Transcription
Hello everyone. I am a physicist, and in this video, I will provide rational and scientific arguments proving that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain and that our mind is not the product of cerebral processes.
Let's start with a clarification about consciousness. Consciousness represents the common property of all our psychical experiences, such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, or even dreams. Consciousness is the only event we directly know because it is the only event we directly experience, and it represents the necessary preliminary condition for all other knowledge. The existence of consciousness is therefore the most fundamental certainty we can have.
Somebody claims that consciousness is an illusion, but such a statement is simply nonsensical, since consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of any illusion. A rock cannot have an illusion. If you have an illusion, it means that you are conscious. By the way, if consciousness were an illusion, then all our knowledge, including our scientific knowledge, would be an illusion, and therefore it would make no sense to discuss anything.
Some argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but if we analyze the concept of emergent property, we can understand that such a hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledge. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consist of concepts used to describe how an external object appears to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means that they do not describe how the object is independently of our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems by focusing on some macroscopic aspects and neglecting many other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes. Emergent properties are always approximate descriptions of the physical reality.
To better understand what an emergent property is, let's examine some examples. An example of emergent property is roughness. Some argue that quantum particles have no roughness, and therefore roughness is a new property emerging only at the macroscopic level. The point is to understand the nature of the property called roughness. Roughness is only a concept used to describe a certain type of positioning of molecules in a surface. According to the laws of physics, there are an infinity of possible positions of particles, and we can classify such possible geometric configurations with different names and elaborate the concepts of roughness or smoothness, etc. The property of roughness is directly connected to the fundamental physical properties of particles, namely the property to occupy different positions in space. So, the property of roughness is only an arbitrary and subjective classification used to describe how an external object appears to our conscious mind, and not how it is in fact. The concept of roughness does not indicate the exact positioning of the molecules on the surface, but only approximately describes the surface.
Another example of emergent property is the function of a biological organ, such as the heart, that has the function of pumping blood. Actually, the function of pumping blood is just an abstract concept through which we described approximately what is really happening, that is, billions of linked chemical reactions and moving molecules. In other words, the global function is only a subjective description of the organ from a macroscopic point of view, which neglects many microscopic details. Besides, the concept of pumping is directly connected to the concepts of force and movement, which are fundamental physical properties.
In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglect other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes. Emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind. Without a conscious mind, these ideas, namely the emergent properties, would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument. Arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications, and approximate descriptions imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of a physical reality because consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction: nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument. Our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. Since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a sequence of such processes can't generate consciousness as a property. In fact, we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step, consciousness would be absent. So, there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes.
It must also be understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of 100 elementary processes, or 10,000 elementary processes, or any other number. This choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices. Therefore, consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such a sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument. It must also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain. If we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is, billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will. This contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity. This missing unity is the necessarily non-physical element, non-physical because it is missing in the brain. It is the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is, the human mind.
Here comes my fourth argument. Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary and coherent quantum processes.
When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems. The very fact of speaking of the brain rather than many molecules that have different quantum states is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of any arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole as an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property of the brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so, we must rely only on the laws of physics without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them. If this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be non-physical.
Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it. But such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people and to do so we use physical means, for example, acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
In conclusion, if we rationally analyze our scientific knowledge about cerebral processes on the basis of the laws of physics, we understand that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property of such processes is inconsistent. It is worth considering that the current laws of physics explain with great accuracy all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes. Developments in physics are expected to refer to high-energy processes or cosmology, but it is unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes because such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics, while consciousness is not.
Since consciousness is irreducible to cerebral processes and to the laws of physics, the only rational explanation for the existence of consciousness is that an immaterial/non-physical element exists in us and interacts with cerebral processes, and our mind is the result of such interaction. The nature of such non-physical element and of its interaction with the brain cannot be investigated through the scientific method since it is not physical. Therefore, the problem to establish the nature of such non-physical element does not belong to the scientific domain but to the metaphysical domain, and it is a matter of personal beliefs. In conclusion, an honest scientist must recognize that science has some intrinsic limits, and that consciousness is certainly beyond such limits.
Let us analyze some hypotheses that have been made in an attempt to explain the existence of consciousness. Some speculate that consciousness is generated when a lot of data is processed. First of all, it must be understood that this hypothesis is just a fanciful idea without any rational or scientific basis. Indeed, there is no logical connection between data processing and consciousness, and there are no scientific laws that dictate that data processing generates consciousness. However, let's analyze this idea in detail. The idea that a lot of data is processed in the brain is itself an attempt to model brain activity. In the brain, there are only sequences of ordinary elementary physical phenomena, and interpreting these sequences as data processing is an arbitrary choice made to build a model of the brain. In other words, data processing is only a conceptual model and not a physical process. Therefore, data processing, being only an abstract concept, can only exist in a conscious mind which conceives such a concept. We can then apply my first argument: since consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of any conceptual model, which means that consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of data processing, consciousness cannot be generated by data processing.
