• Blog
  • Scott Aaronson - The Search for Physical Correlates of Consciousness

Scott Aaronson speaking at the 6th International FQXi Conference.

Explore more:

Keywords: Consciousness, Physics, Aaronson

I don’t agree with Scott Aaronson (and David Chalmers) that “the hard problem of course is to explain how … a bunch of neural firings could possibly give rise to first-person subjective experience” (1:43).

Firstly, there is no evidence that neural firings do, in fact, ex nihilo, GIVE RISE TO first-person subjective experience because as he says: “it's not as if we have some consciousness meter that, you know, we could just take out into the field” (5:54).

And secondly, there is no reason to think that “first-person subjective experience” is actually a problem at all, because first-person subjective experience might just be an inherent characteristic of consciousness, as opposed to consciousness having a zombified characteristic, just like other aspects of the world, like laws of nature, have their own inherent mathematical characteristics that we don’t seem to question.

Scott Aaronson has defined “the pretty hard problem to be … just to give some general criterion for taking an arbitrary physical system, you know a description of any physical system, and deciding whether it is conscious or not” (4:06). But of course, if consciousness was built from a panpsychist type of fundamental-level consciousness-component, just like matter is built from a fundamental-level matter-component, then his “pretty hard problem” morphs into the issue of how higher-level consciousness could be built out of this lower-level consciousness.

Though, as he explains, IIT which attempts to “measure the amount of information integration in an arbitrary physical system” (9:44), and “any theory of the form [where] sufficient complicatedness or interconnectedness or whatever implies consciousness is just doomed to failure” (19:27).

But I think the main issue is: What use is consciousness, and why does consciousness persist if it has no utility?

My answer to this issue is that a differentiated system, differentiated at a fundamental level into categories (like mass and position), relationships between these categories (i.e. laws of nature), and numbers that apply to the categories, needs to be able to differentiate/ discern difference in its own on-the-spot categories and numbers. Basic consciousness IS on-the-spot differentiation, not via a written table of categories and their associated numbers, but differentiation via every category and associated number being experienced differently. Higher-level consciousness is then built out of this basic aspect of consciousness.

    Lorraine Ford
    The world-system is not like a set of relationships between categories (represented by physics’ law-of-nature equations) and numbers that apply to these categories. These equations and numbers are like nouns and adjectives that describe the properties of the system. But the world-system is not static, it “flies” (1), i.e. the system also has some verbs. So how would one represent these verbs?

    It is the job of professional computer programmers and analysts to create a symbolic system that works from scratch, i.e. a system that “flies”.

    But it is not the job of professional physicists, mathematicians and philosophers to create a symbolic system that “flies”. So unsurprisingly, physicists, mathematicians and philosophers seemingly have no idea that you can’t create a viable system out of equations and numbers alone, without the use of logical connectives. Equations and numbers can NEVER take the place of these logical connectives, if you want a system that “flies”.

    Some logical connectives, when used in a statement, represent knowledge of the system (e.g. AND, OR, IS TRUE …), and other logical connectives, when used in a statement, represent agency/ movement in the system (e.g. IF, THEN, ELSE …).

    So, we can reasonably infer that consciousness and agency are the necessary “verbs” that the world-system uses in order to “fly”. However, one can’t measure the verbs themselves, one can only measure the consequence of the verbs. The only measurable aspects of the world, the only physical correlates of the world, continue to be the numbers that apply to the categories that are found in the equations.

    1. Apparently, the late physicist John Archibald Wheeler once said to his students: “You see, these equations can’t fly. But our universe flies. We’re still missing the single, simple ingredient that makes it all fly.” https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/John+Wheeler

      Lorraine Ford
      The measurable aspects of a system are the categories, and the results of measurement are numbers that are associated with the categories.

      • Knowledge of the numbers associated with the categories in the system (i.e. consciousness) can be represented by statements containing AND, OR, IS TRUE symbols.
      • Movement of the numbers associated with the categories in the system (i.e. agency) can be represented by statements containing IF, THEN, ELSE symbols.
      • Relationships between the categories in the system (i.e. “laws of nature”) can be represented by statements containing +, -, x, ÷, = symbols. Note that "laws of nature" are not relationships between the numbers in the system.

      The IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, THEN, ELSE, +, -, x, ÷, = symbols represent unmeasurable (but potentially inferable) aspects of the system. Consciousness, agency, and the laws of nature, are underlying, and hidden from view, “goings-on” in the system.

      The physical correlates of consciousness, agency, and the laws of nature, continue to be the categories and the numbers that are associated with the categories.

      Agree?

        Lorraine Ford
        Isn’t it time that physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers focussed a little bit of attention on how to make a viable system, a system that works, instead of focussing on the demonstrably ridiculous assertion that you can make a system out of equations and numbers alone??? The fact is that you can’t make a system, a world, without the use of logical connectives.

        The second issue is: what natural aspect of the world do these necessary logical connectives (e.g. IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, THEN) represent?

          5 days later

          Lorraine Ford
          The system knows itself; the system moves itself.

          The system necessarily knows itself; the system necessarily moves itself.

          More precisely, points within the system know their own categories and numbers, and points within the system jump their own numbers that apply to the categories.

          But physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers have judged that the only relevant aspects of the system are the relationships between the categories, symbolically represented by equations. They arrogantly and ignorantly thought that the system could be represented by equations on a T-shirt.

          On the basis of that erroneous judgement, these same physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers are now trying to figure out how knowledge/ consciousness could arise from relationships between categories (represented by equations).

          It can’t.

          Write a Reply...