Philosophy

Is consciousness computation? (# 40)

Most neuroscientists believe that consciousness originates in the cortex of the brain. Somehow, consciousness generates a sense of self. Since the 1990s, Professor Solms has been uncovering evidence that suggests the mainstream view of consciousness may not be correct. He proposes an alternative hypothesis, namely that the sense of self arises in the brainstem, specifically the Periaquaductal Grey (PAG).

Professor Solms concludes many neuroscientists have an inverted idea about conscious and unconscious processes. He believes that many of the actions we think we consciously instigate are unconscious i.e. generally we are the observer of our actions rather than the doer. Solms believes that consciousness is really about feelings. We have conscious control over our feelings but we unconsciously observe our actions.

Solms’ description of how the brain works is generally consistent with the thrust of these articles but Solms’ claims about the origin of consciousness are not supported. This article briefly discusses some commonalities and differences.

Consciousness as feelings

Solms bases his conclusions on many examples of people who suffered damage to their brains. Brains can be broadly described as a forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain. The brainstem consists of the midbrain and hindbrain. Most neuroscientists believe a person’s sense of self originates in the cerebral cortex which is part of the forebrain. Solms argues that when patients with damage to various parts of the cerebral cortex are asked whether they have a sense of self, they all respond positively. In other words, loss of function associated with the cerebral cortex does not lead to a loss of sense of self.

Solms suggests that the sense of self disappears when there is damage to parts of the brainstem. He also argues that feelings originate in the brainstem. Hence consciousness is associated with feelings. Furthermore, he says “What we perceive is a virtual reality constructed from the mind’s own building materials” (Solms, The Hidden Spring, chapter 10). He argues that consciousness arises out of the need to match predictions more precisely to incoming signals. The cortex becomes conscious only to the extent that it is aroused by the brainstem. Perception, action, and cognition are only felt because they contextualize affect (feelings) (chapter 6).

What is proposed in these articles is that a form of consciousness arose before our universe was even created. An objective of this consciousness is to facilitate ever-increasing complexity. One of the means of achieving this objective is the creation of the concept of entropy i.e. increasing disorder as time progresses.

According to Solms, a brain is a self-organizing structure that persists through homeostasis. A brain needs to minimize entropy. Consciousness arises as feelings that are needed to minimize entropy. Consciousness is ultimately a consequence of entropy.

Consciousness and free will

Our universe has been created as if it is in De-Sitter space to establish a process that would automatically generate increasing complexity. Consciousness in our universe is not necessarily the same as consciousness in the underlying reality. Our consciousness needs free will to facilitate the manifestation of new possibilities.

In our universe, we are observers of events that are unfolding. While we are unaware that we are observers rather than doers in this process of unfolding, we are aware of the feelings we observe. We have the free will to change the intensity of our feelings. When we do so, events that unfold before us may change. In other words, the intensity of our feelings could lead to changes in future events. To achieve such an outcome, however, we need to become aware of future alternatives; we need to become aware of the adjacent possible. When we can identify possibilities we can respond appropriately through our feelings.

Our universe is part of the process of selecting people with particular qualities. If selected, we will have the opportunity to participate in another universe with people who have the required qualities. Unlike our universe, this new universe would be designed to manifest new possibilities. People in such a universe could have brains like those described by Professor Solms. These people are participants in their universe rather than observers.

Consciousness as computation

The objective of this article is to suggest a brain structure similar to that described by Professor Solms is consistent with the idea that our universe was created by a reality based on mathematical foundations. Of course, Solms’ ideas are consistent with other theories of our universe. The choice between alternative theories does not usually depend on one ‘case study’. No individual case study should be considered conclusive evidence because of the possibility there may be some undiscovered alternative explanations.

The thrust of the argument put forward in these articles is that there are many examples consistent with the idea that our universe has emerged out of geometry and then mathematics. The current scientific mainstream explanation for our universe is called ΛCDM, where Λ (Lambda) is a cosmological constant associated with dark energy and CDM is Cold Dark Matter. Mainstream scientists are unable to provide logical explanations for the origin of dark energy and dark matter which, according to the theory, together account for about 95% of the energy in the universe.

Perhaps the next most popular explanation for the origin of our universe is that it was created by God but there is no agreement on what God is or why God is eternal with no beginning.

These articles not only provide a logical explanation for the phenomena known as dark energy and dark matter but this explanation can also lead to a new description for God i.e. the creative force behind the origin of our universe. After our underlying reality ignited the Big Bang and set in process the evolution of our universe, both the ΛCDM explanation and the explanation in these articles could be the same in terms of predicting events in our universe. Applying the scientific idea of Occam’s Razor, namely ‘entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity’, the ideas put forward in these articles should be the preferred explanation of the origin of our universe because fewer assumptions are required to make the same predictions.

The question for this article is:

Are we just witnesses of events in our lives?

To view the headings of all the articles to be published in this series please click on https://michaeledalton.medium.com/orbiting-stars-and-origin-of-our-universe-338906930f51

To obtain a copy of the book ‘Orbiting Stars’ which contains the first drafts of all these articles, please visit https://www.amazon.com