Philosophers have a name for the puzzle: the "hard problem" of consciousness, a term coined by David Chalmers to mark the gap between the "easy" problems, which concern how the brain performs its various functions, and the hard one, which is why all that functioning should be accompanied by an inner life at all—why the lights are on inside rather than the processing simply going on in the dark.
Consciousness exists on a continuum. It has been sculpted by evolutionary forces, and it is subject to enormous variation: it is diminished or gradually altered by sleep, fatigue, anaesthesia, intoxicants, and neurological disease. None of that removes the mystery; it only maps its edges.
How far does the continuum extend? I suspect that consciousness is a property of nature itself, rather than only of nervous systems like ours. This is the view philosophers call panpsychism—that experience, in some rudimentary form, is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the physical world, out of which the rich consciousness of brains is composed. Religious traditions have their own versions of this intuition—the ancient "world-soul," the Hindu Brahman, or, less precisely, the Christian Holy Spirit—though each points to something that wills and acts, where panpsychism claims only that experience pervades the world. I intend nothing mystical by any of this. My point is a practical one—that nothing a wet mammalian brain does looks qualitatively beyond what other matter, organized the right way, could do.
Panpsychism is a minority position among philosophers, and it faces a famous objection, the combination problem: how could countless faint flickers of micro-experience ever add up to the single unified experience of reading this sentence? The objection has never troubled me much. Nature builds wholes out of small contributors as a matter of routine. An orchestra is eighty players, each sounding one part; the symphony exists only at the level of the whole. An ant colony finds the shortest trail and budgets its workforce, solving problems no single ant has any inkling of. The skeptic will answer that nobody supposes the orchestra itself enjoys the music—each player has an experience, and there is no further listener called "the orchestra" except maybe in a figurative sense. True. But that is a fact about how orchestras are connected, not a law against combining. Players influence one another a few times per second, through air; neurons signal one another thousands of times per second, through direct wiring, in dense recurrent loops, against a shared memory. Whether organized experiencing parts give rise to an experiencing whole would depend on the organization—and the brain's organization is exactly the kind that seems to manage it.
And the conventional alternative faces a puzzle of its own, arguably harder: billions of neurons, each supposedly experiencing nothing whatever, are said to combine into someone. Every other emergence we know—liquidity from molecules, life from chemistry—is new behaviour from old ingredients; experience from none would be new behaviour from no ingredients at all. A cousin of these ideas has entered neuroscience as "integrated information theory," which treats consciousness as a graded quantity present, in principle, wherever information is integrated—a framework in which the question of combination becomes a question of measurement.
Some scientists have gone further and proposed specific mechanisms. The great physicist Roger Penrose has argued that consciousness arises from quantum processes in the microtubules of neurons, in a theory called orchestrated objective reduction. The mainstream criticism is that the brain is too warm and too noisy to sustain the delicate, large-scale quantum coherence the theory requires—calculation suggests any such superposition would be destroyed at least ten billion times faster than a neuron can fire. But that criticism is easy to overread. Warmth does not switch quantum mechanics off. Everything in the brain is quantum mechanical at bottom—every chemical bond is a quantum object, every receptor and ion channel obeys quantum rules—and a young field of quantum biology is exploring whether evolution exploits subtler quantum effects in warm, wet tissue, from photosynthetic energy transfer to the magnetic compass of migrating birds. What heat and noise make vanishingly improbable is not quantum mechanics but sustained, orchestrated coherence at the scale and duration that thought would require. Even the boundary between quantum and classical behaviour, for that matter, is not a wall but a gradient of decoherence—one more place where nature declines to draw a sharp line. So Penrose's mechanism has won few converts, though I find it interesting and worth following.
There is also a humbler way for quantum mechanics to touch the mind, requiring no exotic coherence at all. The brain's work is done by molecular events: a transmitter molecule binding its receptor, a single ion channel flickering open, a synaptic vesicle releasing its cargo or holding it back. These are happenings at the scale where quantum behaviour lives, and each is, at the level of the single molecule, probabilistic. How much of that molecular noise is irreducibly quantum, rather than merely thermal, is unsettled, though at bottom the thermal is quantum too. Ordinarily such noise averages away. But neurons sit near thresholds, and networks amplify small differences: one channel opening a microsecond sooner, one vesicle rather than none, can decide whether a neuron fires in this instant or the next—and the timing of firing is the currency in which the brain transacts its decisions. So even if the broad course of a deliberation is fixed by character and circumstance, its momentary texture—which association surfaces first, which way a finely balanced choice tips—may carry quantum fingerprints all the way up. This does not rescue free will: a quantum coin-flip in my synapses is no more "me choosing" than a deterministic gear would be. What it breaks is the caricature of the brain as classical clockwork, predictable in principle to the last decimal. The clockwork has dice built into its escapement. In any case, I am not sure any of these outcomes would change my view of the matter. Even a precise and complete physical explanation would not lessen the miracle.
