Theoretical Explorations of Consciousness
The mind dances between order and chaos. It is emotional, irrational and plenty fallible; housed with creativity, cradled with intuition, and dynamically speckled with varying beliefs. Its mysteries unravel as we probe deeper into the associated phenomenon — consciousness. How does it emerge? Why does subjective experience, or this space of qualia, exist? This is what neuroscientists call the “hard problem of consciousness”, and as its title suggests, it is no easy question. For one, examining the concept through itself (studying consciousness through our own consciousness) seems quite ungraspable. The enigmas surrounding the subject matter prompts a cycle of theories and refutations, stretching across the manifestations of philosophy and science.
Time and time again, we have tried to explain consciousness, yet provided no satisfactory explanations. The attempts to explain the phenomenon of consciousness launches us into all too familiar dead-ends, leading many scientists to disregard it as a scientific problem entirely. This leaves consciousness solely in the hands of philosophers, — or religion. However, let’s leave the latter out. In this article, I will talk about three slightly controversial, but still notable scientific/philosophical topics regarding consciousness. First thing on our list: The von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation.
The von Neumann- Wigner Interpretation
Consciousness causes collapse. “Collapse” here, refers to the collapse of the wave function — a function that describes the evolution of a particle’s behavior over time. To find this function of a particle, Erwin Schrödinger postulated the Schrödinger Wave Equation that, when solved, precisely calculates the probability of a particle being in a specific location. Prior to the observed outcome, the particle exists in multiple states at the same time, a phenomenon known as superposition. The collapse of the function, then, involves the reduction of superposition down to a single state, thus providing us a measurement — an observation of where the particle is.
Mathematician and physicist John von Neumann proposed that the collapse of this wave function is due to our conscious observation, in which it forces the particle from a state of superposition to a determined outcome. In other words, being able to extract a measurement must mean that a prior space of possible outcomes contracts to a distinct one, and von Neumann believed our mere observation causes this contraction. In this sense, our consciousness literally creates reality, forcing a particle to take a specific path upon “interference” with observation.
Although this theory barely scrapes the question of what consciousness even is, it definitely brings forth some interesting conversations. (Side note: If von Neumann is correct and consciousness can fundamentally change how physics unfolds, then us being conscious agents, can we hastily claim to preserve some form of non-deterministic power, or free will?) Science or not, we can all agree the premise feels incomplete. Maybe the theory is correct and just goes on to show how weird the laws governing our universe are. Or maybe our trivial human minds cannot devise a coherent solution that settles the overwhelmingly paradoxical discrepancies.
If there indeed exists some logical inconsistency somewhere along the theoretical sequence, a more rigorous approach is needed to precisely quantify consciousness. This is hard. Perhaps even harder than the problem it attempts to solve. As of now, we can barely define what consciousness even is. If facets of the mind-brain instrument, such as cognition and intelligence, are indeed quintessential subdomains of consciousness, then current psychology and neuroscience research is making good progress to advance our understanding of it. If, on the other hand, consciousness is not limited to its typically associated instruments, then we need to open up our scientific method to change. But before we torment scientists with the possibility of changing decades worth of established procedures, you may be wondering what it even means to have consciousness independent from the brain. Let me provide one example: The Theory of Panpsychism.
Panpsychism
Currently, the prevailing attitude amongst the majority of us is that consciousness is a component of the mind; associated with brains, humans, or at the very least, living organisms. Panpsychism tosses this view out the window of a 137 story building, along with the current intuitions of biology, chemistry, and physics. Its reputation amongst empirically minded physicists fares poorly, but sometimes leaps of insanity are what’s required to break through current barriers of our understanding? Personally, I’m not yet entirely convinced by the current argument, but I would like to see legitimate efforts being done within the academic literature to probe further.
Initially proposed by philosopher Franciscus Patricius in the 16th century and later popularized by cognitive scientists David Chalmers and Philip Goff, the theory provides the perspective of consciousness as being a foundational element permeating all of reality and existing in all particles and matter. Rather than being limited to its associations with the brain, consciousness is just another component of the universe, as fundamental as atomic charge. Under this scope, a rock, a table, a chair — any form of matter, is conscious. The reasoning for panpsychism stems from this question: How does consciousness suddenly pop into existence as certain structures form? If everything is ultimately made up of atomic material, how does consciousness appear out of the blue?
