Will we ever understand the nature of consciousness?

To Claude Coulomb: Re Wiedemeyer's definition of consciousness as a voluntary decision. It seems to me that it's impossible to distingish between a voluntary and an involuntary decision. Any decision is driven by preferences. To decide is to prefer one of two or more options (to do nothing is always an option). All we have is the decision, and it tells us which option was preferred. Whether the preference was detremined or not, the outcome is exactly the same.

a) If we label "consciousnesses" as an "emergent property", why not label "digestiveness" as an "emergent property"? Seems to me that the most important single fact of consciousnesses is that it exist only while it's happening. To me, "consciousness" looks like something the brain does, just as digestion is something the gastric system does. That implies that "consciousness" is a behaviour. If so, thinking of consciousness as a property (emergent or otherwise) seems to me a mistake. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what "emergent property" means.

b) I don't understand the math, but the claim that string theory provides a more accurate model of neural and other physical networks reminds me of fractals. It suggests that the structure of physical networks is the same at all scales. Would that apply also to the structure of networks in time? I'm thinking of the flow of plasma from the Sun. Or of the networks of electromagnetic fields that AIUI roil the surface of the Sun. Or of the "network" of gravity that controls the movements of everything that has mass. Would it make sens to think of quantum fields as networks? Or of interactions at the quantum level as networks?

Thanks for this article. "Gives me to think." :-)

The nature of consciousness is indeed one of the most profound and puzzling questions in human thought. It’s fascinating how something we experience every moment—our awareness of ourselves and our surroundings—remains so difficult to fully define or study scientifically. While neuroscience and philosophy continue to explore the mechanisms behind consciousness, it may always retain an element of mystery, reminding us of the limits of human understanding and the wonder of the mind.

By the way, if you’re looking to explore something timeless and spiritually enriching, https://suraheyaseen.com/ provides the complete Arabic text of this blessed Surah, allowing readers to recite and reflect on its profound guidance, connecting deeply with the divine message in a clear and authentic way.

Response to Claude COULOMBE:

1) Yes, that's correct that a voluntary decision requires one to be conscious, and that the definition of consciousness is the ability to make a voluntary decision.

2) Yes, reflexes can change due to frequency of stimuli, resulting in diminution or hyperactivity; however, these changes have nothing to do with consciousness as there is no choosing involved in how one responds reflexively.

3) In locked-in syndrome, even though the person is completely paralyzed, he can still receive sensory input and choose how to react to it. The fact that he can't move to carry out his intended response to that sensory stimulation has nothing to do with his being conscious. Consciousness is determined by the individual, not an observer. When the person with locked-in syndrome is conscious, he is able to choose how to react to sensory input, he just isn't able to physically carry out his response due to his paralysis. The fact that he's paralyzed has nothing to do with his consciousness.

In lucid dreaming, by definition, the person is conscious because he is able to choose a response to sensory input. He is in a reduced level of consciousness, but conscious just the same.

While this discussion is really unfolding with all possibilities and perceptions of individuals keeping Science as the philosophical basis, the cue from Metaphysical realisation of the Being is like Collapse of a Wave Function in Quantum Mechanics. Once one realises it, the World/Universe/ Cosmos collapses onto this Being..nothing else exists, not even the Being..!!

Response to @boxweed (and my final words, so as not to monopolize the discussion):

1. Circular argument

When I mentioned a "circular argument," I was not referring to the biological feedback loop (data loop) of accumulating memory. I was referring to a logical tautology. Wiedemeyer defines a "voluntary decision" as a process that requires consciousness to function, yet he simultaneously uses "voluntary decision" to define what consciousness is.

2. The blur between reflex and memory

You claim that reflexes are "purely genetic" and devoid of memory. Reflexes are not static scripts. If you stimulate a reflex repeatedly, the synaptic response diminishes (habituation). The neurons have "remembered" the previous inputs and altered their efficiency accordingly. This is a form of non-associative learning stored in the circuit. The distinction between "hardwired" and "learned" is not a binary wall.

3. "Responsiveness" definition is too narrow

The strict definition that "consciousness can only occur when a person is able to choose a response to an external sensory stimulus" is demonstrably false based on 2 medical phenomenas:

Locked-in Syndrome: These patients are fully awake and conscious, yet they are completely paralyzed and cannot "choose a response" to external stimuli in the way you describe. Under your definition, these fully conscious human beings would be classified as unconscious.

