Goff vs Carroll
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:28 pm
Sean Carroll and Philip Goff have been having an ongoing debate surround the ontology of consciousness. They've just locked horns again on the Mind Chat podcast and I'm part way through that episode.
As per this paper: https://philpapers.org/archive/CARCAT-33.pdf, Carroll argues:
But there are questions surrounding intentionality and the direction of causality. If the substance of my brain as viewed from a third person is following the laws of QM, my subjective states are likewise reflecting those laws. QM is in the driver's seat, taking "me" the subject for a ride. The chain of causality would appear to go from the quantum state to the subjective state. Or alternatively viewed as inner and outer aspects of the same process, there is a broad determinism about the whole affair, apart from the possibility of the inner aspect tweaking the quantum dice.
This seems problematic for my understanding of A/SS. The Thinking process likewise will manifest as brain states, but they too must follow QM. So it would appear that Thinking is being hauled around by quantum dynamics, something Ashvin and Cleric will no doubt dispute.
As per this paper: https://philpapers.org/archive/CARCAT-33.pdf, Carroll argues:
Now the BK type idealist will claim they are not concerned about this. Particles are perceived to follow law-like behaviour but this is all ideal in nature. Quantum dynamics can do quantum dynamics and idealism is not threatened.We do, on the other hand, understand the basic laws of physics governing the stuff of which brains are made. They take the form of an effective quantum field theory describing a particular collection of matter particles interacting via force fields. There is certainly much of physics remaining to be discovered, but in the specific regime covering the particles and forces that make up human beings and their environments, we have good reason to think that all of the ingredients and their dynamics are understood to extremely high precision
But there are questions surrounding intentionality and the direction of causality. If the substance of my brain as viewed from a third person is following the laws of QM, my subjective states are likewise reflecting those laws. QM is in the driver's seat, taking "me" the subject for a ride. The chain of causality would appear to go from the quantum state to the subjective state. Or alternatively viewed as inner and outer aspects of the same process, there is a broad determinism about the whole affair, apart from the possibility of the inner aspect tweaking the quantum dice.
This seems problematic for my understanding of A/SS. The Thinking process likewise will manifest as brain states, but they too must follow QM. So it would appear that Thinking is being hauled around by quantum dynamics, something Ashvin and Cleric will no doubt dispute.