The theory attempts to settle the long debate between materialists, people who believe that mind emerges from matter, and dualists, people who believe that matter and mind are separate, and instead, rests in middle ground between the two. It’s not surprising to find that panpsychism was initially dismissed in the scientific community as wonky pseudo-science, but today, respectable neuroscientists, philosophers, and even physicists have been slowly opening up to its possibility. The theory most definitely challenges our intellectual intuitions, but if proven, it will satisfy our deepest desires of having an elegantly unified theory of consciousness.
Integrated Information Theory
This next theory I will be discussing offers a more math based approach to consciousness: Integrated Information Theory (IIT), proposed by neuroscientist Dr. Giulio Tononi. (Note that the theory has been criticized by some mathematicians, but these epistemological concerns should further prompt the collaboration between scientists and mathematicians to legitimately examine consciousness). The core of IIT builds itself upon five fundamental axioms (statements regarded to be true without the need for direct evidence). Each of these axioms regarding consciousness are then translated and formalized into mathematical postulates that are computable and quantifiable. Here are some of its equations, just for aesthetics of course.
To get a glimpse of what this translation process might entail, we can use the first axiom as an example, which simply states that consciousness exists. The logic for it draws upon an (arguably weak) reasoning and goes something like this: If we can confirm that this “something” interacts with something else that we know for sure exists, then this “something” in question must also exist…right? So the theory postulates that interaction is the basis for existence. From this, we can assume that if a conscious system exists, it must contain some kind of interacting element.
This is then formalized into a framework where every element of the conscious system can be represented as input nodes, each of which can be in a binary state where all are computationally linked together to quantize an output. If we inactivate some nodes, we can see the degree to which the output value changes, providing us with a quantification of the node’s effect on the whole. However, this is where things get tricky. If the measurement of the whole is integrated with a greater value (or more information) than the mere sum of its parts, we can measure the degree by which the whole surpasses, denoted Phi Φ. This quantity of Φ represents consciousness itself. Moreover, Φ can be a property of anything, both living and nonliving: a baby calf, or the filet mignon you had for dinner last night. Even protons can possess Φ, since it stems from the interaction of its quarks. This is starting to sound familiar. Remember panpsychism? This theory draws parallels. Anyways, if you found this overall explanation somewhat hazy, you can watch this for a deeper dive: The Mathematics of Consciousness.
Appendix
After sufficient preparation in introducing these strange matters, I’ll end the article with my own opinions on consciousness (as of now — they change every week or so). Warning: The following section is neither formal nor scientific. I am not claiming this is valid in any way and just personally enjoy getting my initial messy philosophical thoughts on paper to examine and modify upon later inspection. Read at own risk.
My own interpretation of consciousness is this: It is the increasing complexity of a self assembling pattern of information that is compressed by global and local constraints. At its core, I believe the universe’s most basic building block is information — antecedent to atoms, quarks, strings, etc. Every individual “bit” of information is inherently random. The macro-system containing these individual bits has some sort of universal “global constraint function” (which conserves the total energy of the system) that controls how much these chaotic bits diverge (by diverge I mean increasing disorder with no defined limit) and compresses them into patterns emerging from simple rule-based functions of interactions, synergies, and bonds. These bonds arise from “local constraint functions” which allow the interactions between bits to condense and compartmentalize, based on its local environment in space.
Similar to cellular automata, the interactions of these simple bit functions eventually form more complex non-linear patterns that depend on the aggregate states of local interacting bits. This pattern of information evolves towards a higher state of entropy and is, itself, the emergence of matter and consciousness. This gives rise to a new explanation of consciousness, in that it is not specific to the brain or mind notion, but more generalized to the existence of matter. In this sense, information lies as the fundamental basis of existence, where consciousness lies on the spectrum of matter and is dependent on the complexity of a pattern that manifests itself from information.
So I do believe consciousness does have something to do with the brain. But it is no different than a chicken egg, an apple tree, or a can of peaches, as they are all just compressions of information giving rise to a specific pattern. But again, this is purely speculative and hand-wavey (as arguments for consciousness usually are). And as a non-mathematician, I have not yet been able to prove it mathematically (or even attempted for that matter). It may very well just be the wishful thinking of a person seeking some grand unified theory of consciousness.
So that concludes this article. The answer to consciousness, though, probably lies somewhere between science and philosophy. The best thing we can do is establish friendlier grounds between the two.