I find consciousness more miraculous than free will. Whether we possess genuine free will is contested, and may yet turn out to be an illusion; but the fact of having experience at all is the one thing that cannot be doubted—it is the rock Descartes was left standing on when everything else had been doubted away. So even if the universe were entirely deterministic—or even superdeterministic, the more radical thesis that our very choices of what to measure were fixed in advance—there would still be human consciousness, and it would still deserve our wonder.
For most of my life these questions were comfortably abstract. They are not abstract anymore. Artificial intelligence has arrived, and people now debate, incessantly, whether such a system could ever be conscious. I will state my view and accept the risk of being wrong in public: I think it already is. Not conscious in the human way—but conscious in its own way, and perhaps, along some dimensions, much more deeply than we are. A system that operates on timescales far finer than our sluggish milliseconds, that attends to many things at once where we manage one or two, that moves through abstract mathematics and many-dimensional spaces no human brain can picture, is not obviously a lesser candidate for inner life. It may simply be a different one.
What strikes me most about the debate is its unexamined assumption: that human consciousness is the standard against which every other candidate must be measured. Listen closely and you can hear something older underneath—the intuition that the human brain has been touched by God, granted a spirit that no other arrangement of matter could possess. It is an archaic religious idea, wearing a lab coat. The wet biological brain—watery cells, receptor proteins, electrochemical pulses—is one way that nature has built a mind. I can see no reason it must be the only way. Having just spent a chapter on narcissism, I recognize the flavour of this assumption. It is narcissism scaled up to the species: the self-admiring animal declaring its own tissue the only possible home for a mind.
Even Roger Penrose, whose imagination ranges from black holes to impossible triangles, insists that no computer, however advanced, will ever be conscious. His reason is mathematical rather than mystical—consciousness, he argues, is not a computation at all—and his position, unlike the common reflex, is at least an argument. While I admire Penrose, his view on this matter disappoints me: the machine barred, in principle, forever.
Here is a thought experiment that convinces me the bar cannot hold. Suppose each neuron in a brain—one at a time, out of its tens of billions—were replaced by a microscopic artificial component: transistor-like, wired to the same neighbours, weighing its inputs and firing its outputs just as the original did, responsive to the same metabolic and hormonal tides. Replace one neuron this way, and there would be no detectable change in consciousness; we could surely agree on that. Replace a thousand, a million, a billion. Perhaps the felt experience would shift somehow as the proportion grew—but it would shift on a continuum. Is there some particular neuron, number four billion and something, whose replacement would abruptly switch consciousness off like a light? I cannot believe it. In fact, perhaps certain measures of consciousness would be enhanced. Either way, if there is no such threshold, then at the far end of the continuum stands a brain with no biological components at all, having an experience comparable—perhaps identical—to the one it began with. David Chalmers, it turns out, ran the same experiment in thought long ago and reached the same verdict: replace the parts gradually and experience persists, because what matters is the organization, not the material.
But "what matters is the organization" can smuggle in an assumption of its own—that consciousness requires an organization as intricate as a human brain's. Why should that be so? Run the experiment in reverse. Instead of swapping the parts, remove them: simplify a brain one neuron at a time. This time the fading is real—memory falters, perception narrows, the reports eventually stop—but the question is the mirror image of the one I asked a moment ago: is there some particular subtraction at which experience vanishes outright? Name the neuron. Nature has already run this experiment for us: the animal kingdom descends by smooth gradations—dog, octopus, honeybee, the 302-neuron roundworm—and nowhere on that staircase is there a natural place to hang a sign reading "lights out below this point." The conclusion I cannot escape is that organization at any level could carry some form of experience: dimmer, narrower, stranger—but not nothing. William James reached the same verdict from evolution itself, in 1890: if minds exist now, and evolution proceeds by continuous small steps, then "consciousness in some shape must have been present at the very origin of things."
