The Qualia of “Now”: Key to a Fundamental Equation of
Consciousness?
John Sanfey
TSC. Skovde 2001
Introduction
The objectives
of this paper are to prove that a fundamental equation governing how matter and
mind are related is possible, and to establish the principles that determine
the shape of that equation.
Humphrey pointed out recently that a major obstacle in the
way of such an equation is that we have no idea how to equalise the dimensions
of either side[Humphrey 2000]. In other words, like must equal like, but matter
and subjective mind seem so entirely different that we don’t know how to begin
to equate them. However if it could be shown that every describable aspect of
the material world must always reflect the dimensions of subjective
consciousness, and if the manner of that reflection were quantifiable it would
then become possible to develop fundamental laws defining how mind and matter
were related. Here I argue that ‘now’ is that special feature of reality,
unique to consciousness but reflected nevertheless in every description of
every aspect of physical reality. In effect ‘now-ness’ is a property conserved
in the transformation from the experience to the description of empirical
reality. Since that transformation is symmetrical it is consequently possible
to develop fundamental laws governing the relationship between mind and matter.
‘Now’ is
certainly unique to consciousness. It is absent from physics and absent too by
implication from any physical description of consciousness. Spatially and
temporally extended, it violates causality by requiring the past to be active
in the present. Despite being absent from physics, we can be certain that
whatever reality is, it is experienced only in the ‘now’. Indeed there are only
three absolute certainties, firstly
that experience is occurring, secondly that it is changing, and thirdly that
everything else is uncertain.
‘Now’ can only
be sensibly defined in terms of consciousness, being that part of space-time
occupied by consciousness. The problem of explaining ‘now’ scientifically is
identical to the problem of explaining subjective consciousness itself.
“There is no ‘Now’ in Physics:”
That there is no ‘now’ in physics was a view made
forcefully by Einstein with regard to relativity theory. He was referring to
the lack of simultaneous now across space. However the problem of duration
gives a much deeper sense in which there is no now in physics. There is no now
at any point in space-time, nor indeed are there points either.
Tables 1, 2 and 3 examine this question in relation to
consciousness.
Table 1 The
Problem of Duration:
|
1.
|
(i)
|
Space-time is
a continuum, i.e. everything is moving continuously in space or
time
|
|
(ii)
|
No concept of
‘now’ is brief enough to exclude change completely. ‘Now’ must always contain
change
|
|
(iii)
|
But change is
defined as the difference between two moments in time
|
|
(iv)
|
Therefore now
always contains two moments, one of which must be in the past of the other
|
|
(v)
|
But ‘now’
should not contain past moments since by definition, now = the present.
|
|
(vi)
|
The past
cannot be eliminated from ‘now’ however because ‘now’ must contain change
i.e. two moments one of which is to the past of the other
|
|
(vii)
|
Therefore
‘now’ is infinitely divisible and is purely abstract
|
The history of
the evolution of scientific thought is punctuated by stepwise solutions to
problems caused by the continuity of change. Zeno’s paradoxes such as Achilles and the tortoise baffled the
ancient Greeks until the discovery of infinite series equations. These
equations, although infinite, give a finite sum. Later, the discovery of
calculus initiated the science of mechanics, the study of change. The success
of this heuristic strategy depended on allowing infinitely short durations and
distances to approximate to zero. It works extremely well and is infinitely
accurate. However, we have become so
familiar with calculus and with approximations of it’s kind that we tend to
forget the reason that such approximation is necessary at all. The deep
underlying paradox has not gone away and indeed should be recognised for what
it is, namely the fundamental problem at the root of the mind/matter
question. Let us examine what happens
when the ‘now paradox’ of table 1 is applied to the observation of matter?
Consider two
observable physical states, state A and state B such that A
causes B.
Table 2
|
2.
|
(i)
|
All properties
indicating the presence of matter in the universe are experienced
phenomenally in some process of change.
|
|
(ii)
|
This change is
causally determined such that state A changes to, and causes state B
|
|
(iii)
|
Change is
continuous, so state B never actually exists as B
alone, but is constantly changing from A to B.
|
|
(iv)
|
Matter must
always exist as a mixture of state A and state B, despite being
allowed to approximate to a single point
|
|
(v)
|
But A
and B can never co-exist because the cause of something must be
in its past
|
|
(vi)
|
Therefore
matter as experienced, is in a state so infinitely brief that it is just as
abstract as the ‘now’ in physics
|
Table 3
|
3.
|
(i)
|
Everything
that can be experienced, is experienced as a difference between two states in
space-time such that state A changes to, and causes state B
|
|
(ii)
|
The actual
state A has ceased to exist when B exists
|
|
(iii)
|
Even in an
infinitely brief concept of conscious now, to experience matter requires that
some lingering knowledge of A carries forward to actively
constitute the conscious moment with B, which is forbidden by causality
|
|
(iv)
|
The lingering
knowledge of A is a representation (call it) of something that in terms of causality, no longer
exists.
