IntroductionTopicsConsciousnessPhysics QMPsychohistorySoftwareReligionModelCP Home

Conscious Particles (CP)

Conscious Particles (CP)


Axiom 1: Particles are conscious


Many have mentioned some sort of connection between QM and consc, including Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Wigner, von Neumann, Bohm, Dyson, Stapp, etc. Behavior of a particle (in quantum mechanics) reminds one of conscious behavior. We loosely say the particle "chooses" which slit to go through, it "knows" if the detector is there, and so on. Today such "Quantum Consciousness" theories are held by, perhaps, 5% of researchers. CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" is one of those theories. CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" doesn't say axiom 1 is "True". Rather, it's the simplest possible connection, and it could be true.

CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" is about subjective consciousness, not objective science. It's not a theory of physics, since it can't be proven (or disproven), although it does serve as a QM interpretation. Neuroscience has the potential of supporting CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" scientifically, but probably not for a long time - say, 100 years at least. So CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" is basically philosophy, or metaphysics: subjective opinion.

The goal of CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" is not to explain consciousness: it can't be explained. Objectively it doesn't even exist. Subjectively it exists, but with no logical explanation. No cause-and-effect. It just "is". Not too long ago, humans realized that the brain was the seat of consc. That didn't explain consc, just localized it. CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" is the next step: within the brain consc is localized to a smaller area, namely, some particle. Still, that doesn't say what it is, where it came from, how it works, or why. Such explanations can be put forth, but never proven or logically justified.

Definition of Consciousness


Consc is "what I am this instant". It's defined subjectively as my (or, your) awareness or perception, including qualia (sense impressions), thoughts, memory, feelings, rationality, etc. Your intuitive understanding of the word "consciousness" should be good enough for this introduction.

Time Assumption


Consc - therefore, reality - exists only in an instant. The past is a memory, the future an anticipation. Usually we "know" both exist, but remember that's just an assumption.

Particles


All particles, especially fermions (protons, quarks etc), are conscious, according to CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles".

Physicists may object that in QFT the notion of particle is obsolete, replaced by "field". Later on I use elementary QM concepts like "collapse of the wavefunction". Physicists may object to this also, since interpretations like MWI reject "collapse". Well, I choose to discuss the topic this elementary, simple way. The essential concepts of CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" are valid in any physics theory, mutatis mutandis.

Axiom 0: Uncertainty


Every statement might be wrong, especially in Consciousness Studies. Little is known, nothing can be proven. You may doubt any statement. You'll think some are wrong.

For example, as mentioned above, there are many alternatives to the particle being conscious. Maybe instead what's conscious is a wavefunction, field, string, spacetime event, etc. But the simplest possibility is, particle. The hypothesis is plausible, interesting and fruitful. If it turns out that it's a field or string, or even a neuron, instead, that makes little difference in the overall theory.

The same is true, more or less, for all statements. Please just accept them for what they're worth and see where it leads. Once you understand the theory, you can change it. That this is the attitude you should take is "proven" by axiom 0. Of course that doesn't preclude asking skeptical questions; please do.

Axiom 2: Only particles are conscious


If particles are conscious, they should account for the very rare instances of actual consc we know about. Animals shouldn't need some other source of consc, like a "soul" or "group consciousness", when their bodies already contain 10^26 (or so) conscious entities! Postulating special non-particle consc violates Occam's razor. More to the point, it makes analysis more or less impossible. Of course axiom 2 can't be proven - none of this can - but it's the best and most fruitful hypthosesis.

Corollary: You're a particle


You and I are conscious, so by axiom 2, our consc must be contained in one single particle. Everything you experience, feel, or are aware of, is experienced by a single particle, called the "mindonFunctionally central conscious particle, i.e. "you"", or "you", or "he", etc. Of course "you" can also refer to your whole body, or perhaps your identity as a social being. The meaning should be clear from context. Briefly, here's how the brain implements "you".

Homunculus


The simplest picture has one permanent mindonFunctionally central conscious particle, i.e. "you", located near the top of spinal column. All perceptions, coded somehow, are delivered via axons and dendrites, as usual in the brain. This is sometimes called an "homunculus". The mindonFunctionally central conscious particle, i.e. "you" drives your body like a car. Unlike a car driver, however, the mindonFunctionally central conscious particle, i.e. "you" is fed all qualia, memories, etc. If removed from his "driver's seat" he would essentially forget everything. Neuroscientists sometimes say the homunculus is impossible but they're wrong. Still, for practical analyis this picture is too simple, particularly regarding the time dimension.

Identity through time


We feel that we're the same person through time: the same as a second ago, or a decade ago. But CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" does NOT assume that. I could be a different mindonFunctionally central conscious particle, i.e. "you" particle every instant, or every day, or every few years. If that's so (of course, I don't know) the continuity of identity through time would depend entirely on the brain. Every mindonFunctionally central conscious particle, i.e. "you" would be accessing the same memories, therefore feel like the same person. It will be a long time before neuroscientific experiments can settle the issue. The simple non-anaytical version of CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" supposes I am, indeed, the same particle through time. But for analysis we use other assumptions freely. Remember, the past itself is only an uncertain assumption, so our identity through time is even more so.

Explanation of this paper


CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" claims to mathematically study human behavior. One striking instance of human behavior is, writing this paper. Therefore CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" must be able to explain it. Here's a very rough sketch. First, there's consciousness in particles. Higher forms evolve: animals, humans, me. Communication exists between particles, including forces and "entanglement". It evolves into human communication, including writing. Human curiosity (derived, with some fudging, from particle attributes) tries to explain every phenomenon - including consciousness itself. A human (me) finally figures out the best explanation (bound to happen sooner or later) then writes a paper about it. And here we are. Someday this story will be expanded to many pages with lots of equations, by someone else.

That's how you can tell CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles" theory is "finished": when it explains itself.

Some CP History


I started this hobby in 1962 with the insight "I am". Essentially, solipsism. In 1965 I began to make it more rigorous and developed "Mathematical Philosophy". In 1978 I realized the quantum connection: axiom 1, particles are conscious. Through the 1980's I developed so-called "Subjective Science". Finally in 1991 I realized axiom 2. (It took me 13 years to accept this very simple but odd idea, and it will probably take you that long also.) Axiom 2 unified all these seemingly diverse topics into one cohesive picture: the Theory of Conscious Particles. In 2001 I gave up, figuring maybe in 20 years somebody might be able to understand me. Basically, I have to wait until you figure it out for yourself.

Today (2017) CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles"-like ideas have proliferated. Doug Marman in particular has figured out some essential ideas. That's stimulated me to put this on the net. I won't be surprised if it gets no reaction. But within as little as 10 years, surely 20, CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles"-related ideas will be "hot", I predict.

Contact me


Send an email to info@consciousparticles.com. If anyone's interested I'll do a blog and/or discussion board.

Ask questions


I've heard your question before. At least, I've thought about it. You may think you have a killer objection, from philosophy, physics, neuroscience, whatever. But I can explain, and justify, any part of CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles". Admittedly, you may not find the answer satisfactory.

Check back in a while


I have lots to say about CPConscious Particle, or "Theory of Conscious Particles", some already written, some not. I intend to post it here. It will be a slow process. Except for completing some sections above which are only outlined at the moment, I may never post anything else, especially if no one is interested. Unfortunately my health doesn't permit me to spend much time on this hobby. But I intend to keep the site for at least a decade - it's cheap enough -, so check back as time goes on.
generated on 2017-05-26 12:53:03