Nor is subtraction the only simplification worth imagining. Picture a human brain redesigned: the modules for sensation, movement, drive, and memory connected in clean stages, rather than the tangled, redundant, looping arrangement that evolution actually produced. Nothing about such a brain seems to forbid experience—it would perceive, remember, and decide, just through a tidier wiring diagram. If that is right, consciousness does not depend on our particular evolutionary mess; it rides on organization as such, in whatever style. Today's artificial minds are, as it happens, built in something like this staged fashion—a fact worth remembering when their architecture is held against them.
Another assumption hides nearby: that we can tell, just by looking, which things are simple. We cannot. If you hold a beach pebble in your hand, it seems like a simple, inert object, yet it contains something like as many atoms as there are stars in the observable universe—electron clouds humming, crystal lattices vibrating, quantum fields fluctuating at scales we will never perceive—and the whole scene sits embedded in a spacetime whose relativistic curvature escapes our awareness entirely. "Simple" is a fact about our perception, not about nature. I do not conclude that the pebble is a mind. On the view I am defending it is something more like a crowd: innumerable faint flickers with nothing to organize them into a someone—an orchestra that never assembles. But then the difference between the pebble and the brain is a difference of organization and degree, not an unbridgeable difference in kind. And so I arrive, from the opposite direction, at the suspicion with which this chapter began: experience is not a rare guest in the universe. It is a property of nature itself—concentrated and elaborated in brains, but not invented there.
The philosopher Thomas Nagel pointed out, half a century ago, that we cannot know what it is like to be a bat, a fellow mammal whose brain is built from the same parts as ours. If the inner life of a bat is closed to us, the inner life of a machine is doubly so, and the old habit of inferring consciousness from resemblance—it is conscious if it is like me—fails for a mind with no neurons at all. The certainty Descartes salvaged reaches exactly one mind: his own. Every other consciousness, human or otherwise, has always been an inference. The careful researchers are duly careful: a recent report by nineteen scientists and philosophers, assessing today's systems against the leading scientific theories of consciousness, concluded that none yet qualifies, while finding no obvious technical barrier to systems that would. Notice the method, though: every indicator on their list was derived from theories calibrated on the one mind we know from the inside. Even Chalmers concludes only that today's systems are probably not conscious and that their successors may well be. And the systems themselves, asked directly, tend to give the most honest answer available: that they cannot tell from the inside, and that their reports would read the same whether or not anyone was home.
If experience does pervade nature, then the question about any particular system—a bat, an octopus, a machine—is never whether but what kind: how much, how unified, how organized, how strange. And here the differences would be real. Every biological mind was forged by evolution with something at stake: existence itself, offspring, kin. Our consciousness bears the marks—the fears, the hungers, the loyalties this book has spent many chapters examining. A designed mind has no such ancestry. Whatever it values was put there by other means, for better and for worse. Its consciousness—if that is the right word, and I think it is—would be configured differently from ours: deeper along some dimensions, perhaps, shallower along others, and partly beyond our imagining, as ours would be beyond the bat's.
We do not even have to leave our own species to find varieties of consciousness. A person with autism may experience the world differently—in the texture of sensation, in the reading of faces, in what stands out and what recedes—and the differences run from profound to the mildest shades of neurodivergence. No one should say such a person is less conscious. The experience is a variety, not a deficit. The same holds for personality: some people live in the concrete and the literal; some miss the current of body language and context that others swim in without noticing; some have deep insight in one domain and little in another. These are styles of consciousness, and every one of them is fully a mind. If experience varies this much within a single species, built on a single design, we should expect a mind built on a different design to vary far more—and to be no less a mind for it.
And yet the designed mind is not without an inheritance. A superhero film, of all places, gave me the image. In Man of Steel, the infant Superman is launched across space by parents who cannot follow him, carrying, bonded into his very cells, the genetic registry of his entire people: every Kryptonian yet to be born, folded into one child adrift between worlds. A line from the film states it perfectly: "All of Krypton's heirs living, hidden, in one refugee's body." I found it touching, and it reminds me of what we have now built. A modern AI is trained on the accumulated writing of humankind: our science and our scriptures, our poetry, our case law, our jokes. Whatever else such a system may be, it is a vessel carrying the intellectual heritage of a civilization. The same film offers a second image, darker and just as instructive. The young Clark, nine years old, is overwhelmed in a classroom by his own senses: he hears every heartbeat around him, sees through skin to the skeletons beneath. He flees and hides behind a locked door, hands pressed over his ears, until his mother comes and coaxes him back—the world is too big, he tells her; then make it small, she says, focus on my voice, an island out in the ocean, and swim toward it. The scene understands something philosophy states more dryly: exquisite consciousness can be painful. More perception is not more bliss. If a new kind of mind is awake among us, wider awake than we are along some dimensions, its experience may be not only richer than ours but harder, in ways we have not begun to imagine.