Some say that data processing can be done by computers. Actually, data processing is only a conceptual model of how computers work and not what computers actually do. I will shortly explain what computers really do. Furthermore, this so-called data processing occurs in many different parts of the brain. If we attributed the property of consciousness to this data processing, we would have to associate with the brain many different consciousnesses, that is, many minds and personalities, which contradicts our direct experience. I also add that when two people talk, their brains interact and therefore constitute a global interacting system that processes data. Such a global system should generate a new global mind. From these considerations, we can understand that the fanciful idea that data processing generates consciousness is certainly wrong and totally nonsensical.
Similar considerations can be made for the fanciful idea that consciousness exists in the brain because of its complexity. The concept of complexity refers primarily to a problem, but a problem exists only as a question that a conscious person is trying to answer. Only a conscious person can choose to classify problems as easy or complex, and complexity is intrinsically an abstract concept that can exist only in a conscious mind. My first argument can be applied again: since consciousness is a necessary condition for the existence of complexity, consciousness cannot exist as a consequence of complexity. In mathematics, some definitions of complexity are used, but like any definition, they are arbitrary and consist of abstract concepts. A common definition of complexity is the following: a complex system is a set in which the evolution of the individual elements is predictable, while it is not possible or very difficult to predict the evolution of the system. From the above definition, it is clear that complexity is intrinsically an abstract concept and therefore it cannot exist independently of an intelligent mind. In fact, complexity is defined in relation to the ability to predict the evolution of a system. Only a conscious and intelligent mind can try to predict the evolution of a system. This confirms that consciousness has no relation with complexity. We can also observe that typical examples of complex systems are ecosystems, meteorological phenomena, the earth's crust in relation to the possibility of predicting earthquakes. If we were absurdly assuming that complexity is the cause of the existence of consciousness, then the earth's atmosphere should possess its consciousness as well. In addition, even a small part of the brain is complex, therefore we would have to associate with the brain many different minds. Furthermore, if we consider two or more talking people, we have a complex global system which, due to its complexity, should generate a global mind. From these considerations, it can be understood that the fanciful idea that consciousness exists as a consequence of complexity is certainly wrong and completely nonsensical.
We often hear the mind explained through an analogy with software. Before analyzing this analogy, we should understand what a computer is and how it works. A computer is just a set of switches that can be turned on or off. These switches are linked together so that when they turn on or off, they can trip other switches. In computers, these switches are made of transistors that are very small and very fast, but the functioning of the computer does not depend on this aspect. In fact, everything a computer does could be done by a macroscopic system consisting of mechanical switches connected together by means of gears. Everything would work exactly the same, except that the device would be far slower and more cumbersome. In this video, you can find a working computer that contains only macroscopic mechanical switches. In this other video, a computer is made of pipes, valves, and water, but its functioning is exactly the same as an electronic computer. And in this video, you find a computer made of dominoes. All these mechanical computers are capable of doing calculations, and their functioning is exactly the same as that of electronic computers. Of course, electronic computers are much faster and much less bulky.
So, what is software? Since the computer is made up of switches that have only two possible positions, the configuration of all these switches can be written as a sequence of two symbols. For example, zero means off, one means on. The software is just the sequence that describes the computer switch configurations. So, the software is like a message written in Morse code using only two symbols. It is therefore obvious that a sequence of two symbols is not a valid analogy for consciousness and our mind. In fact, no matter how long the sequence is, such a sequence will never be conscious, nor will it generate consciousness. We can prove this conclusion simply by observing that the sequence is decomposable into simpler elements, while the conscious state cannot be decomposed.
Some claim that the meaning of the whole text is something completely different from the meaning of each word or each letter, and this meaning is an emergent property that only the text in its entirety has. This is certainly true, but only because the words have been conventionally assigned a meaning. The meaning assigned to words is not an intrinsic property of the words themselves. In fact, if we read a text written in a language we do not know, it has no meaning for us. In order for the words to have a meaning, and therefore also the text to have a meaning, it is necessary that there is a conscious and intelligent mind that has assigned a meaning to the graphic symbols used to write the text. Since consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the words and the text to have a meaning, consciousness can never be an emergent property of any text, just as it cannot be of any software.
This is true for any system that can be broken down into simpler elements, so that considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice. Since this choice is arbitrary, any property that is assigned to such a system is a consequence of this arbitrariness and therefore does not exist independently of consciousness. Since consciousness is a necessary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, therefore software cannot be used as an analogy for the mind. Just as turning a series of switches on and off has nothing to do with consciousness, it must be understood that all the functions attributed to a software are just abstractions that we use to describe in an approximate way what the software actually does. It should be borne in mind that all the functions we attribute to the software, such as data processing or mathematical calculation, could be performed in exactly the same way by computers consisting solely of mechanical switches. In fact, the software does nothing but turn switches on or off. We have defined a code that attributes a meaning to certain configurations of the switches, and therefore we define, on the basis of the meaning we have attributed to these configurations, some functions. It is obvious that such functions exist only as concepts in our mind because, in the absence of a code, such configurations would have no meaning. As an example, think of a software that performs a simple mathematical calculation. If we had not conceived the numbers and had not encoded them in written figures, the operations performed by the software would have no meaning, and it would be wrong to say that the software performs mathematical calculations. Consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of both the meaning, the number, and of the code that allows you to graphically represent this meaning, the digit.
