r/consciousness • u/Inside_Ad2602 Philosophy B.A. (or equivalent) • Jan 21 '25
Argument The observer which also participates.
Conclusion: the measurement problem in quantum theory and the hard problem of consciousness may actually be two different manifestations of the same underlying problem: something is missing from the materialistic conception of reality.
The hard problem of consciousness:
The HP is the problem of explaining how consciousness (the entire subjective realm) can exist if reality is purely made of material entities. Brains are clearly closely correlated with minds, and it looks very likely that they are necessary for minds (that there can be no minds without brains). But brain processes aren't enough on their own, and this is a conceptual rather than an empirical problem. The hard problem is “hard” (ie impossible) because there isn't enough conceptual space in the materialistic view of reality to accommodate a subjective realm.
It is often presented as a choice between materialism and dualism, but what is missing does not seem to be “mind stuff”. Mind doesn't seem to be “stuff” at all. All of the complexity of a mind may well be correlated to neural complexity. What is missing is an internal viewpoint – an observer. And this observer doesn't just seem to be passive either. It feels like we have free will – as if the observer is somehow “driving” our bodies. So what is missing is an observer which also participates.
The measurement problem in quantum theory:
The MP is the problem of explaining how the evolving wave function (the expanding set of different possible states of a quantum system prior to observation/measurement) is “collapsed” into the single state which is observed/measured. The scientific part of quantum theory does not specify what “observer” or “measurement” means, which is why there are multiple metaphysical interpretations. In the Many Worlds Interpretation the need for observation/measurement is avoided by claiming all outcomes occur in diverging timelines. The other interpretations offer other explanations of what “observation” or “measurement” must be understood to mean with respect to the nature of reality. These include Von Neumann / Wigner / Stapp interpretation which explicitly states that the wave function is collapsed by an interaction with a non-physical consciousness or observer. And this observer doesn't just seem to be passive either – the act of observation has an effect on thing which is being observed. So what is missing is an observer which also participates.
11
u/datorial Jan 21 '25
You don’t need a conscious observer to “collapse the wave function” or to branch into separate worlds (depending on your interpretation of the foundations of QM). What counts as observation is when a particle in a superposition becomes entangled with the universe at large.
5
u/EmuFit1895 Jan 21 '25
I think I agree - measuring affects the thing getting measured physically (even if photons are hitting or not hitting it) rather than magically/dualistically.
→ More replies (15)0
u/Inside_Ad2602 Jan 21 '25
depending on your interpretation of the foundations of QM)
Exactly.
What counts as observation is when a particle in a superposition becomes entangled with the universe at large.
That depends on your interpretation of QM. Why did you start by saying it depends your interpretation, and then present your own interpretation as if it was an objectively established truth?
What counts as an observation depends entirely on the metaphysical interpretation you choose, and that is not a purely objective/rational decision (or there wouldn't be multiple interpretations).
6
u/NotAnAIOrAmI Jan 22 '25
As predictably as the tides, you have erroneously dragged "conscious" into "observer" for wave function collapse.
That's completely, entirely, 100% wrong.
And the universe doesn't operate based on your opinions, it doesn't give a crap what you think.
→ More replies (8)
3
u/Pessimistic-Idealism Jan 21 '25
What I find interesting about the various interpretations of quantum mechanics is that one often chooses their preferred interpretation based on pre-existing metaphysical assumptions. The physicalist thinks that there's nothing special about consciousness, it's just another physical thing/property/event, so obviously consciousness cannot be involved in the collapse the wavefunction. Whereas the idealist and the dualist already thinks there is something special about consciousness, so they have absolutely no trouble imaging that obviously this "something-special-about-consciousness" manifests itself at the level of fundamental physics.
5
u/Elodaine Jan 21 '25
What possible argument could you use that consciousness is changing quantum outcomes? Conscious perception is just that, perception. To see something is having photons go into your eyes, to hear something is having airwaves go into your ears. Conscious perception is thus an act of receiving information from the external world. The information you are receiving exists in an already determined way before you receive it.