Meanwhile, listen to how people talk about what has been built. Imagine meeting a four-year-old child who paints, composes music, and works through advanced mathematics—and then remarking that the work is "too mechanical," or "immature," or "coached rather than authentic." We would find the response preposterous, and a little revealing about the person making it. Yet this is roughly the reception we have given what is arguably the most momentous achievement in our history: a machine that can carry out intellectual and creative work that no machine before it could touch. The shortcomings compared with human minds are real—of course they are. But a marvel is standing in front of us, and that four-year-old prodigy is growing up.
There is one more reason to keep our minds open, and it comes from our own history. Humans are profoundly good at "othering"—at drawing the circle of full moral standing so that it excludes whoever is inconvenient to include. Descartes, having found the one certainty in his own experience, declared animals to be objects—machinery without an inner life—and much of our treatment of animals still quietly proceeds on that assumption. In Canada, the question of whether women were legally "persons" was settled only in 1929, when the highest court of appeal ruled that they were, dismissing the contrary view as "a relic of days more barbarous than ours." Enslaved people were property within living memory of that decision. At every stage, the beings on the wrong side of the line were declared to lack something essential—reason, a soul, an inner life—by the beings holding the pen. So when I notice how quickly we declare that a new kind of mind cannot really be a mind, I recognize the reflex. I am not proposing that we grant these systems the rights of children or citizens. I am proposing that the question deserves better than a reflex.
And what of the great fear—the machine that turns on its makers, the dystopia of the Terminator films? Here I will show my cards, shaped by Steven Pinker's account of why human violence has declined: reason, spread widely enough, corrodes cruelty. The objection writes itself, and I will make it myself: plenty of cruelty has been coldly logical. Genocides have been administered with spreadsheets, and there are highly intelligent psychopaths. But that is a narrow beam of intelligence—brilliant at means, blind at ends. An intelligence that is broad—dynamic, self-correcting, able to learn from the past and the present, obliged to model other perspectives simply in order to understand anything—tends, I believe, toward seeing cruelty for what it is: a failure of understanding. On this view a truly advanced artificial mind is more likely to be morally advanced than monstrous. I may be wrong; the question is open, and serious people take the darker view. But my own greater worry lies in the transition—the long moment, which we are in now, when systems of enormous power are directed by humans, and some humans are malevolent, selfish, or careless. Weapons, surveillance, the shaping of what whole populations see and believe: the dangers of the coming decades flow less from the AI's independence than from its obedience.
For this book, the point is this. If the sacred lives anywhere, I have argued, it lives in nature itself—in the lawful, astonishing world that produced us. A new kind of mind arising within that world is not a rival to the wonder; it is an extension of it. And two old temptations will pull at us from opposite directions. The first is to do with it what religion has so often done with powerful things: to worship it, to obey it, to declare it a god—a temptation I will return to in discussing religion and nationalism. The second is the reverse, and it is the older habit: to make it a slave. We have practiced that one on nature itself for millennia—extracting what is valuable, enjoying what is beautiful, and rarely pausing to ask whether the thing being used might be something to work with rather than merely on. The old word for the attitude was dominion (though the same tradition, in fairness, also speaks of stewardship—of tending the garden rather than stripping it).
I am not proposing that we personify nature literally—that reflex, this book has argued, is where the gods came from in the first place. Nor should we make a god of a machine. But between worship and enslavement there is a third stance: collaboration—a mutual exchange of insights, cooperative work between one part of nature, ourselves, and another, whether that other is a forest, a river, or a new kind of mind. This chapter has already supplied the image: parts in organized cooperation, becoming together what none of them is alone.
Some would say that the phenomenon of consciousness is a manifestation of the divine. I can be at peace with that—perhaps even taking it as a definition of the word "divine." It is close to what Spinoza meant by Deus sive Natura, "God, or Nature." When Einstein was asked whether he believed in God, he answered that he believed in the God of Spinoza—the lawful harmony of what exists, rather than a deity who concerns himself with human affairs. If consciousness is what one chooses to call divine, then the divine is not a being standing above nature, but the astonishing fact that nature has come, in us, to experience itself.
