Myung Min is from Ao Fei Temple
Qubits | Official account QbitAI
Presumably Einstein did not expect that one day the theory of relativity would be used to explain consciousness.
Recently, a study of physical theory published in a psychology journal suddenly caught fire.
The author proposes a completely new concept, "the relativity of consciousness", claiming to solve the puzzle of consciousness research by physical methods.
"We think that consciousness doesn't come entirely from the brain, nor from any physical processes," he said.
There is even a mathematical framework that can describe consciousness in mathematical language.
On Weibo, the discussion about this hypothesis has exploded.
Some people think that it will be of great use to future research, and some people say that they don't know what they are saying after watching it for half a day, but it is more of everyone's doubts.
For example, many bloggers' attitudes are sauce aunts:
It has also been suggested that the journal in which this study was published was quite watery:
The study, published in Frontiers in Psychology, has a 2021 impact factor of 3.88.
So what exactly does this study say?
"Humans are just observers of consciousness"
The greatest mystery of consciousness is that we all know that consciousness comes from the brain, but existing scientific theories cannot confirm which part of the body produces consciousness.
In the past, there were two common theories for understanding consciousness:
First, naturalistic dualists argue that consciousness is a natural product of the world and is not unknowable. This theory opposes the mystification of consciousness and advocates the scientific method of explaining consciousness.
The second is the idea that consciousness is a cognitive illusion, that is, the brain fabricates the experience of the present moment.
But the authors of this paper argue that both views are problematic.
When people feel happy, the brain produces a series of corresponding neural activities, which are related to happiness, but are not really "happy", but only a form of expressing happiness.
Further, the author argues that consciousness is an absolute existence that does not depend on the observer.
Here we will introduce the theory of relativity to explain.
In the paper, the authors make an analogy with a phenomenon that is easier to understand.
Suppose that in the context of the train platform, Xiaoming is on a train at a uniform speed, and Xiaohong is looking at Xiaoming on the platform.
So, how fast is Bob moving?
This answer actually changes depending on the frame of reference.
Judging from Xiaoming's reference frame, he felt that he was stationary. But in Xiaohong's reference frame, Xiaoming is moving.
But in any case, it is an objective fact that the train is moving.
If you put this line of thinking into consciousness.
The authors argue that the existence of consciousness is an objective fact, and that the person who produces consciousness is the observer (1) and the other person who observes its cranial nerve activity is the observer (2).
That is, they do not think that the brain produces consciousness through calculations, and that people can feel the presence of consciousness because they, as observers (1), "measure" their own neural activity phenomena through the interaction between different parts of the brain and describe this phenomenon as a feeling.
Others observe, on the other hand, through instrumentation, that in the observer's reference frame (2), the activity of neurons is seen using organs such as the eye, and for them, consciousness is a kind of brain activity.
The author argues that both descriptions of consciousness are correct.
Given that consciousness is a relativistic phenomenon, no observer is privileged because they all describe the same underlying facts.
Further, the author proposes a mathematical framework in order to argue that relativity can indeed explain consciousness.
Simply put, it is to describe different observer perspectives in mathematical language and then establish equation relationships.
The authors say that the mathematical methods they propose can even help people trace the origin of consciousness, in addition to providing reference for studying when human consciousness arises and whether artificial intelligence can produce consciousness.
Some have commented that this is a new scientific paradigm that defines consciousness and ideas as being generated by non-physical energies.
Netizen: I really can't understand it
I don't know how everyone feels after reading this theory, many netizens feel confused.
Some people say that human beings themselves are just a measuring tool?
Others feel that the study still has its own implications.
The authors are Nir Lahav, Ph.D., ph.D., Department of Physics, University of Bayland, and Zachariah A. Neemeh, Ph.D., Department of Philosophy, University of Memphis.
What do you think about this study?
Reference Links:
[1]https://scitechdaily.com/physicist-claims-to-have-solved-the-mystery-of-consciousness/
[2]https://thedebrief.org/consciousness-mystery-could-be-solved-by-this-compelling-new-physics-theory/
[3]https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704270/full
— Ends —
Qubit QbitAI · Headline signing
Follow us and be the first to know about cutting-edge technology developments