The notions of mind and consciousness, while frequently used as synonyms, carry distinct definitions in relation to human cognition and perceptions. The term ‘mind’ pertains to thoughts, cognitive functions, and recollections while consciousness represents an awareness of such mental processes. Noted theoretical particle physics professor, Stephen Barr, opposes the notion of accounting for mind or consciousness through physics.
The majority of scientists have faith in “physicalism”, or “scientific materialism”, a concept suggesting that all elements of reality, including the human mind, are essentially composed of matter, its interactions, and can be elucidated through physics. However, Barr postulates that consciousness may be an entity as pivotal as matter, but cannot be diminished to matter.
Physics serves as the bedrock among sciences, uncovering laws that dictate the actions of the physical universe, incessantly facilitating a harmonised understanding of physical occurrences. Consequently, laws established by Newton in the 17th century are “universal” since they are applicable to matter throughout the cosmos and “deterministic” as they predict the unfolding of events. Subsequent laws of physics discovered the ensuing two centuries also endorse determinism, thereby consolidating the belief that physical consequences can be entirely attributed to antecedent physical causes – this idea is known as the “causal closure” of the physical world.
Yet several scientists remained steadfast in their belief that life and mind are anomalies demonstrating non-physical principles and energies. However, advancements in the 19th and 20th century demonstrated that the cellular chemistry of living beings adheres to the same chemical principles which govern the inanimate world.
Implying the principle of physical closure suggests that our thoughts are also physical creations as they influence our actions, and consequently affect the physical universe. Hence, the perception that minds are simply physical contraptions, and thoughts are mere electrical signals, has become firmly embedded.
The proposition of Physicalism provides a simple model of understanding the entirety of reality, thereby appeasing man’s quest for simplicity in comprehending the world. Our consistent ambition for a unified comprehension has been notably demonstrated in the field of physics. Historical figures such as Newton showcased this through his laws which applied both terrestrially and astronomically. Similarly, James Clerk Maxwell in the 1880s discovered that electricity, magnetism and optics were merely constituents of a larger force named “electromagnetism”. Through Einstein’s discoveries in 1905 and 1915, he offered the revelation that mass and energy were equivalent, and that time and space constituted a four-dimensional entity. In present times, physicists are employed in the development of a comprehensive theory to make sense of all of reality, inclusive of the mind.
The connection between consciousness or the mind and the brain is deep-seated, prompting the idea that specific configurations of matter can incite consciousness. However, is this a type of causality that physics can fully explain? Barr provides compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. For instance, science has the capability to measure dopamine levels in the brain, identifying a correlation between lowered levels of dopamine and feelings of boredom. Yet, these emotions can’t be quantified using the mathematics of physics. Renowned scientists including Erwin Schrödinger (1887-961) were of the opinion that the nature of consciousness could never be fully explained by physics alone.
Barr further quoted the cosmologist Andrei Linde, suggesting that expecting physicalism to explain the nature of the mind might be pushing its boundaries, as it overlooks the fundamental importance of perception. Our awareness and understanding of the world commences with perception, as opposed to mere matter. Subsequently, we discover that our perceptions adhere to laws that are predicated on the assumption of some underlying reality transcending our sensory experiences. This blueprint of the material world, operational according to physical laws, is so incredibly successful that we neglect our initial point of departure – perception, and ultimately declare matter to be the only substantial reality. This demotion of perception to being merely an instrument for describing matter could potentially be an erroneous assumption. Despite the fact that both matter and consciousness are elements of the natural world, consciousness might not necessarily be a derivative of matter.
However, in the event of matter and consciousness both being elements of the material world, wouldn’t there be a plausible shared explanation of the two? Although this is a reasonable possibility, a unified explanation of two distinct entities doesn’t require the reduction of one to the other. For instance, the widely accepted theory of electromagnetism provides a unified explanation of electromagnetic fields and electrically charged particles, representing each as discrete and fundamental entities. It doesn’t necessitate the reduction of one to the other, or dictate that one is made up of the other.
As a final point, ongoing research into near-death experiences (NDE), as discussed in my previous piece, may considerably substantiate the existence of non-physical human cognition. Some NDEs detail how individuals observe their body from a higher viewpoint, often in a hospital surgery room. Such instances are currently under meticulous investigation in controlled experiments.
The author, William Reville, is a retired professor of biochemistry from UCC.