A Relativistic Theory of Consciousness

Abstract

In recent decades, the scientific study of consciousness has significantly increased our understanding of this elusive phenomenon. Yet, despite critical development in our understanding of the functional side of consciousness, we still lack a fundamental theory regarding its phenomenal aspect. There is an “explanatory gap” between our scientific knowledge of functional consciousness and its “subjective,” phenomenal aspects, referred to as the “hard problem” of consciousness. The phenomenal aspect of consciousness is the first-person answer to “what it’s like” question, and it has thus far proved recalcitrant to direct scientific investigation. Naturalistic dualists argue that it is composed of a primitive, private, non-reductive element of reality that is independent from the functional and physical aspects of consciousness. Illusionists, on the other hand, argue that it is merely a cognitive illusion, and that all that exists are ultimately physical, non-phenomenal properties. We contend that both the dualist and illusionist positions are flawed because they tacitly assume consciousness to be an absolute property that doesn’t depend on the observer. We develop a conceptual and a mathematical argument for a relativistic theory of consciousness in which a system either has or doesn’t have phenomenal consciousness with respect to some observer. Phenomenal consciousness is neither private nor delusional, just relativistic. In the frame of reference of the cognitive system, it will be observable (first-person perspective) and in other frame of reference it will not (third-person perspective). These two cognitive frames of reference are both correct, just as in the case of an observer that claims to be at rest while another will claim that the observer has constant velocity. Given that consciousness is a relativistic phenomenon, neither observer position can be privileged, as they both describe the same underlying reality. Based on relativistic phenomena in physics we developed a mathematical formalization for consciousness which bridges the explanatory gap and dissolves the hard problem. Given that the first-person cognitive frame of reference also offers legitimate observations on consciousness, we conclude by arguing that philosophers can usefully contribute to the science of consciousness by collaborating with neuroscientists to explore the neural basis of phenomenal structures.

Ecomindsponge: A novel perspective on human psychology and behaviors in the ecosystem

“…Within the scope of conscious awareness (as results of base activity), thinking is subjective. These interpretations are also in alignment with the relativistic view on consciousness proposed by Lahav and Neemeh (2022). After all, the human brain, despite being a very complex system, is a product of more fundamental physical interactions and thus follows the laws that govern such interactions.…”

“…For example, these boundaries include but are not limited to those between objective reality and mental representations, between ideas and behaviors, and between the natural and the artificial. Besides, based on the views of physics and using mathematical reasoning, Lahav and Neemeh (2022) suggest that consciousness is relativistic, meaning that it is neither non-reductive nor illusional but rather dependent on the observer. Thus, to determine the position and scope of observation is to find the boundaries of concepts and phenomena.…”

Mindsponge Theory

“…A new perspective based on relativistic physics (48) may provide a plausible solution for this conflict. Consciousness can be considered a relativistic phenomenon observed in different reference frames that all contribute to furthering our understanding of the said phenomenon (49). But in this discussion involving observation, we can also ask whether self-awareness is necessary for consciousness.…”

A novel perspective on thinking about thinking: Review of Mindsponge Theory

“…This fundamental function can be very basic in expressions (e.g., think about an amoeba in a Petri dish) or extremely complex in advanced systems (e.g., neuroplasticity in humans [6], identity shifting [7], or ideation of extreme behaviors [3]). All filtering processes use cost-benefit judgments [1,5], with their subjectivity and objectivity levels determined by the observer's relativistic viewpoint concerning the systems [8]. Newly accepted values become inputs for future processes.…”