In 1805, Swiss engineer Henri Maillardet built
an automaton that could draw 4 pictures and
write three poems. This automaton can be seen
at a museum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
But this wasn’t the first. Automatons had
been around for centuries.
These were not much more than fancy
humanoid mechanical clocks, consisting of
springs, gears, and levers.
Today we have the modern versions of these
automatons, such as self-driving cars, robots,
drones, and other machines with sophisticated
electronics that allow them to see with their
sensors, and react to their environment. Some
can even make decisions based on machine learning
and other adaptive programs. Are these
conscious machines?
There is a reductionist claim that we humans
are not that far removed from these machines.
That we are sophisticated version of self
driving, decision making cars. They claim
that everything about us reduces ultimately
to physics, that we are mere results of an
underlying, unchanging set of physical laws
and rules that determine our behavior. And
any perceived consciousness, is just as much a
result of the underlying physics, as automatons
are a result of the movement of gears and
levers.
Ultimately, the free will that we believe
we have, may not really exist because at the
core, we are bound by the mathematical underpinnings
of reality. That the entire universe is a
sophisticated kind of clock ruled by the laws
of physics, and we as part of that mechanism,
are subject to the same set of laws that govern
all the processes, including the ones taking
place in our brain, that results in consciousness.
And these could delude us to think that we
have any semblance of control over our inevitable
destiny. Are we just sophisticated automatons?
You might say, well what about quantum mechanics?
Isn’t it inherently not deterministic?...that
behavior at the quantum level can never be
predicted, that we can only know the probability
of certain outcomes, but never be able to
predict it in advance unless a measurement
is made? And doesn’t this unpredictability
of natural laws give us at least some degree
of free will?
Well, that is a great question, that certain
scientists, most notably Sir Roger Penrose
tried to tackle. Is there a quantum physics
connection to consciousness that ensures that
we have free will? Can we know the truth?
We may be able to come close by looking at
the evidence on both sides of the argument…That’s
coming up right now!
Before we dive into quantum consciousness,
I’d like to thank Magellan TV, today’s
sponsor for making this episode possible.
I was inspired after watching a fascinating
documentary called Mind and Consciousness.
It’s talks about the ideas
in consciousness and how that leads to debates about science and religion.
Magellan TV is a new type of streaming documentary
service that was founded by filmmakers and
producers who bring you premium documentary
content. I think you’re going to be impressed.
Featured subject include history, nature,
culture and science. You can watch it on any
of your devices at any time with no interruptions,
and in 4K.
I’m delighted that Magellan has a special
offer for Arvin Ash viewers right now. If you use the
link in the description, you will get a free
one-month trial. I highly recommend Magellan
TV, but be sure to use the link in the description.
Roughly speaking, Reductionism is the idea
that any complex system is the sum of its
simpler more fundamental individual parts.
For example, a reductive approach by a materialist
would be that the complexity of your consciousness
is the sum of all the chemical and electrical
interactions that occur in your brain. Matter
and energy, and the laws of physics that determine
how they interact is all there is. Physics
is fundamentally at the core of any perceived
complexity. There is nothing else.
Opposition to this claim hinges on the subjective
and objective observation that life and specifically
consciousness is somehow different. For example,
if a human being was nothing more than matter
and energy, then what would be the difference
between a person who is alive, and the same
person immediately after his death. All the
matter and energy of the person would not
have changed. Yet something is different.
What is that difference?
There seems to be one main difference – and that is consciousness.
In 1641, Rene Descartes proposed the idea of
a malicious demon or evil genius. He asked
what if a demon with “utmost power and cunning
has employed all his energies in order to
deceive me…” Descartes says that such a
demon could take over his mind to create a
dream or delusion about the reality that he
lives in, that nothing may actually exist.
He asks, "what if I don’t really have eyes
or flesh or any other senses, but believe
that I do."
Not only our physical reality, but any decisions
or free-will we may perceive to have, could
also be part of this elaborate hoax. The movie,
"The Matrix" explores this idea in a science
fiction context.
Would there be any way for us to know the
truth? Descartes said, there is one thing that
even the evil demon could not delude me of,
and this is my sense of my existence. Because
if I don't really exist, the demon
would have to create the illusion of existence.