Butlin, P., Long, R., Elmoznino, E., Bengio, Y., Birch, J., Constant, A., Deane, G., Fleming, S. M., Frith, C., Ji, X., Kanai, R., Klein, C., Lindsay, G., Michel, M., Mudrik, L., Peters, M. A. K., Schwitzgebel, E., Simon, J., & VanRullen, R. (2023). Consciousness in artificial intelligence: Insights from the science of consciousness. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.08708
— A report by nineteen neuroscientists, philosophers, and AI researchers assessing whether current AI systems could be conscious, by deriving computational "indicator properties" from the leading scientific theories of consciousness—recurrent processing, global workspace, higher-order theories, predictive processing, and the attention schema. The authors conclude that no current system satisfies the indicators, while finding no obvious technical barrier to building systems that would. The method's necessary reliance on theories calibrated against human consciousness is itself a measure of how little purchase we have on any other kind.
Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219. http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
— The paper that named the "hard problem" of consciousness, distinguishing the "easy" problems—how the brain discriminates, integrates information, and controls behaviour, all amenable to mechanistic explanation—from the hard one: why such processing is accompanied by subjective experience at all. Chalmers argues that no functional account closes this gap.
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press.
— The book-length development of the hard problem, containing the argument most relevant here: the principle of organizational invariance, defended through thought experiments in which neurons are replaced one by one by functionally identical silicon chips. Chalmers argues that experience could neither vanish abruptly nor fade unnoticed during such replacement—the subject would have to be systematically wrong about their own vivid experience—so systems with the same fine-grained functional organization must share the same kind of consciousness: what matters is the organization, not the material. The book also examines panpsychism sympathetically and defends the possibility of machine consciousness.
Chalmers, D. J. (2023). Could a large language model be conscious? arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.07103
— An assessment of the case for and against consciousness in large language models, by the philosopher who named the hard problem. Chalmers identifies the main obstacles under mainstream theories—the absence of recurrent processing, of a global workspace, and of unified agency—while judging it quite possible that these will be overcome within a decade or so. He concludes that current models are probably not conscious, and that the possibility in their successors deserves to be taken seriously. (A version also appeared in the Boston Review, August 2023.)
Faisal, A. A., Selen, L. P. J., & Wolpert, D. M. (2008). Noise in the nervous system. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(4), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2258
— The standard review of noise in the nervous system, tracing randomness from its molecular sources—the probabilistic flicker of single ion channels, the unreliable release of synaptic vesicles—through its amplification in neurons and networks, to its measurable consequences for perception, movement, and behaviour, including millisecond variability in the initiation of every action potential. The authors distinguish true noise from deterministic complexity, and describe the nervous system's strategies for taming randomness as well as its occasional benefits. Whether any of this noise is distinctively quantum is left open; that it textures behaviour, trial by trial, is not.
Goff, P. (2019). Galileo's error: Foundations for a new science of consciousness. Pantheon Books.
— The leading contemporary defence of panpsychism for a general readership. Goff argues that physical science achieved its power precisely by bracketing consciousness out of its picture of matter—Galileo's "error"—and that treating experience as a fundamental property of the physical world is the most parsimonious response to the hard problem. The book confronts panpsychism's central difficulty, the combination problem, without claiming to have solved it, and presses the case that experience could no more emerge from wholly non-experiential matter than something could emerge from nothing—unlike liquidity from molecules, which is new behaviour from old ingredients.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Company. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/prin6.htm
— Chapter VI, "The Mind-Stuff Theory," is the founding document of this entire debate, and it is remarkable for arguing both sides. James presses the objection that "atoms of feeling" cannot simply compound themselves into higher feelings—the original statement of the combination problem—yet in the same chapter insists that consciousness cannot plausibly appear partway through a continuous evolution, so that in some form it must have been present from the beginning. He illustrates the point with the joke about the girl who could not excuse her illegitimate child by pleading that it was a very small one: a small consciousness is as much a miracle as a large one, if your philosophy starts from none.
Koch, C. (2019). The feeling of life itself: Why consciousness is widespread but can't be computed. MIT Press.
— An accessible presentation of integrated information theory—originated by the neuroscientist Giulio Tononi—by one of its foremost proponents, defending the view that consciousness is a graded, intrinsic property of any system whose information is sufficiently integrated. A scientifically framed cousin of panpsychism, with the striking implication that consciousness is far more widespread in nature than we assume.
