Abstract
The principles of classical physics, including deterministic dynamics and observability of physical states, are incompatible with the existence of unobservable conscious minds that possess free will. Attempts to directly accommodate consciousness in a classical world lead to philosophical paradoxes such as causally ineffective consciousness and possibility of alternate worlds in which functional brain isomorphs behave identically but lack conscious experiences. Here, we show that because Chalmers’ principle of organizational invariance is based on a deficient nineteenth century classical physics, it is inherently flawed and implies evolutionary inexplicable epiphenomenal consciousness. Consequently, if consciousness is a fundamental ingredient of physical reality, no psychophysical laws such as Chalmers’ principle of organizational invariance are needed to establish correspondence between conscious experiences and brain function. Quantum mechanics is the most successful and only modern physical theory capable of naturally accommodating consciousness without violation of physical laws.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1(3), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.
Busch, P. (1997). Is the quantum state (an) observable? In R. S. Cohen, M. Horne, & J. Stachel (Eds.), Potentiality, entanglement and passion-at-a-distance: quantum mechanical studies for Abner Shimony, volume two (pp. 61–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chalmers, D. J. (1995a). Absent qualia, fading qualia, dancing qualia. In T. Metzinger (Ed.), Conscious experience (pp. 309–328). Thorverton: Imprint Academic.
Chalmers, D. J. (1995b). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. J. (2003). Consciousness and its place in nature. In S. P. Stich & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Blackwell guide to the philosophy of mind (pp. 102–142). Blackwell Publishing.
Cuda, T. (1985). Against neural chauvinism. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 48(1), 111–127.
Darwin, C. (2006). In E. O. Wilson (Ed.), From So Simple a Beginning: The Four Great Books of Charles Darwin (The Voyage of the Beagle, On the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Dawkins, R. (2004). The ancestor’s tale: a pilgrimage to the dawn of life. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Flint, G., & Rusbridge, C. (2014). Syringomyelia: a disorder of CSF circulation. Berlin: Springer.
Georgiev, D. D. (2013). Quantum no-go theorems and consciousness. Axiomathes, 23(4), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-012-9204-1.
Georgiev, D. D. (2017). Quantum information and consciousness: a gentle introduction. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Georgiev, D. D., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2014). Quantum interactive dualism: from Beck and Eccles tunneling model of exocytosis to molecular biology of SNARE zipping. Biomedical Reviews, 25, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.14748/bmr.v25.1038.
Georgiev, D. D., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2018). The quantum physics of synaptic communication via the SNARE protein complex. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 135, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.01.006.
Georgiev, D. D., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2019a). On the quantum dynamics of Davydov solitons in protein α-helices. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 517, 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.11.026.
Georgiev, D. D., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2019b). Quantum tunneling of Davydov solitons through massive barriers. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, and Nonequilibrium and Complex Phenomena, 123, 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2019.04.013.
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1988). The puzzling entanglement of Schrödinger’s wave function. Foundations of Physics, 18(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01882871.
Hammond, C. (2015). Cellular and molecular neurophysiology. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Hayashi, M., Ishizaka, S., Kawachi, A., Kimura, G., & Ogawa, T. (2015). Introduction to quantum information science. Berlin: Springer.
Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., & Horodecki, K. (2009). Quantum entanglement. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2), 865–942. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865.
Huxley, T. H. (1874). On the hypothesis that animals are automata, and its history. The Fortnightly Review, 16, 555–580.
Jacobson, S., & Marcus, E. M. (2008). Neuroanatomy for the neuroscientist. New York: Springer.
James, W. (1879). Are we automata? Mind, 4(13), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/os-4.13.1.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Volume 1. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Johnston, D., & Wu, S. M.-S. (1995). Foundations of cellular neurophysiology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., Jessell, T. M., Siegelbaum, S. A., & Hudspeth, A. J. (2012). Principles of neural science (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Klekamp, J., & Samii, M. (2002). Syringomyelia: diagnosis and treatment. Berlin: Springer.
Kochen, S. B., & Specker, E. P. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17(1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1512/iumj.1968.17.17004.
Li, Y., Lu, D., Nguyen, H.-V., & Galli, G. (2010). Van der Waals interactions in molecular assemblies from first-principles calculations. Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 114(4), 1944–1952. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9095425.
Lowe, J. P., & Peterson, K. (2005). Quantum chemistry (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914.
Narnhofer, H., & Thirring, W. (2012). Entanglement, Bell inequality and all that. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 53(9), 095210. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4738376.
Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum computation and quantum information (10th Anniversary ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pathak, A. (2013). Elements of quantum computation and quantum communication. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Popper, K. R., & Eccles, J. C. (1983). The self and its brain: an argument for interactionism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1980). The “causal power” of machines. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 442–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0000594x.
Robinson, W. (2015). Epiphenomenalism. In E. N. Zalta, U. Nodelman, & C. Allen (Eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University.
Romanes, G. J. (1895). Mind and motion and monism. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co..
Savitt, S. F. (1982). Searle’s demon and the brain simulator. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 342–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00012395.
Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Susskind, L., & Hrabovsky, G. (2013). The theoretical minimum: what you need to know to start doing physics. New York: Basic Books.
Svozil, K. (2018). Physical (a)causality: determinism, randomness and uncaused events. Cham: Springer.
Taylor, R. (1991). Metaphysics (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974). Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. The Lancet, 304(7872), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(74)91639-0.
Teasdale, G., Allan, D., Brennan, P., McElhinney, E., & Mackinnon, L. (2014). Forty years on: updating the Glasgow Coma Scale. Nursing Times, 110(42), 12–16.
Wiseman, H. M., Jones, S. J., & Doherty, A. C. (2007). Steering, entanglement, nonlocality, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physical Review Letters, 98(14), 140402. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.140402.
Wootters, W. K., & Zurek, W. H. (1982). A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature, 299(5886), 802–803. https://doi.org/10.1038/299802a0.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Georgiev, D.D. Chalmers’ Principle of Organizational Invariance Makes Consciousness Fundamental but Meaningless Spectator of Its Own Drama. Act Nerv Super 61, 159–164 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-019-00062-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-019-00062-z