But in order to create this thought, he would
need a thinker. He famously said, “I think,
therefore I am.” I can only be fooled if
my mind exists, everything else can be a delusion.
And if my mind cannot be fooled about my existence,
but every other part of my body can, then
according to Descartes, my mind must be separate
from my body. And this idea of mind-body dualism,
is sometimes used to justify free will, because
if the mind is separate from the body, then
it is non-physical and not subject to the
laws of physics. The choices if made by this
non-physical mind are then entirely my own.
And that’s what free will is.
Now, I am using free will and consciousness interchangeably here. And philosophy purists may ding me for
it. But the reason is because free will is
the one aspect of our consciousness that we
are trying to get at the root of here. The
idea of choice. It seems to me consciousness
without choice is not far removed from the
automatons. But free will is what makes
our consciousness and our mind unique. So
any science that shows how free will arises
is important to understand.
There appears to be 3 choices for how consciousness
could arise. One is the idea of Descartes
dualism, where it is not controlled by physical
laws, but is perhaps eternal and always
been present in the universe. Many religious
and spiritual approaches are similar to this
viewpoint. Free will is explained in this
view. But this would by definition be supernatural
since it is not subject to physical laws.
The second is the materialistic point of view
that consciousness is not independent of conventional
physics, but is a direct consequence of it.
It is nothing more than the emergent property
of complex neurological interconnections,
and results from the chemical and electrical
activity within the brain. There is nothing
beyond this. But this view also poses the
difficulty explaining free will.
There is a third possibility, and that is
that consciousness results from discrete and
unique physical processes that are not yet
fully understood. This is not the dualism
of Descartes that invokes the supernatural,
but essentially says that consciousness is
so unique that it cannot be fully described
by the processes we currently understand,
but is ultimately scientifically explainable.
We just have to discover what that science
is.
Enter Roger Penrose who embraced this third
idea. He partnered up with anesthesiologist
Stuart Hameroff to show that there are aspects
of brain functioning that are non-determinable
based on the laws of quantum mechanics. There
are fine structures in the brain called microtubules,
made of proteins called tubulin, that facilitate
the delivery of neurotransmitters in the neurons
of brain cells.
Penrose and Hameroff show that the tubulin
can switch between two states of phosphorylation
and hypothesize that it can also exist in
a superposition of these two states. If this
is true then each tubulin molecule could
act as a quantum bit, a qubit. And these microtubules
could be computing devices responsible for
memory. Consciousness is the result of the
collapse of the superposed states of this
tubulin, they argue. And since this quantum
collapse is not predictable, this quantum
mechanical effect in the brain could be the
root of conscious free will.
Roger Penrose is one the greatest living physicists
around, so this theory cannot be dismissed.
But, his stature has not prevented some scathing
reviews of this idea, most notably from MIT
physicist Max Tegmark who did a detailed analysis
and concluded that the brain is too wet and
warm for delicate quantum effects.
What does this mean? Superposition of quantum
states is notoriously difficult to maintain.
It requires isolation such that the system
does not interact with other atoms or any
other classical materials such as the various
fluids and structures in the brain, because,
in the language of quantum mechanics, the
quantum system would become entangled with
its environment, and decohere so that it would
no longer be in superposition. Think of this
as the wave function collapse in the Copenhagen
interpretation.
Max Tegmark showed mathematically that any
superposed state in microtubules would decohere
within 10^-13 seconds. This is 10 orders of
magnitude faster than the time it takes for
any known brain process to occur. So such
fast quantum mechanical effects influencing
brain functioning is hard to imagine.
Hameroff and Penrose have revised their theories
over the years based on some of the criticisms,
but the theory remains highly controversial,
and is generally not embraced by most physicists.
You should note that the theory has a name.
It is called Orchestrated objective reduction,
or the Orch OR theory.
Matthew Fisher, physicist at Univ of California,
Santa Barbara also showed mathematically that
the temperatures needed to maintain superposition
based on the frequency of neuronal firing
is about 10^-7 kelvin, using the formula here,
which is of course much higher than body temperature
of about 310 kelvin or 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
So the brain appears to be both too wet and
too warm for quantum processing just as Max Tegmark
said.
Professor Fisher, however, did find a loophole. He proposed another theory where quantum superposition
could perhaps be maintained, and that is in
the nucleus of atoms. Some atoms have what
is called a nuclear spin. These are like little
magnets with poles pointing in one direction.
