Skip to main content
Log in

Chalmers’ Principle of Organizational Invariance Makes Consciousness Fundamental but Meaningless Spectator of Its Own Drama

  • Ideas and Perspectives
  • Published:
Activitas Nervosa Superior

Abstract

The principles of classical physics, including deterministic dynamics and observability of physical states, are incompatible with the existence of unobservable conscious minds that possess free will. Attempts to directly accommodate consciousness in a classical world lead to philosophical paradoxes such as causally ineffective consciousness and possibility of alternate worlds in which functional brain isomorphs behave identically but lack conscious experiences. Here, we show that because Chalmers’ principle of organizational invariance is based on a deficient nineteenth century classical physics, it is inherently flawed and implies evolutionary inexplicable epiphenomenal consciousness. Consequently, if consciousness is a fundamental ingredient of physical reality, no psychophysical laws such as Chalmers’ principle of organizational invariance are needed to establish correspondence between conscious experiences and brain function. Quantum mechanics is the most successful and only modern physical theory capable of naturally accommodating consciousness without violation of physical laws.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1(3), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, P. (1997). Is the quantum state (an) observable? In R. S. Cohen, M. Horne, & J. Stachel (Eds.), Potentiality, entanglement and passion-at-a-distance: quantum mechanical studies for Abner Shimony, volume two (pp. 61–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D. J. (1995a). Absent qualia, fading qualia, dancing qualia. In T. Metzinger (Ed.), Conscious experience (pp. 309–328). Thorverton: Imprint Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D. J. (1995b). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D. J. (2003). Consciousness and its place in nature. In S. P. Stich & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Blackwell guide to the philosophy of mind (pp. 102–142). Blackwell Publishing.

  • Cuda, T. (1985). Against neural chauvinism. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 48(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (2006). In E. O. Wilson (Ed.), From So Simple a Beginning: The Four Great Books of Charles Darwin (The Voyage of the Beagle, On the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (2004). The ancestor’s tale: a pilgrimage to the dawn of life. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint, G., & Rusbridge, C. (2014). Syringomyelia: a disorder of CSF circulation. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Georgiev, D. D. (2013). Quantum no-go theorems and consciousness. Axiomathes, 23(4), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-012-9204-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgiev, D. D. (2017). Quantum information and consciousness: a gentle introduction. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Georgiev, D. D., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2014). Quantum interactive dualism: from Beck and Eccles tunneling model of exocytosis to molecular biology of SNARE zipping. Biomedical Reviews, 25, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.14748/bmr.v25.1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgiev, D. D., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2018). The quantum physics of synaptic communication via the SNARE protein complex. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 135, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Georgiev, D. D., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2019a). On the quantum dynamics of Davydov solitons in protein α-helices. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 517, 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.11.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgiev, D. D., & Glazebrook, J. F. (2019b). Quantum tunneling of Davydov solitons through massive barriers. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, and Nonequilibrium and Complex Phenomena, 123, 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2019.04.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1988). The puzzling entanglement of Schrödinger’s wave function. Foundations of Physics, 18(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01882871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, C. (2015). Cellular and molecular neurophysiology. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi, M., Ishizaka, S., Kawachi, A., Kimura, G., & Ogawa, T. (2015). Introduction to quantum information science. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., & Horodecki, K. (2009). Quantum entanglement. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2), 865–942. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, T. H. (1874). On the hypothesis that animals are automata, and its history. The Fortnightly Review, 16, 555–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, S., & Marcus, E. M. (2008). Neuroanatomy for the neuroscientist. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1879). Are we automata? Mind, 4(13), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/os-4.13.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Volume 1. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, D., & Wu, S. M.-S. (1995). Foundations of cellular neurophysiology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., Jessell, T. M., Siegelbaum, S. A., & Hudspeth, A. J. (2012). Principles of neural science (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klekamp, J., & Samii, M. (2002). Syringomyelia: diagnosis and treatment. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kochen, S. B., & Specker, E. P. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17(1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1512/iumj.1968.17.17004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Lu, D., Nguyen, H.-V., & Galli, G. (2010). Van der Waals interactions in molecular assemblies from first-principles calculations. Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 114(4), 1944–1952. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9095425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, J. P., & Peterson, K. (2005). Quantum chemistry (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narnhofer, H., & Thirring, W. (2012). Entanglement, Bell inequality and all that. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 53(9), 095210. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4738376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum computation and quantum information (10th Anniversary ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pathak, A. (2013). Elements of quantum computation and quantum communication. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R., & Eccles, J. C. (1983). The self and its brain: an argument for interactionism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1980). The “causal power” of machines. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 442–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0000594x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. (2015). Epiphenomenalism. In E. N. Zalta, U. Nodelman, & C. Allen (Eds.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanes, G. J. (1895). Mind and motion and monism. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co..

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Savitt, S. F. (1982). Searle’s demon and the brain simulator. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 342–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00012395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., & Hrabovsky, G. (2013). The theoretical minimum: what you need to know to start doing physics. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svozil, K. (2018). Physical (a)causality: determinism, randomness and uncaused events. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. (1991). Metaphysics (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974). Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. The Lancet, 304(7872), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(74)91639-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, G., Allan, D., Brennan, P., McElhinney, E., & Mackinnon, L. (2014). Forty years on: updating the Glasgow Coma Scale. Nursing Times, 110(42), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman, H. M., Jones, S. J., & Doherty, A. C. (2007). Steering, entanglement, nonlocality, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physical Review Letters, 98(14), 140402. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.140402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wootters, W. K., & Zurek, W. H. (1982). A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature, 299(5886), 802–803. https://doi.org/10.1038/299802a0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danko D. Georgiev.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Georgiev, D.D. Chalmers’ Principle of Organizational Invariance Makes Consciousness Fundamental but Meaningless Spectator of Its Own Drama. Act Nerv Super 61, 159–164 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-019-00062-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-019-00062-z

Keywords

Navigation