur Eddington" -- the English scientist who experimentally confirmed Einstein's theory of general relativity in the early 20th century -- "argued there's a gap in our picture of the universe. We know what matter does but not what it is. We can put consciousness into this gap"...

An alternative panpsychist perspective holds that, rather than individual particles holding consciousness and coming together, the universe as a whole is conscious. This, says Goff, isn't the same as believing the universe is a unified divine being; it's more like seeing it as a "cosmic mess." Nevertheless, it does reflect a perspective that the world is a top-down creation, where every individual thing is derived from the universe, rather than a bottom-up version where objects are built from the smallest particles. Goff believes quantum entanglement -- the finding that certain particles behave as a single unified system even when they're separated by such immense distances there can't be a causal signal between them -- suggests the universe functions as a fundamental whole rather than a collection of discrete parts. Such theories sound incredible, and perhaps they are. But then again, so is every other possible theory that explains consciousness.

Comments

The law says NO!

[nospam007]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:The law says NO!

[taiwanjohn]

Depends on the definition of consciousness, doesn't it? AFAIK we still don't really understand that yet in ourselves, so answering the same question for the universe seems a bit premature at this point. That said, here is the one snippet from the fine summary that actually rings true to me, or at least potentially true:

Goff believes quantum entanglement -- the finding that certain particles behave as a single unified system even when they're separated by such immense distances there can't be a causal signal between them -- suggests the universe functions as a fundamental whole rather than a collection of discrete parts.

Whether that counts as consciousness or not is anybody's guess. What is perhaps more accessible to study is our human propensity for seeking consciousness... or rather, attributing consciousness to natural phenomena. Talk about "first world problems"... this is like a cargo cult for our technologically advanced society.

Re:The law says NO!

[Smallpond]

This argument seems to be: quantum entaglement is weird, and consciousness is weird, so they must be related somehow.

No

[Wrath0fb0b]

Seriously, are we out of real scientific problems to study?

Re: No

[c6gunner]

I think people tend to dislike this hypothesis because it reduces the marvelous (us) to the mundane.

It's so sad that anyone would see it that way. I find the beauty and elegance of universal laws and natural selection to be far more marvellous than a mundane bearded guy in the sky.

Re:No

[ClickOnThis]

For instance: How many monkeys banging on things with sticks does it take to make music? There's no definitive answer, but that doesn't mean that monkeys banging on things with sticks can't be music. It can, if it's ordered properly.

I'll have a go at this question. (Disclosure: my answer is shaped after a comment I read by Canadian composer R. Murray Schafer, and a perspective in the spirit of American composer John Cage.)

It takes only one monkey to make music. The key thing is this: intent.

- If the monkey is banging things on sticks with its own intent to make music, then the monkey is making music.
- If someone brings a monkey on stage and has them bang something with sticks, then the monkey's handler is making music, because the handler is expressing intent in the presentation.
- If someone observes a monkey banging on something with sticks and finds that it conveys something interesting, then the observer is making music (out of her/his environment) because s/he infers intent in the observation.

sounds like a cave man describing lightning

[hyphnos]

Seriously - uh we don't understand consciousness so it must be in particles. No probably not. Someday we will understand it and we won't think it's the universe or particles but an emergent property of complex systems not some semi-religious drivel relegating us to handwaving about "things beyond our understanding".

Re:sounds like a cave man describing lightning

[ceoyoyo]

I thought you had a poor understanding of physics. Now I realize you don't know what emergent phenomena are.

Emergent phenomena aren't magic. They're properties or behaviour of complex systems that depend on that complexity. That behaviour is usually difficult to predict from the properties of individual system constituents.

One of the simplest examples is electricity. We know that electrons carry unit negative charges and we think they're real physical particles. When you look at the behaviour of electricity in bulk materials, it is convenient to think of electrons (actual particles) and holes (pseudoparticles that are actually the absence of an electron). Holes, movement of holes, etc. are all emergent phenomenon.

The idea that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon is precisely the opposite of suggesting it's some kind of magic. It's the idea that consciousness is a very non-magical property of a complex system of interacting parts that is difficult to predict by extrapolating knowledge of the individual constituents.

How did this make it onto the Slashdot main page?

[Improv]

So many weasel phrases. "increasingly being taken seriously by credible" . Nope. It's a fringe view, and for good reason. Pure speculation, a kind of god of the gaps, no mechanism proposed, no explanatory or predictive power.

as a physicist...

[Goldsmith]

The nature of consciousness is a very interesting problem to study. The question in the headline is not asked seriously, but for a purpose in the larger discussion.