Lucid Dreaming: A lucid dreamer is fully aware and makes decisions, yet they are disconnected from external sensory input. They are conscious without external stimuli.

Therefore, consciousness cannot be defined solely by the output (external response) but must also be defined by the internal state.

It's a shame that you probably don't live near Montréal. We could debate this for hours over coffee or a good vegetarian meal.

Response to Claude COULOMBE's three points below:

1) Yes, incoming sensory information is compared to stored memory, but remember that that stored memory is also the result of incoming sensory information. All of stored memory used for evaluating sensory information arises from sensory input, which starts being stored at the time of our birth. None of this would be considered a closed loop. You simply keep adding to memory as you receive more sensory information throughout your life, and when you're conscious, you're able to draw upon this stored memory to choose a response to further sensory input.

2) Reflexes are genetic and present at birth. They have nothing to do with memory. Memory is defined as changes to the structure of neurons in the brain secondary to sensory input via our five senses.

3) Yes, you are correct in that the brain can generate predictions and thoughts without external sensory input. For instance, when a person is asleep and dreaming he is generating thoughts within his brain without sensory input. However, this internal generation of thoughts is not consistent with consciousness, as people are not conscious when they're sleeping and consequently, are not able to choose a response to external sensory input. As stated previously, consciousness can only occur when a person is able to choose a response to an external sensory stimulus.

@boxweed I see...

1) So, Wiedemeyer argue that a 'voluntary decision' is the act of comparing input against memory, but he is simultaneously claim that a subject 'must be conscious' to perform this comparison. This creates an arguments closed loop.

2) Defining 'voluntary' as 'comparing input against memorized information is a bit short because it's simple mechanics. Even a reflex arc contains a form of 'memory', the biological thresholds (synaptic weights) that determine whether a neuron fires. If a reflex signal is 'compared' against a neuronal threshold to determine an outcome, this definition would force us to classify reflexes as voluntary decisions. This mechanism of comparison exists in the simplest of neuron's circuits. It's not proof of consciousness.

3) Robert Wiedemeyer model neglects endogenous or inner model treats the brain as a purely reactive device (Input => Process => Output). This ignores the vast amount of 'inner signals', activity generated by the cortex and other brain structures independent of current sensory impulses. The brain is not just reacting to the five senses; it is constantly generating predictions, thoughts, and simulations (top-down processing). A definition of voluntary decision / consciousness must account for these non-sensory, internally generated initiations of action.

Anyway, your answer is stimulating, thanks a lot!

Thanks @Claude COULOMBE for your comments!

In response to Claude COULOMBE's comment referring to the problem of defining voluntary decisions in my previous note, all the information contained in our brains is the result of sensory impulses that travel to our brains from one or more of our five senses. Once the information reaches the brain, it's compared and contrasted with other stored information in our memory system. Then, a response is initiated by the brain that it deems the best course of action for that particular stimulus. Voluntary decisions are defined as this comparing and contrasting of information to choose an appropriate response. Reflex reactions, for example, are not voluntary decisions, and can occur whether a person is conscious or unconscious. When a sensory stimulus causes a reflex response, there is no comparing or contrasting this incoming sensory information. A reaction to that sensory stimulus is a simple cause and effect process. In order to compare and contrast incoming sensory information, then choose a response, a person has to be conscious; hence, the definition of consciousness.

I forgot to mention the article I meant: https://www.quantamagazine.org/string-theory-can-now-describe-a-universe-that-has-dark-energy-20260114/.

... Another string theory article—but with a different frame of reference ...

Wow! It's so refreshing to read the reader comments on Scientific American. It's a welcome change from the heated debates on X (I'm no more member) or even sometimes on Reddit.

Thank you to Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn for the « Landscape of Consciousness » website and @Doug Baldwin and Copilot for the taxonomy of consciousness theories which, even if not correct, can at least provide a nice basis for discussion.

I agree with many commentators (@Peter Lugten, @Stuart GW, @Don, @Tom C, @Dr. Matt, @Mitchell Timin) about the difficult problem of defining consciousness and the practicality of using it. First the consciousness definition is challenging but we need to get one or many for different use cases.

Establishing an efficient and reliable protocol to determine whether a biological beings or an AI system is "truly conscious" is a challenging problem, perhaps even an ill-posed or intractable one without any satisfactory solution.

I like the simple definition reported by @boxweed of Robert Wiedemeyer, MD which is « voluntarily choosing how to react to perceptive impulses » but all the problem is now to define « voluntarily decision ».