And certain chemical reactions can produce
spin correlated nuclei, where the spin of
one nucleus is dependent on another. Since
nuclei tend to be more isolated being in the
center of atoms, the quantum correlation or
entanglement, can be maintained for longer
periods of time.
Fisher identified an atom in the brain which
would be an ideal candidate for nuclear spin correlation,
and that is phosphorus. He found in lab tests
that the decoherence time for phosphate ion
is about 1 second, which is ample enough time
for it to have an effect on brain processing.
Such ions are the basic unit of energy within
cells in molecules called ATP, which contain
a string of three phosphate groups.
The quantum behavior in the phosphorus nuclear
spins could be "protected" from decoherence,
Fisher says, if the phosphate ions are incorporated
into larger molecules called "Posner molecules."
There is some evidence that these objects
can exist in living cells, and may play a
role in neuronal functioning. And this is
how quantum mechanics could affect consciousness.
But this has not been proven.
The good thing about Fisher’s theory is
that it is testable. And he is doing this
by trying to synthesize a kind of quantum
brain. By making these ions fluorescent in
two test tubes, if he find that the fluorescence
is correlated, even when the two test tubes
are far apart, then that would be the smoking
gun that quantum entanglement is taking place.
There are other teams of researchers also
working on different quantum theories of consciousness.
But it should be noted that none of the theories
linking quantum mechanics to consciousness,
so far has been proven correct by any experimental
evidence.
Some physicists point out that quantum effects
are all around us in the macro world. In photosynthesis,
for example, quantum effects help plants turn
sunlight into fuel. Migratory birds have been
shown to have a “quantum compass” enabling
them to exploit Earth’s magnetic field
for navigation. Our sense of smell could be
rooted in quantum mechanics. I even made a
video about this olfactory phenomenon.
So, some say, it should not be out of the
question that quantum mechanics could affect
brain functioning as well.
Others say look even if we find evidence of
quantum mechanical affects in the brain, the
question still remains how exactly do those
quantum effects result in consciousness and
free will. Just because the collapse of superposed
states is non-determinable, the mechanism
linking that to free will is not straight
forward, and would need to be explained.
The main theoretical argument against the
quantum consciousness theories is the assertion
that quantum states in the brain would lose
coherency before they reached a scale where
they could be useful for neural processing.
Maintaining superposition is a known problem
that exists for example in the worldwide effort
to create a quantum computer. One way to prove
these quantum consciousness theories may be
to show that a sufficiently complex quantum
computer is capable of some consciousness.
Physicists opposed to the idea point out the
evidence from brain fMRI, or functional magnetic
resonance imaging scans that clearly show
for example how different parts of the brain
light up depending on the thoughts or feelings
that an individual may have, linking brain
activity directly to what they say is conscious
processing in the brain. This, they say is
experimental proof not only that consciousness
resides in the brain, but also that there
is no need for any quantum mechanical connection
to these macro scale brain activities.
If we find that brain functioning is purely
physical, we would still need to explain what
Australian cognitive scientist, David Chalmers
calls the "hard problem" of consciousness, the
subjective quality of the experience that
you have. The easy problem is figuring out
how your eye sees things, or how pain is transmitted.
The hard problem is explaining your subjective
feelings about things you might see, or the
pain you might feel from getting hurt. This
subjective conscious experience is sometimes
referred to as qualia.
What is it about the processing in the brain
that gives us the feelings that we feel, that
somehow seem different from simply mechanical
sensory processing?
What give rise to this qualia that we call
consciousness? Or is this, as materialists
point out, nothing more than a combination
of sensory inputs from all parts of your body,
processed by the brain, enhanced by memories
you have retained, and made special by the
unique combinations of firings of neurons
and chemistry in your brain.
Could it be that the combinations of inputs
and processing in our brains is so complex,
that we feel compelled to assign it a supernatural
or even spiritual meaning, when all it may
be is simply complex classical physical processes
of a verifiably beautiful, but
ultimately, mechanical automaton?
I’d like to thank my generous supporters
on Patreon and youtube. If you like my videos,
consider joining them.
If you have a question, leave it below because
I try to answer all of them. I will see you
in the next video my friend.