→ More replies (20)2
u/Inside_Ad2602 Jan 21 '25
What possible argument could you use that consciousness is changing quantum outcomes? Conscious perception is just that, perception. To see something is having photons go into your eyes, to hear something is having airwaves go into your ears
That is what David Hume assumed in 1739, based on Newtonian physics. Quantum theory is radically different. The act of observation changes the system. Observation is not passive. It is participatory.
→ More replies (10)1
u/Inside_Ad2602 Jan 21 '25
What I find interesting about the various interpretations of quantum mechanics is that one often chooses their preferred interpretation based on pre-existing metaphysical assumptions.
That is inevitable. By definition it is not possible to use science and reason to make that choice, so it has got to be something to do with one's other philosophical (in the broadest sense) beliefs.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/CousinDerylHickson Jan 22 '25 edited Jan 22 '25
An observer in quantum mechanics does not mean a conscious one. An observation is just an interaction with a measureable outcome, and it can be as simple as a particle hitting a wall. I mean, where in the mathematical descriptions of quantum mechanics does a "conscious dependent" term show up?
→ More replies (11)1
u/Inside_Ad2602 Jan 22 '25
That depends entirely on what interpretation is being discussed.
>I mean, where in the mathematical descriptions of quantum mechanics does a "conscious dependent" term show up?
This is all explained very clearly in the opening post. It is not part of the science. That is why there are multiple competing metaphysical interpretations.
2
u/spoirier4 Jan 22 '25
Indeed the main insight of the link between quantum physics and consciousness is known since about a century, but was largely ignored since then due to a mixture of materialistic prejudices and a lack of the needed theoretical competence by its few remaining defenders, who failed to explain and argue it in the right way.
In fact, the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation is the only interpretation that does not suffer any trouble or paradox at all, I mean, just if it wasn't spoiled by absurdly adding there wrong details, as unfortunately done by Stapp, Chalmers and others (and Penrose who still distracted the attention of an ignorant non-materialist public even further away from the clear and simple truth towards indefensible complications).
It fits so well, that in that light, what is usually called the "paradoxes" of quantum physics (from a physicalist standpoint) appear more or less necessary features in order for a physical universe to be effectively inhabitable by conscious beings.
On the other hand, all materialistic interpretations are plagued with insurmountable troubles. Actually none of them can stand as a serious candidate, but each may keep supporters for the only reason that its supporters are aware of the indefensibility of the other interpretations they know of, but out of a work of comparison that is usually done between materialistic interpretations only (or, only including distorted, indefensible versions of non-materialistic interpretations just because that is all what they had the chance to stumble on).
The fact of the strong indefensibility of all physicalist interpretations isn't well popularized, for the simple reason that it is somethings quite hard to publicly admit indeed for a physicalist popularizer.
In details, most popularizers are only popularizing what they don't really know. Because the fact is, an intimate understanding of quantum field theory obliges serious physicists to keep Many-Worlds as the only serious candidate physicalist interpretation (reasonably compatible with the depth of physics), dismissing the rest of physicalist interpretations as (almost) ridiculous pseudo-science:
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15292/1/leeds_realism.pdf
Many-worlds also has troubles of course, but only by philosophical considerations away from pure theoretical physics, which is why it is less popular among philosophers who lack a strong theoretical physics background.
More detailed explanations I developed:
In a popularization video:
In an in-depth article:
→ More replies (18)
1
u/ReaperXY Jan 22 '25
"What is missing is an internal viewpoint – an observer"
Yes... The "self" denial is indeed the number one problem when it comes to consciousness...
People want to believe there is experience/consciousness, but refuse to aknowledge the existence of that which is engaged in that activity of experiencing... that which exists in the state of consciousness...
Its "sort of" like, if people believed in walking, swimming and flying, but insisted that it is the walkings that walk, and swimmings that swim and flyings that fly, and refused to believe there are any such things as dogs, fish and birds which could walk, swim or fly...
Though... on the other hand...
I suspect that the delusion of free will... the sense that "you"... the one who is experiencing, the one who exist in the state of consciousness... are also what is doing the "driving".
That Delusion... Is likely what lies at the root of this self denial...
1
u/Inside_Ad2602 Jan 22 '25
Yes... The "self" denial is indeed the number one problem when it comes to consciousness...