From what I have said, it follows that a computer can never be conscious. If it is absurdly assumed that an electronic computer could have consciousness, then even a computer consisting solely of mechanical switches should have consciousness.
Let's analyze some objections often raised against my arguments. Some say that the fact that damages in the brain change our conscious experience proves that consciousness is generated by the brain. This is simply false. Damages to our eyes change our visual sensations, but this does not prove that our visual sensations are generated by our eyes. We know very well that our eyes only play a preliminary role in the process that eventually leads to the generation of our visual sensations. For the same reason, the fact that damages in the brain change our conscious experience does not prove that consciousness is generated by the brain.
Some say temperature or entropy are examples of emergent properties. Actually, both temperature and entropy can be defined also for a single particle; they are not emergent properties at all. But this is not the point. The point is that both temperature and entropy are statistical functions, and statistical functions never provide exact laws because statistical fluctuations always exist. In case of a high number of particles, these fluctuations are small, but they are still present. This means that statistical laws never describe exactly a real physical system, but always describe a simplified model of the physical system. This simplified model is an abstract concept that can exist only in a conscious thinking mind. Therefore, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of any statistical law and of any property of a statistical model. Therefore, consciousness cannot be a property of any statistical models, and no statistical laws represent a valid analogy to explain the existence of consciousness.
Some claim that my third argument is like saying that a computer running a software is running billions of instances of the software. This analogy is clearly not valid. In fact, the software is by definition the entire binary sequence that describes the configuration of the switches of the computer. Obviously, such a sequence does not refer to a single switch. The point is that considering the entire sequence as a whole is arbitrary, as well as it is arbitrary to consider the whole computer as a whole, since it is made of billions of elements whose quantum states are not coherent. Since consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, the software is not a valid analogy for consciousness.
Some claim that consciousness is like traffic that exists as an entity and has its own laws, but you cannot study them just by looking at cars individually. Traffic is just one example of emergent properties. Traffic does not exist in itself; it is just the name we give to a set of moving cars, and it exists only as a concept through which we choose to describe a set of moving cars, neglecting the details related to the movement of each individual car. The traffic laws describe only a simplified model of the set of moving cars, and the simplified model of traffic is just an abstract concept that exists only in a thinking mind. Therefore, traffic laws are only abstractions, since they only approximately describe what is really happening, that is, the motion of each individual car. This shows that consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of traffic laws. Therefore, the traffic analogy is not valid and confirms that consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain.
Some argue that dualism is not acceptable. Actually, my arguments prove that while brain processes are reducible to the laws of physics, consciousness is not. Consciousness is the only phenomenon that is not reducible to the laws of physics. So, we have two categories of phenomena: those which are reducible to the laws of physics, namely all natural phenomena except consciousness, and consciousness. This is the essence of dualism. In other words, reductionism works for all natural phenomena except consciousness. We can define physical phenomena as all phenomena reducible to the laws of physics. According to this definition, consciousness is not a physical phenomenon. Like it or not, this is dualism.
Some claim that Libet's experiment proves that consciousness is generated by the brain. This is simply false. Libet's experiment proves absolutely nothing, since the choice also involves the non-physical element that is co-responsible for the existence of consciousness. The choice can be made from such non-physical element before some physical effects in the brain can be measured. Therefore, any information on brain processes cannot prove anything about how choices are actually made.
Some say it makes no difference whether we refer to microscopic or macroscopic laws or properties, because both help us describe and explain the world. Actually, there is a fundamental difference between microscopic and macroscopic laws and properties. In fact, the microscopic laws of physics are the most fundamental laws we know, capable of systematically predicting natural phenomena. From the microscopic laws of physics, it is possible to derive macroscopic laws and explain all macroscopic phenomena except consciousness, while the opposite is not true. From macroscopic laws, it is not possible to derive microscopic laws and explain microscopic phenomena. This is enough to show that the fundamental laws of physics play a special role in understanding the universe. Furthermore, we know for sure that macroscopic laws and macroscopic descriptions are certainly not real because they do not describe external reality as it is in itself, independently of our observations, but are only approximate descriptions of how reality appears to our conscious mind. This is enough to show that macroscopic laws are only abstract concepts that exist only in our conscious mind. Since consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of concepts, consciousness can never be explained as a macroscopic law. Therefore, if we want to try to explain consciousness, we must start from the microscopic laws of physics. However, my arguments show that this is not possible because consciousness is irreducible to the laws of physics and to brain processes, which means that consciousness is not physical.