True Consciousness Science Requires Strongly Dynamically-Unorthodox Physics

Abstract

Whether there can be a science of consciousness is both of the utmost importance, and a matter of intense current debate in the field. Two major papers seemed to reach dramatically conflicting conclusions recently, one denying scientific method currently exists in the field, the other promoting a way to ‘make the hard problem easier’. Here I apply uncontroversial mathematical physics together with a new symbolism for conscious experience, to decisively resolve this issue. Under dynamically-orthodox physics (e.g. current physical theory), there can’t be a scientifically-reliable approach. But under a strong form of dynamically-unorthodox physics, subjective report is not provably unreliable, thus meeting the minimal necessary conditions for a true science. Implications for the epistemological foundations of science are briefly discussed.

Scientifically-Flawed Bypass of the Hard Problem Doesn’t Make It ‘Easier’!

“…Melloni et al's proposal [1] simply continues the modern tradition in the mainstream field: ignore the methodological contradictions inherent in any experimental science of phenomenal consciousness (conscious experience), which is set in a dynamically-orthodox physics [2]. This tradition doesn't (and can't) give any insight into the problem of phenomenal consciousness.…”

“…This tradition doesn't (and can't) give any insight into the problem of phenomenal consciousness. It simply can't solve the Hard Problem [3], as restated in this form [4][5][6][7]: how is a dynamicallyorthodox system able to report on the qualia-content of its own conscious experience [2,[5][6][7][8][9]? (This form is actually closer to the meta-problem of consciousness [10], which concerns the meaningful speakability of the words 'conscious experience'.…”

“…But the insolubility of the metaproblem implies that of the hard problem, however stated, because any hard-problem statement must invoke the phrase 'conscious experience'!) Dynamical-orthodoxy precludes the transmission of qualia-discerning information through a matter-constituted system [2][3][5][6][7][8][9]. So it denies the ability of humans to report reliably on their own conscious experience to materially-distinct others, e.g.…”

“…(This observation is apparently pivotal in Dennett's often-misunderstood position [11][12]. A deep analysis [9] shows it also intensifies as-yet unresolved problems posed by the 'unfolding argument' for experimental approaches to almost every current consciousexperiential theory [13,14] including [14] all of those discussed by Melloni et al The counterintuitive nature of this reliable-report denial can be resolved in two straightforward ways [2,[5][6][7][8][9]. © Nicholas Rosseinsky, 2021…”

“…(Minimally, if we're uncertain that science is contradiction-free, we should seek to abstain from introducing clear contradictions.) In fact, this knot can't be unpicked [2,9]. Contradictions of the kind involved here can only be resolved by altering one or more conflicting structural features, not by adding further assumptions e.g.…”