Pay attention to what the scientists involved in the discussion are talking about (and ignore the philosophers... they need to learn some more math and quantum mechanics). Is the universe deterministic? How many independent decision makers can co-exist simultaneously? In physics, we understand the bounds of these questions, but can't answer them yet. The concept of particles as independent actors is an extension of allowing multiple interacting consciousnesses to an absurd limit. It's presented by physicists as a mathematically impossible situation, to demonstrate that there will be some limit or law on what can be conscious. Having one consciousness in the universe is appealing to the way physicists think.

Ender's Game Series

[AnotherAnonymousUser]

Orson Scott Card actually dug into this a bit in the later part of the Ender's series with the philotic twining and aiuas as the fundamental core of the universe, that particles essentially willed themselves into existence in an increasingly hierarchical way, and that they could be called into existence by others. Base matter was a certain kind of aiua possessed of a will that could bond and bind energy into a material form, while consciousness was an aiua that could govern and rule over other aiuas. That theory always seemed to resonate a bit well as a universal kind of spirituality intertwined with physics. In any case, it made for great reading.

Re:Ender's Game Series

[shess]

Orson Scott Card actually dug into this a bit in the later part of the Ender's series with the philotic twining and aiuas as the fundamental core of the universe, that particles essentially willed themselves into existence in an increasingly hierarchical way, and that they could be called into existence by others. Base matter was a certain kind of aiua possessed of a will that could bond and bind energy into a material form, while consciousness was an aiua that could govern and rule over other aiuas. That theory always seemed to resonate a bit well as a universal kind of spirituality intertwined with physics. In any case, it made for great reading.

I think you're speaking of a mythical fourth book in the Ender's series, which was never written because Card lost his mind. Same kind of thing as the Matrix sequels and the Star Wars Christmas Special, the universe acts to prevent certain outcomes from occurring.

Correction

[argStyopa]

"...the "panpsychist" view is increasingly being taken seriously by soon to be considered less-credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.."

From the article:
"Consciousness is a fundamental feature of physical matter; every single particle in existence has an âoeunimaginably simpleâ form of consciousness, says Goff. These particles then come together to form more complex forms of consciousness, such as humansâ(TM) subjective experiences."
Logically the larger the object, the "more" consciousness it has. A 200t pile of sand would be "more conscious" than a person or a dog?

Essentially, they can't explain how consciousness arises from physics, so they claim all the constituent parts 'have consciousness'. Just admit you don't know something and then try to figure it out; handwavy intellectual caulking slobbed into whatever gaps exist in your understanding don't make it smooth: it simply shows you're lazy.

It seems a pretty long, awkward, and torturous way to just desperately try to avoid actually calling it animism and religion.

Re:Binary or a spectrum?

[serviscope_minor]

I've never understand why people even believe in "consciousness"

Because we each know that we individually have consciousness.

It's a thing, a not very well deifned thing, but a thing nonetheless. No reason to believe it' unique to hu-mons though.

We don't even have free will.

Don't we? Before saying we don't have it, would you mind defining what on earth free will is meant to be?

Bullshit popular science

[drolli]

Sorry. I really have enough of this. As somebody who worked for 10 years in Quantum Science (experimental), I already know that when the word consciousness appears in a physics context, 5 lines later there will a reference to entanglement.

Let me express that *obviously* most physicists are unhappy with Quantum Mechanics and Kopenhagen Interpretation not being emergent from a known appropriately local theory of the universe, but this frustration should not lead to shit like this.

Let me state my view on this:

* Entanglement does not allow to transmit information fast than light

* In the meantime, we understand the observer/measurement problem much better than let's say 30 years ago. It is acceptable for people being educate before 1981-1990 in quantum mechanics not to have knowledge about dephasing by a coupled bath, but this doesn't make it good science to push everything which we don't understand to consciousness

* We can calculate decoherence rates of quantum states for given coupling strengths and temperatures. These rates are, in aqueous solution quite high, which clearly expresses that information processing in the brain will not happen by quantum processes which can not be described by reaction rates of molecules/ions.

* Assuming that particles have consciousness is not a scientific theory, since it is not falsifiable. (All the particles in your experiment *wanted* to fly that way today, and the day before and the day before, but maybe they change their mind)

* Experiments like mind-matter unification project and other tests of esoteric theories going in this direction never showed any result beyond what could be expected.

Re:How did this make it onto the Slashdot main pag

[apoc.famine]

For awhile I tried voting on the firehose, but I found myself getting both far dumber and far more angry.

Dumber because of all of the fucking stupid shit submitted, and angry because the "editors" of the site posted that shit even if it got well downvoted to make sure there was shit to post angrily about to drive ad revenue.

Oh FFS

[fyngyrz]

This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum

That's because it is easily-dismissible bunkum.

We don't know what consciousness is with any certainty at all, other than many animals seem to exhibit what most of us would agree upon as calling "consciousness."

It's at least wildly premature (and very likely completely absurd) to decide that it is now a component of the inanimate.

The thinking here — and I'm being very generous with the term — is so muddy as to be utterly opaque and pointless.