Consciousness, Biology and Fundamental Physics
by
Book Cover & Preview Text
In writing a book of this kind, it is difficult know what level to pitch it at, and what degree of detail to bring in. On the one hand, experts in particular fields may ridicule the superficial nature of the description and arguments here, while at the other extreme some would-be readers may find even the opening sentences baffling. I have two recommendations for dealing with these problems. Firstly, I would advocate a pick and mix approach to the offerings here. For instance, those not particularly inclined to wade through user-unfriendly material relative to physics, biology and neuroscience might prefer to go straight to the final section 6 rather arrogantly entitled 'A Theory of Consciousness'. This gives the main conclusions as to how consciousness might arise and its function. If this looks at all interesting it is then possible to go back and see how I have attempted to substantiate the proposals have made in this section. The same general approach can be applied to the other chapters, in skipping over things that are either too difficult, or are too well known to need revisiting. The first few pages could be comfortably missed as they give an outline sketch of conventional consciousness ideas, and the objections to them. I do not believe that these theories have any explanatory value, and it might be possible to skip to the 'Consciousness as a Fundamental Theory' a few pages later. There is perhaps a word of caution relative to this approach. The section on physics emphasises the problem areas in quantum physics, which may be played down in more mainstream discussion. The sections on both quantum biology and neuroscience emphasise research work in very recent years that can be argued to have reversed some assumptions that are still commonly held in consciousness studies. The detailed structure of the book may also require some explanation or even excuse. As I am neither a physicist, neuroscientist or biologists, and as this area is often the target of dismissive, if badly researched, accusations of pseudoscience, I have relied in many places on summarising the work of affiliated and usually peer-reviewed researchers. This can involve a degree of overlap or repetition, which may be tedious, but should be taken as demonstrating the scientific pedigree of various ideas. This is particularly applicable to the quantum biology section. The main inspiration for this attempt at consciousness theory are the ideas of Roger Penrose (1.& 2.). Unfortunately, I have over more than twenty years come to the opinion that the vast majority of modern consciousness studies is profoundly misguided, and that in time Penrose may come to be seen, as being alone as a deep thinker on the subject, in our benighted period. The dark night of the mind: Another thing for which I will not apologise is that much of this book may seem difficult. One thing that does often amaze me in consciousness studies is the proportion of people who expect to come on a quick easy solution. Inspite of a huge outpouring of books and papers from the scientific and philosophical communities in the last two decades, we appear no closer to a convincing consensus theory. David Chalmers called consciousness the hard problem, and this looks even more justified than when he coined this description back in the 1990s. If we do want to establish a theory of consciousness, it looks very likely that we will have to come to a hard place in terms of unravelling biology, neuroscience and probably physics. This book attempts an amendment and simplification of the Penrose/Hameroff Orch OR scheme, and also an attempted updating in line with very recent developments in biology. It is tentatively suggested that a less complex approach to the function of consciousness than that provided by the Gödel theorem can be attempted, and similarly that in the brain, quantum consciousness might be based on shorter-lived quantum coherence in individual neurons, rather than the longer-lived and spatially distributed proposal put forward by Hameroff. The possible need to amend the original concepts are the reason for my moving from merely commenting on quantum consciousness topics to outlining a more personal version of the consciousness theory.
Formats
Book Details
About the Book
Why are we conscious? Why do we experience the taste of almonds or the colour red? What is the experience of choosing between beer and wine, and how do we do it? Why do we think that only organisms with brains can do this, although our brains are based on the same sort of physics as everything else in the universe? The conventional consciousness studies of the last twenty years, wedded to a nineteenth century view of physics and biology, has failed to produce anything of explanatory value. Roger Penrose's hypothesis that consciousness is linked to a fundamental level of the universe is here considered more promising, but may not have responded sufficiently to recent advances in quantum biology and neuroscience. 'Consciousness, Biology and Fundamental Physics' attempts an updating of the original inspiration.
About the Author
Simon Raggett developed an interest in science in his teens, but this lay dormant for many years, while he first studied history at university, and subsequently worked as an investment analyst. In the 1990s his interests began to move back towards science, and in particular the reviving study of consciousness. In doing this, he soon became disillusioned with mainstream forms of consciousness studies, based on classical physics. By contrast, he drew inspiration from Roger Penrose's proposal that consciousness related to a fundamental aspect of the universe. However, in recent years he came to feel that the Penrose theory was itself in need of some updating, principally in response to advances in quantum biology and neuroscience. This resulted in 'Consciousness, Biology and Fundamental Physics'.