|
|
(v)
|
Phenomenal
reality is a fusion between knowledge of the past and the causally determined
present.
|
Every aspect of
empirical reality is , and is irreducible. It is irreducible because change is
continuous and every attempted reduction leaves another ‘smaller’, which can be further reduced, and so on ad infinitum. When we describe reality, we approximate the
duration/distance within to zero and becomes point A or point B. We
allow the approximation that state B was caused by
an earlier, separate state A. Let us call this description A®B. However, is experienced whole, with no division
between and B. This is the
basis of empirical reality. Indeed within , the observer
and the observed are also not separate but are a single phenomenon. Since must be
considered as some function of all other possible representations of A. ( ), it seems to follow that the observer must be considered
as the unconscious field of knowledge within a system represented by , in which all
the other possible representations of A exist. This field is an
essential part of the phenomenon of subjective consciousness. The experience of
being conscious is the experience of being this active but unconscious
knowledge in which the causally determined manifold lights up as meaning. The
degree to which something is in conscious attention, is the degree to
which it has access to the whole of unconscious knowledge.
Change is Experienced as AB Phenomenon
|
.….And Thought of as A®B
|
AB is
indivisible (as )
|
A & B
separated by rules explaining the change
|
‘Now’ is AB combined (specious)
|
‘Now’ is A, then B
(each sharp)
|
Object and self are indivisible
|
Object and self are categorised as
separate
|
The experience of experiencing,
|
The experience of observing and
labelling
|
Intuitive
|
Analytic: Symbolic, Descriptive,
Hypothetical
|
Not Reproducible
|
Reproducible
|
Next let me
define what I mean by ‘now-ness’. Now-ness is the dimensions of subjective
experience. It’s meaning embraces the experience of being inside an expanse of
time and space and of focussing an inner world on details within that expanse
in a subjective process of attention (a qualia). Within the ‘now’ there is both
temporal and spatial non-locality, temporal in the sense that movement is
allowed within the now, and spatial since things can exist ‘out there’ while
being experienced ‘over here’ in the same now.
The paradigm
basis of modern scientific thought is that = . In other
words we define the truth of a statement about the material world as the extent
to which it agrees with invariance in subjective and particularly,
inter-subjective experience. Recall the approximation underpinning calculus
made necessary by the continuity of change whereby infinitesimally small
durations equate to zero. The arguments in tables 1, 2 and 3 show that this
fundamental compromise is required whenever we think of any aspect of reality
as something independent of the immediate qualitative experience. It is
required in every description or conception of objective reality including the
very images and words in our minds. It is inherent in the very notion of
objectivity. As soon as we conceptualise something as an entity we have introduced
an approximation.
Every aspect of
objective reality is some such that is a representation of a past that in causal terms, no
longer exists. Whenever we approximate B (or A) to we do so at the
expense of introducing an ontologically absurd conceptual framework that
replaces the role of the conscious observer. The dimensions of this conceptual
framework must equal those of the subjective ‘now’, which is unique to
consciousness. If they were not equal then our descriptions of reality would
not be empirically testable. The conservation of ‘now-ness’ is a fundamental
law of nature and can be stated as follows:
·
Every aspect of observable reality is some difference
between two causally related states, state A
and state B. Since only in conscious experience do A (as ) and co-exist, it follows that any description of reality
excluding the subjective observer and obeying physical laws must include some
conceptual device that replaces and reflects the role of consciousness
Another way of
stating this law is to say that because the independent existence of matter is
not known with absolute certainty but is inferred from invariance in subjective
and inter-subjective experience, and because this experience defines the ‘now’
as something unique to conscious experience, it follows that every description
of empirical reality must be embedded in a conceptual framework that reflects
the conscious ‘now’. In effect the property of ‘now-ness’ is conserved in the
transformation from subjectivity to objectivity despite its absence from
physics. ‘Now-ness’ is in principle, a quantifiable property that exists in
every description of matter despite being the defining property of
consciousness. Before considering the experiential ‘now’ let us take a look at
its equivalent, the ‘conceptual framework’ in which descriptions of reality are
embedded.
In Table 5 I
have listed some examples of ‘structures’ that exist in physical theories,
which are imbued with determinist properties but which are not ontologically
real. Elsewhere, I used the term Principle of Ontologically Absurd Space (POAS)
to develop the idea that the conceptual framework takes the form of imbuing empty
space itself with determinist properties [Sanfey 1999, 2000]
Table 5.
Examples of
Conceptual Frameworks (CF)
|
Fields Vs. Backward Causation
|
“It is the idea that the field is real
that allows us to pretend that the future does not influence the present” [Sarfatti
1999].
|
Platonic truth embedded in the fabric of space-time
|
Central to the Hameroff-Penrose (Orch
OR) theory is the idea that a particular choice of answer to a quantum
computation is guided by ‘platonic truth’ ‘embedded in the very fabric of space-time’
[Hameroff, Penrose 1996]
|
Geometric Tensors
|
These are conceptual structures that
determine the movement of objects in fields including spac
|