I agree with many commentators about the fact that consciousness is not only a human phenomenon but rather a biological one (@Don, @David Hillstrom, @SL, @Bob Coppock). That said, I respectfully distrust the idea that consciousness emerges from all complex system, and even more so the idea that consciousness is a universal fluid or energy.

Finally, thanks @Peter Lugten, I have to think more about the « The Entropic Theory of the Emergence of Consciousness »...

Thanks all folks for your comments and shared ideas.

We will never be able to understand how consciousness emerges from neurons as a matter of principle. We are blocked from such an understanding by entropy. Being conscious lowers an organisms overall entropy, making it more organized, better able to survive and sexually reproduce than would be an identical organism that was not conscious. Lowered entropy does not come for free, and there is an entropy debt to be repaid immediately and simultaneously with the emergence of consciousness. This is achieved by a Landauer's principle-like mechanism. Computation requires temporary storage of information, upon which the mind or calculator acts to perform the calculation. It cannot be stored indefinitely, and must be erased in order to proceed to the next computation. Rolf Landauer in 1961 proposed that any logically irreversible computation, i.e., erasing a bit of information, requires work, expels heat and increased entropy. The Entropic Theory of the Emergence of Consciousness (see Landscape of Consciousness website: Entropy theories) explains that the steps, or computations involved in the emergence of consciousness must be deleted simultaneously with their being performed. The steps are executed, in both senses of the word! This is work, which explains why we have to switch it off after about 18 hours, and sleep. It releases heat, which it might eventually be possible to measure. And it explains why we'll never be able to understand how consciousness arises.

This theory has important implications for consciousness in AI. It restricts consciousness to living organisms that evolve a physical mechanism to repay their entropy debt, which I'm assuming takes place, as per the theory of Penrose and Hameroff, in the Tryptophan molecules of neural microtubules. In order for the mechanism to evolve, the organism must benefit from being conscious, so that its offspring evolve, first, ever more efficient microtubules, and then, more efficient arrangements of neurons. If an AI computed its way to consciousness, it would delete the computation immediately, and not remember how it got there, and not be able to evolve a more effective mechanism able to execute the computation repeatedly. On the other hand, building computers out of neural organoids is extremely dangerous, and should be very tightly controlled if not prohibited.

Reference: How Entropy Explains the Emergence of consciousness: the Entropic theory. Peter Lugten, 2024. J. Neurobev. Sci. Doi: 10.4103/jnbs.jnbs_6_24

I am aware of X and I am aware of myself being aware of X. However, there is an infinitesimal displacement between X and X'. That differance (Derrida) constitutes a dimensionless string whose vibrations manifest as consciousness.

That's a wonderful suggestion to fathom the unfathomable...I mean, in physical or experimental sense. A topic that has eluded Science, since time immemorial but is a realization of the Mystics: that's outside this World/ Universe/Cosmos.

I am all ears, for how this discussion unfolds where we wonder the origin of the Subjective Experience of Being..!

Firstly I agree with Tom C that we need an agreed definition of what we're trying to explain. But even if we agree on a definition, I have my doubts about achieving a testable theory. Given the subjective nature of the phenomenon it's difficult to see how it could be reliably tested.

If we do something to your brain and it makes you less (or more) conscious or alters you consciousness in some other way, how is that qualitatively different from the fact that your brain is functioning differently, except in the way you perceive it.

It's no good asking an AI if it's conscious, or a dolphin or even another human because you can't rely on the answer. I'm not even sure that I am conscious, again depending on the definition. I'm inclined to agree with Dennet (if I understand him) that it's all a bit of an illusion. A subjective interpretation of perceptions and the mistaken belief that we have free will. And I don't think Christof Koch's recent exposure to the cosmic consciousness proves anything beyond the impact of altered brain chemistry on our perceptions.

Maybe the idealists are right, but I can't imagine how it could be tested.

Consciousness exists in all animals..The level of consciousness is dependent on the level of complexity of the brain. While our level of consciousness seems to be the highest at present, I’m sure it is still far from the high test level that can be obtained.

Physically, the complexity of the brain and its “wiring” are factors. Brain injury has demonstrated that consciousness is not separate from the brain. Change the brain, consciousness is changed.

Now we are more aware of the brain - body connection. The brain does not operate independently. The body has input to the brain. Bacteria, living in out body, have input to the brain. Both influence decisions. Our understanding of the concept of free will has changed accordingly and how free will impacts our concept of consciousness.

