2 days ago (medium.com)
Experiential consciousness is arguably the most profound phenomenon in the universe.
Not that we can think. That we experience the thinking. We feel. Pain. We actually see the entire visual field.
It’s more than a hint that we’re ‘not in base-level reality’ as Elon Musk puts it. It’s like we are avatars.
Physicists, information theorists and philosophers find hallmarks in the universe of the simulation hypothesis, quantum physics represents a brilliant just-in-time calculation-minimizing algorithm. The Planck length is the screen resolution.
And, as explored below, there is apparently no mechanism for consciousness in existence or even conceivable in this level of reality and therefore, arguably, no way for consciousnesses to locally operate let alone evolve.
Let’s be frank: things made from atoms shouldn’t consciously see imagery or have feelings. Or feel pain.
Mathew on Medium and I have been arguing this, in my case for more than a year now.
But rather than arguing that consciousness should be ‘expected’, I’ve been arguing that from a scientific POV it’s completely . . *unexpected*.
If we weren’t conscious ourselves we’d never suspect the concept even exists.
We should all be what David Chalmers calls ‘philosophical zombies’, humans that talk and respond in action and process thought but have no experience of it.
As humans we certainly take consciousness for granted of course. It’s rarely discussed until recently. And consciousness researchers rarely broach the true mystery of experiential consciousness.
Evolution of consciousness
I agree with Mathew that the thought ‘oh, consciousness evolved’ is flawed in multiple ways.
Firstly, there is no physical mechanism for consciousness. Nada.
Nothing in physics expects or can mechanize (experiential) consciousness.
The idea of neural representations of the world, whether bio or AI / binary . . becoming experienced is nonsensical. Or that it’s ‘just an illusion.’ What kind of physical thing has illusions?
Evolution needs existing threads of something to work with. There aren’t constructs in our physical world that exhibit consciousness in any sense we can measure consistent with science. It’s only us.
If there are fragments of consciousness in inanimate objects then it’s a stranger world than the simulation hypotheses or a religious heaven and earth.
Certainly, information systems do not just start ‘feeling things’.
Secondly, as Mathew points out, many functioning, competing life forms out there presumably do just fine without it.
Consciousness is easily substituted by a mechanistic survival instinct.
It’s easy to accuse us of ‘God of the gaps’ thinking. But at some point we as scientists need to consider that many lines of evidence actually point to the simulation / God hypothesis.
I believe consciousness is the best evidence of a ‘beyond’, transcendence as Mathew puts it.
God.
Or the simulation hypothesis.
Either way, we are not in base-level reality as Elon Musk would say.
Written by Paul Pallaghy, PhD
PhD physicist / AI engineer / futurist into global good, AI, startups, EVs, green tech, space, physics & biomed | Founder Pretzel Technologies, Melbourne AU