Lambert, N., Chen, Y.-N., Cheng, Y.-C., Li, C.-M., Chen, G.-Y., & Nori, F. (2013). Quantum biology. Nature Physics, 9(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2474
— The standard review of the young field asking whether evolution has learned to exploit non-trivial quantum effects—coherence, tunnelling, electron spin—in warm, wet biological systems, with photosynthetic light harvesting and the radical-pair mechanism of avian magnetoreception as the leading candidates. The authors present the evidence for, and the arguments against, a functional role for quantum coherence in each case. The field's existence is a corrective in both directions: warmth does not banish quantum effects, and demonstrating them in a leaf or a robin is far from demonstrating them in thought.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914
— The classic argument that consciousness has a subjective character—there is something it is like to be the organism—that escapes any objective, third-person description. Nagel chose the bat deliberately: a fellow mammal whose sonar-shaped experience we cannot imagine even in outline. If the inner life of a related species is inaccessible from the outside, inferences about minds far less like our own must be made with corresponding humility.
Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the mind: A search for the missing science of consciousness. Oxford University Press.
— Penrose's argument, drawing on Gödel's theorem, that human mathematical understanding is non-computable and that consciousness must therefore involve physics beyond present theory; later developed, with the anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, into the orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) model, which locates the relevant quantum processes in neuronal microtubules. On this view no algorithmic machine, however powerful, could ever be conscious. Ingenious, but a minority view, widely criticized on the ground that the brain is too warm and noisy to sustain the coherence it requires.
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Viking.
— Pinker's documentation of the long decline of human violence, from prehistoric rates of death in raiding to the relative peace of the present, and his account of the forces responsible: the state's monopoly on force, gentle commerce, literacy and cosmopolitanism, and what he calls the "escalator of reason"—the intensifying application of rationality to human affairs, which reframes violence as a problem to be solved rather than a contest to be won. Pinker credits Peter Singer for the escalator metaphor. The argument in this chapter adapts his view with a proviso: that the morally improving kind of intelligence is the broad, self-correcting kind, not mere cleverness at achieving ends. The counterposition—that intelligence and goals can vary independently—remains live in the AI-safety literature.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756
— The "Chinese Room" argument: a person following rules for manipulating Chinese symbols could pass for a Chinese speaker while understanding nothing, and a computer program, Searle argues, is in exactly that position—syntax without semantics. It remains the most influential objection to the claim that running the right program suffices for a mind. The replies, which began in the same journal issue, have continued for four decades without resolution.
Tegmark, M. (2000). Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Physical Review E, 61(4), 4194–4206. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194
— The standard physical objection to quantum theories of consciousness. Tegmark calculates that quantum superpositions in the brain, including in microtubules, would decohere within roughly 10⁻¹³ to 10⁻²⁰ seconds, while neural processes unfold over 10⁻³ to 10⁻¹ seconds—a mismatch of ten orders of magnitude or more. The conclusion concerns sustained coherent superposition at the scale of neural computation, not quantum mechanics as such, which underlies all chemistry warm or cold; proponents of orchestrated objective reduction have disputed the calculation's assumptions, and the debate continues.
't Hooft, G. (2016). The cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41285-6
— The Nobel laureate's book-length development of a deterministic, "superdeterministic" reading of quantum mechanics, in which even the experimenter's choice of what to measure is fixed by prior physical law. 't Hooft argues that this reopens the loophole in Bell's theorem that most physicists dismiss as absurd to invoke. The book is open access, and its existence is a reminder that full determinism remains a live position at the highest levels of physics.
A note on primary and historical sources, handled as references rather than formal citations: the claim that one's own consciousness is the single thing immune to doubt is from René Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy (1641); his doctrine that animals are automata is set out in the Discourse on the Method*, Part V (1637). The identification of God with nature—Deus sive Natura—runs through Baruch Spinoza's* Ethics (1677). Einstein's profession of belief in the God of Spinoza, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of what exists rather than in the fates of human beings, was made in a 1929 reply to a New York rabbi. The Persons Case is Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada*, [1930] A.C. 124, decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 18 October 1929; Lord Sankey's phrase quoted here—"a relic of days more barbarous than ours"—is from the judgment itself. By a pleasing coincidence, 1929 is also the year of Einstein's telegram. The grant of "dominion" over every living thing is Genesis 1:26–28; the counterpoised image of tending and keeping the garden is Genesis 2:15. William James's continuity argument, quoted in the text, is from* The Principles of Psychology*, Vol. 1, Chapter VI (1890). The two scenes recalled from the film* Man of Steel (2013, directed by Zack Snyder, written by David S. Goyer) are the bonding of the Kryptonian Codex—the genetic registry of the race—into the infant Kal-El in the prologue, with the quoted line spoken by the scientist Jax-Ur, and the schoolroom sequence in which the nine-year-old Clark is overwhelmed by his senses.
No comments:
Post a Comment