It seems that every new discovery just brings new questions.

I guess I am a little embarrassed to admit this, but a few years back I learned from Scientific American that while matter can die, energy does not. This inspired my imagination to envision a vibrant universe that is connected and connecting. I am a firm believer that consciousness is pure energy and that pure energy can occupy mass, but not confined to mass. If we look at consciousness in biological terms, we have only surface and not truth. Exploring consciousness outside of physical terms is extremely exciting, if science can allow it.

Understanding where consciousness comes from is even more important now so we can tell if AI becomes conscious.

The other fundamental question is what is Time?

Consciousness is an emergent property not of any complex system, as some believe, but rather probably a property emerging from the interaction between a slowly evolving complex biological system and its environment. We will probably never be able to explain the behavior of a human or any intelligent agent by looking solely at its brain. We must consider the triad of brain, body, and environment.

This reminds me of Roger Penrose's (2020 Nobel Prize in Physics) favorite dramatic word: « collapse ». First, the collapse of mathematical formalism, referring to Gödel's theorem to explain the "uncomputability" of consciousness and second the collapse of the wave function again to explain consciousness.

Speaking of "collapse" in the case of Gödel's theorem is a shortcut that conflates the failure of a specific ambition (the program of the mathematician David Hilbert) with the validity of the formal method itself. Gödel did not destroy the formalism. Rather, he revealed its limitations. Penrose bases his argument on the fact that humans can "understand" Gödel's theorem, but understanding does not mean that humans are capable of solving or measuring problems that are incomputable or undecidable.

Roger Penrose suggested that mysterious protein structures called "microtubules" played a role in human consciousness by exploiting quantum effects, including the dreaded wave function collapse. However, it seems obvious that the brain is too hot to sustain macroscopic quantum states. Just ask anyone working on quantum computers.

As Carl Sagan said, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinarily strong evidence."

There are as many theories about consciousness as there are neuroscientists, philosophers, psychiatric, physicists, etc. and non-conventional experts. The question of whether we will ever understand the nature of consciousness must follow after first developing a unified and accepted definition of consciousness. We need to agree about what we are trying to solve. Granted we can approach this from a number of competing theories concurrently but at some juncture they need to coalesce. That requirement aside, I question whether the entire field is rich and mature enough at its present stage to answer this question unequivocally; it is doubtful. Solving this question will require a coordinated effort of those who assert that consciousness resides and springs from the brain along with those who assert that consciousness resides external to the body and is an emergent and integral property of the universe, along with those who assert theories that appear on the surface to be invalid. The best course of action is to continue the research, continue the discussions and try to tease out common elements that may start to illuminate the path, keeping in mind that some common elements may be misdirected. No heavy treatment of the topic for this first post, just some basic introduction. I look forward to our continued discussions. Who knows, we may be the forum that advances this toward the solution.

As this article points out consciousness appears to be an emergent biological process. As such consciousness is not limited to humans. As Donald Griffin examined decades ago, there are ample examples in nature of animal thinking and indications of consciousness. The attempt to restrict the phenomenon to humans, whether via religion or recursive language, has been an impediment to our study of consciousness. Tangentially the development of AI may not produce consciousness (as I discussed in my book, The Bridge, chapter 2). The biological substrate is absent.

A subsidiary comment has to do with the nature of mathematics. The age old philosophical question as to whether math lies at the heart of nature and truth reveals itself here. Math is developed a priori and later applications are discovered for its use.

I came into cognitive science in large part to answer this question. Bummer. If only I had a couple centuries to research it.

The literature surrounding the information in the linked article, however, is rich and varied right now. There are many ideas, not even so much of what we can call true "theory" yet. But there is so much we can glean from what we are learning in our development of artificial neural networks, and theoretical physics. And then there are relevant topics that scientists often hate to broach - such as metaphysics. Right now, there are dozens of studies and articles that delve into the idea of a superconsciousness that connects all things. My first thought was - what nonsense. But then - string theory makes a lot of things possible. Maybe it can help us understand things such as how a murmur of starlings, or bait ball of fish move so rapidly. We know that birds and fish furthest from imminent threats move too quickly in response to some signal from those that are closest. Biochemistry cannot explain the rapidity of their response, processing, and action.

Maybe one of my grandkids will get to learn the answers.

At the least, this study presents a new way to approach neurophysics. I think it's important.