The Observer Problem: Does consciousness have a role in determining physical reality?

Bohr, Bohm, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger (and many of their contemporary colleagues) had perspectives about physics and consciousness that have been subsequently dismissed as unorthodox.

Bohr argued that leaving the observer unaddressed was wrong, Bohm insisted that the observer and the observed must be viewed as a unity, and Heisenberg suggested that Eastern perceptions of reality were closer to understanding than Western “enlightenment” traditions.

Case in point: Schrödinger’s panpsychism/cosmopsychism. There was a time when many physicists openly shared similar opinions on the role of consciousness in the “new physics.”

However, this insight dissipated in the latter part of the 20th century when a counter-reaction set in.

Why?

A strong shift toward a materialistic/physicalist metaphysical stance took hold. The belief that reality is purely objective and deterministic reasserted itself, supported by mainstream Western analytic philosophy, which opposed more “spiritual” positions.

Note: This is a metaphysical position—a choice. It is not an evidential fact beyond question. Equally valid alternative perspectives exist.

The field of neuroscience adopted this view, and “Eliminative Materialism” became the orthodox stance, asserting that the brain is purely a materialistic phenomenon—a machine. Concepts such as mind, consciousness, and even thought were reduced to meaningless constructs.

This perspective influenced the development of computer science, which further reinforced the materialist view of the mind. The field of computer science advanced this belief, viewing the mind as a machine that could be described and enhanced through digital algorithmic computing. Turing and others argued that passing the Turing Test could be considered equivalent to true cognitive understanding. This new philosophical and physicalist zeitgeist left no room for “old non-mechanistic” worldviews.

Note: There are also current philosophers, such as Chalmers and Nagel, who argue that functionality presents “hard problems” for cognitive understanding. Indeed some cognitive scientists, such as Don Hoffman, think consciousness may explain the “Laws Of Physics”.

Critics of the AGI agenda remain active, with neuroscience exploring concepts like Integrated Information Theory, which aligns with the idea of consciousness emerging from the complexity of human brains. This complexity far surpasses that of Turing Machines, which, given their formal, axiomatic, and digital algorithmic limitations, are Gödel-incomplete (meaning there are truths that cannot be proven within the system’s own rules) in ways that neural, adaptive, biological minds are not. The ability to think about thoughts generates new thinking "and can transcend the limits of Turing Machines— perhaps via an evolutionary gift of intuition, hard-won by the legacy of our biological predecessors.

Ronald Cicurel’s brain-centric, transdisciplinary theories present a serious challenge to the mechanistic worldview. As Cicurel (2021) argues in “Brain-Centric: How the Mental Space Builds Our Realities”, the brain’s mental space plays a fundamental role in shaping human perception, challenging conventional mechanistic views.

John Archibald Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) suggests that observers create reality through conscious dialogue with physical reality. Wheeler's ideas challenged the traditional scientific view that physical reality is something that can be passively observed and instead proposed that the universe is a result of the relationship between human intelligence and physical reality. He said… “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

Some contemporary physicists, such as Penrose, speak out against being sidelined. New physical insight has arguably been stalled in unproductive theory-of-everything (ToE) endeavours (e.g., String Theory) for perhaps 70 years.

One would think it’s time to revisit the “why?” question. Eg., might some ideas be upheld with an adherence that verges on dogma?

It’s worth revisiting the insights of the physicists who shaped the modern era.

The dominance of analytical philosophy, mechanistic perspectives, and eliminative materialism can be questioned. We can open our minds to mindfulness and reconsider the AGI agenda of #TESCREALism, which might be more likely to deliver a dystopian #molochtrap nightmare than a utopian dream.