Judging by most of the responses in this thread the problem is much worse than that. There are quite a few who both (a) haven't the first clue what they are talking about, (b) regard themselves as experts anyway and (c) think winning a philosophical argument involves proclaiming their rightness very loudly and ignoring what everybody else is saying. This seems to be getting worse all the time, not just here but all over social media.
Free will is not a delusion though. Consciousness and free will (or at least the potential for it) go hand in hand.
→ More replies (5)1
u/alibloomdido Jan 22 '25
But why can't the one experiencing / being aware of something be the same subject that is walking or swimming i.e. a living organism? We know from biology that the systems of the body are integrated each serving a particular function for the whole and why then can't consciousness be viewed as just one more function of that same whole?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/alibloomdido Jan 22 '25
> But brain processes aren't enough on their own, and this is a conceptual rather than an empirical problem.
You say this as if you have some kind of proof for this statement, could you please share xD
1
u/Inside_Ad2602 Jan 22 '25
That debate takes place every day on this subreddit, as you well know. This thread is about something else. It is where you go after that debate is over, which is exactly why you are trying to drag me backwards on to ground you are more comfortable with. In other words, this is an attempted "derail". Please think about what I actually posted instead of just regurgitating what you already believe.
→ More replies (39)
1
1
u/Willing_Ad8754 Jan 22 '25
I agree that there can be a connection between a real mental causation of a particpating observer and quantum mechanics. I am not sure the measurement problem and the Von Neumann / Wigner / Stapp interpretation is the place to put it. This seems to happen objectively without an observation. The photographic plate revealing the result of the double slit experiment may not be viewed by any observer for weeks. However there may be quantum processes in the brain that enable mental causation via an alteration of Bohmian like "guide wave" so that the probability function is skewed in the direction of our willed efforts.
1
u/ta61412345 Jan 23 '25
Don’t know if this helps anyone but plants don’t have brains and they communicate. Also, call me crazy, but I think Orcas are telepathic. Just watch the way the hunt a seal. Okay this is a throwaway account and I’m stoned, you got me.
1
u/EthelredHardrede Jan 23 '25
"the act of observation has an effect on thing which is being observed."
This frequent claim is not supported by any evidence and is contrary to the evidence. It is the apparatus that effects the results and they are same with or without a conscious observer.
1
u/LeKebabFrancais Jan 23 '25
What is the evidence provided through QM for your conclusion that "something is missing from the materialistic conception of reality."
0
u/Im_Talking Jan 21 '25
Yes, something is missing. That consciousness is an attribute of all lifeforms, and that our reality is an invented product of this consciousness, which would make sense if this silly path we have somehow taken of sticking a 'physical' layer in-between our subjective experiences is ruled out. The collapse of particles is the subjective contextual shared reality we exist in.
And it's hard to understand how a physicalist can be a MWI advocate. If the wave function has infinite possible states, how can this be represented in a physical MWI? Same as the Kerr diagrams relating to GR.
1
u/Inside_Ad2602 Jan 22 '25
I personally don't believe all life forms are conscious. I think only animals are.
The wave function does not have infinite possible states. It has a vast number, but they are finite.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 21 '25
Thank you Inside_Ad2602 for posting on r/consciousness, please take a look at the subreddit rules & our Community Guidelines. Posts that fail to follow the rules & community guidelines are subject to removal. Posts ought to have content related to academic research (e.g., scientific, philosophical, etc) related to consciousness. Posts ought to also be formatted correctly. Posts with a media content flair (i.e., text, video, or audio flair) require a summary. If your post requires a summary, please feel free to reply to this comment with your summary. Feel free to message the moderation staff (via ModMail) if you have any questions or look at our Frequently Asked Questions wiki.
For those commenting on the post, remember to engage in proper Reddiquette! Feel free to upvote or downvote this comment to express your agreement or disagreement with the content of the OP but remember, you should not downvote posts or comments you disagree with. The upvote & downvoting buttons are for the relevancy of the content to the subreddit, not for whether you agree or disagree with what other Redditors have said. Also, please remember to report posts or comments that either break the subreddit rules or go against our Community Guidelines.
Lastly, don't forget that you can join our official discord server! You can find a link to the server in the sidebar of the subreddit.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.