Abstract: This talk is in two parts. In the first part, I suggest that creativity arises from a close synergy between two modes of neuronal operation (corresponding to Kahnemann’s Systems 1 and 2) where in the first, the limited amount of available energy to the brain is spread across large numbers of active neuronal networks, making them susceptible to noise; and in the second, available energy is focussed on smaller subset of active networks, making them operate more deterministically. In the second part, I define consciousness in terms of an ability to perceive an object as independent of its surroundings.



This implies an ability to perceive counterfactual worlds where objects are perturbed relative to their surroundings. I argue that such perception may require quantum theoretic processes to be operating in the brain, since the very formulation of quantum theory (whether in convention or unconventional interpretations) involves the primacy of states of alternate worlds - alive and dead cats and so on. I argue that the brain’s reliance on such quantum processes may have arisen because they are more energy efficient than corresponding classical processes, and give some examples to justify this. Overall, I argue that human creativity and consciousness may have arisen from the brain’s evolution to become an organ of exceptional energy efficiency.



Keywords: #Models of consciousness

report post as inappropriate

This forum thread is open to the public.

Tim Palmer,

1. The micro-world somehow knows about (what we human beings symbolically represent as) laws of nature, variables, and associated numbers for the variables: THAT is the only possible content of proto-consciousness; THAT is the only possible basis for building the content of higher consciousness.

Our consciousness of the blonde woman wearing an aqua-coloured top crossing the road at a zebra crossing, with red, white and yellow cars, and green trees and grass in the background is not made-up stuff or random nonsense. The content of our consciousness, e.g. the woman in the aqua-coloured top, is necessarily built out of information coming from particle interactions in the eyes and information coming from other sense organs.

The basis for higher-level factual information is lower-level factual information; i.e. the basis for higher-level consciousness OF information is lower-level proto-consciousness OF information. There are no miracles: consciousness OF information can’t miraculously emerge from no consciousness of information.

2. For physicists, “creativity” is identical to the normal operation of the laws of nature, with a bit of randomness thrown in. HONEST physicists should NOT misuse the word “creativity”: they should use the words “mindless randomness”: they should call a spade a spade, and not try to make out it is more than a spade.

The genuine meaning of the word “creativity” is “bring (something) into existence”: if a person creates something, they literally bring it into existence. The physics of someone bringing something into existence is clearly different to the physics of mindless randomness.

report post as inappropriate

Tim Palmer,

“Causal heft” is a term used by philosopher David Chalmers. According to physics, only two elements of the universe have causal heft: laws of nature and mindless randomness; matter does not have causal heft. I.e. according to physics, people and other living things can’t have genuine causal heft i.e. they can’t have genuine free will or creativity, they can only have the superficial appearance of free will and creativity.

In this era of lies, spin and the massaging of facts, shouldn’t physicists be honest about their beliefs? Physicists should honestly say that they believe that free will and creativity don’t exist, and that what actually exists is the superficial appearance of free will and creativity. If free will and creativity did in fact genuinely exist, then physics would be wrong about the nature of matter.

report post as inappropriate