Science journalist George Musser attempts to answer some of these questions in his book.Putting ourselves back into the equation: Why physicists are studying human consciousness and AI to solve the mysteries of the universe” He has compiled a vast array of ideas from developments in artificial intelligence, unorthodox interpretations of modern physics, and philosophy of science and mind, and has interviewed many of the scientists and philosophers behind these theories. His conclusion? You cannot understand what consciousness is without understanding the basic laws of physics. Or vice versa, depending on who you ask.
The book is structured around two main subjects: neural networks and quantum mechanics. Neural networks are inspired by simplified models of animal brains. Like the brain, neural networks consist of a dense meshwork of neurons (or nodes) and connections between them. The internal layers of such networks, if large enough, form sites of “deep learning” where increasingly complex information is collected and assimilated. This is also where some argue that consciousness (human or not) could emerge. Exactly how the physical brain creates mental experiences is one of the biggest mysteries in science, and it’s not clear that neural networks will come much closer to solving this question. In fact, many doubt that it can be solved at all or that there is anything at all. to solve. But at least neural networks give philosophers and scientists new challenges to old problems. In the near future, it may also be put to practical use in things such as understanding the symptoms of schizophrenia and determining whether robots should have rights.
The second, more important part of the book is devoted to the fundamental laws of physics, particularly quantum mechanics, and their relationship to human consciousness. Here Masser covers an impressive array of topics, including quantum gravity, causation, statistical mechanics, personal identity, free will, and why not. — Reality itself. Phew.
Few scientific theories are as robust and successful as quantum mechanics. We are blessed with computers, smartphones, GPS, MRI, and more. But it is also different from other theories known to science. At its feet, our intuition and imagination, trained by the senses and limited by experience, begin to break down. why? Because it just tells you that you can give an equation and solve it to calculate the probability that a certain event will occur.What does it not tell us? intention happens; worse, it even imposes mathematical limits on the amount that can be learned from experiments.
Most physicists accept all this and, after decades of experimentation and observation, believe with some unease that this lack of certainty reflects the inherent randomness of nature. For some, this is unacceptable. Theory must be incomplete. Surely we are missing something – another force, a hidden variable. (All the evidence we have suggests that this is highly unlikely.) Some have pointed out that every time you run an experiment, you get an outcome, not a probability. So how does pre-measurement probability “collapse” into certainty after measurement? And where does this occur? The answer, according to a leading figure in physics, is consciousness.
It’s quite a stretch to claim that the fundamental laws of physics require the human mind to make them work, but Musser examines three theories that claim just that. The first, proposed by the field’s pioneers John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner, is that consciousness “forces” a natural position in the act of measurement. In this case, I, the observer, “cause” the outcome, and simply by paying attention, I sift through the entire range of possibilities that could produce a single outcome. But this is not possible, unless consciousness means an immaterial force that can “act” on physical matter. In other words, some kind of telekinesis. The second, proposed by Roger Penrose, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on general relativity and black holes, posits that it is not human consciousness that influences quantum behavior, but vice versa. claim. In other words, the quantum system that operates within neurons. Most physicists do not think this is plausible. This is because quantum behavior is too fast and too small to operate at the neuron level. Moreover, it has not yet been explained how the behavior of elementary particles creates a unified mental experience. Finally, there is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory. There’s no shortage of animated videos on YouTube about this, but the claims about consciousness are so confusing and contradictory that I can only hope that my copy exists in another world. Theory and filmsliding door,” not exist.
It is to Musser’s great credit that he took these theories seriously and presented them with empathy. But this book is so diffuse and at the same time so packed that the reader is left wondering where he or she is at any point in time, and how this or that idea relates to the book’s larger purpose. You must find it difficult to figure out whether there is a gender or not. Moreover, because the book relies heavily on personal interviews, one often gets the impression that Masser is too respectful of his subjects to be more objective about their theories. He quickly explains and erases some objections he raises. He offers little in the way of contradictory evidence. And he conveys nothing about the sheer absurdity of some of the claims. Read this book to find out what’s plausible and outlandish, what’s supported by the evidence and what’s not, and what the scientific consensus is about the relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness. Afterwards he cannot get a clear sense. Most neuroscientists and physicists would say that the two have nothing to do with each other. That is, the laws of physics and the biology of the brain operate at different levels and different scales. But if the popularity of the many-worlds interpretation is any indication, this explanation will fail to capture the public imagination.
I see a fundamental human desire to believe that we have a special place in the universe and that our consciousness is so exceptional that it lies outside the known laws of physics. It seems like that. At the same time, we are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that there may be limits to human knowledge, or that we may not have the means to overcome those limits. Both emotions are palpable throughout the book. They are also at the center of serious contradictions between one set of ideas and another within them. On the one hand, if the laws of physics require or imply the uniqueness of human consciousness, then there can be no possibility of sentience in AI. On the other hand, if neural networks imply that perception is not limited to humans and can be extended to AI, then quantum mechanics must be independent of the human mind. So which one is it?
“Our minds evolved to understand the world, but in order to do that, we need the world to be understandable,” Musser writes in his conclusion. But we didn’t evolve to understand the world; we evolved to survive. This is the limit that AI is trying to expose. Not only may our android friends be sentient, but their depth of consciousness and capacity for knowledge may far exceed ours. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, presents us with the possibility that the ultimate nature of reality, including our own consciousness, may be hidden from us forever. Perhaps this is why the idea of two great unknown figures marrying each other is so appealing. By doing so, we can maintain the hope that we are special, that we can know everything, and that we are special because we can know everything.
put yourself back into the equation
Why physicists are studying human consciousness and AI to solve the mysteries of the universe
Farard, Strauss, Giroux. 321 pages $30
Note to readers
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.