- Email: [email protected]
Comment on “A thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness”
Journal Pre-proofs Comment on “A thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness” Seyedsaeid Ahmadvand, Bijan Peik, Babak Azarfar PII: DOI: Reference:
S0306-9877(19)31191-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2019.109500 YMEHY 109500
To appear in:
Medical Hypotheses
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
23 October 2019 12 November 2019 16 November 2019
Please cite this article as: S. Ahmadvand, B. Peik, B. Azarfar, Comment on “A thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness”, Medical Hypotheses (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2019.109500
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Comment on “A thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness” Seyedsaeid Ahmadvand1*, Bijan Peik2, Babak Azarfar3 1Department 2
of Chemistry, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557, USA
Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557, USA 3Environmental
Engineer, Tetra Tech Inc
*Email address: [email protected]
Abstract Recently, Beshkar has published a paper on the nature of qualia. His argument is based on several assumptions leading to a conjecture that qualia have a negentropic nature and so as consciousness. The assumptions are: 1) quale (singular of qualia) is the building block of consciousness and thus they are equivalent, 2) qualia and consciousness are both subjective and non-observable by any experiment, 3) qualia/consciousness are negentropic (∆𝑆 < 0) structures and yet the product of a universal evolution (∆𝑆 ≥ 0) in an attempt to maximize entropy (∆𝑆 = 0), 4) “quale is a structure generated by a specific region of the cerebral cortex”, 5) subjectivity/non-observability of qualia/consciousness stems from quantum laws erasing the trace of negentropic processes. Herein, the fundamental assumptions of this conjecture are disputed from the thermodynamic point of view, and subjectivity is scrutinized in more details. Throughout this paper, the word “observer” implies a conscious observer.
Introduction In a recent paper titled “a thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness”, Beshkar has conjectured that subjective conscious experiences (qualia), such as the taste of a specific apple, are related to negentropic formation of human brain (decreasing entropy). Thereupon, he extends this conjecture to all conscious experiences, taken that all brain related activities are subjected to negentropy and subjectivity. He uses subjectivity and non-observability as two interconnected elements to support his idea throughout the paper. Finally, this subjectivity/non-observability is linked to a quantum phenomenon, namely unitary transformation, in negentropic structures [1]. This unitary transformation ensures that the second law of thermodynamic is not violated by erasing the trace of negentropic processes [2]. Several approaches have been used in understanding consciousness [3–5], however, Beshkar’s approach is unique in the sense that it incorporates science (thermodynamics and quantum mechanics), cognition (qualia and consciousness), and philosophy (subjectivity). Soon after its advent, thermodynamics has come to help in variety of science and engineering disciplines [6–14]. Yet, among all physical laws, the second “law” of thermodynamics has remained the most controversial and philosophical [15–18]. The main significance of the second law arises from its directionality and universality; entropy of the Universe (universality) “always” increases (directionality) [19]. The second “law” inhibits universal negentropy in isolated systems, such as the Universe [20,21]. As far as our conscious experience is concerned, the so-called “violations” of the second law can be ignored in the macroscopic world [22]. Practically, this means no negentropy in isolated macroscopic systems; as opposed to “adiabatically isolated” systems in Beshkar’s paper [1]. However, the magnificence of the second law relies on its probabilistic nature, contrary to the so-called “deterministic laws” of nature [23,24]. Although
misleading, the words “law” and “violation” do not refer to an external obligation which must be obeyed, and only used for historical reasons. Rather, the word inhibition implies an internal push arising from the system itself. In other words, the second law limits the negentropic processes not because it filters them out or forbids them in a deterministic manner! This limitation is the consequence of extremely low occurrence probability of these processes in the thermodynamic limit [25,26]. All kinds of negentropic processes with higher probabilities could be observed for small isolated systems in the long run [27,28]. For an isolated system, once the equilibrium state is reached, the state with maximum entropy (∆𝑆 = 0), the future steps/fluctuations towards lowering the entropy are inevitable [29,30]. Not only biological systems but also all negentropic structures in the Universe could not exist independent of negentropic processes. However, this is only possible if the Universe is viewed as numerous substructures, i.e., open/closed systems, each of which surrounded by other substructures, i.e., surroundings. Seemingly, the more negentropic a system/process is, the more entropy needs to be released as the minimum payment to its surrounding and thus the Universe [31,32]. A simple example is the formation of interstellar molecules; if two species collide to form a molecule, the product needs to be stabilized by somehow dissipating the formation energy (if exothermic) in the low-density interstellar environment, even if the collision energy is zero [33]. In other words, the formation energy (Δ𝐻𝑟) is the minimum expense that needs to be paid to the Universe for an exothermic reaction to occur. The most random form of energy is thermal radiation, and the lower the energy of its component photons, the higher the entropy [34,35]. Living beings, as the most complex structures, are incredible heat dissipation entropy maximizing machines. They avoid equilibrium by maximizing the entropy of the Universe; life feeds on negative entropy (negentropy) [36]. A plant absorbs the concentrated ultraviolet light from the sun
and reprocesses it into a much higher entropy infrared radiation [37]. Animals consume highenergy density packets of matter called food and convert it to lower energy density waste, as well as that same infrared radiation [38].
Remarks Beshkar’s paper revolves around qualia and their properties, yet the equivalence of qualia and consciousness is the first assumption, apparent from his arguments, e.g., “to have qualia” is synonymous with “to be conscious” and the title of the paper [1]. The validity of this assumption is unclear, but to start with, we also assume that they are synonymous and all conscious experiences are “literally” qualitative. In addition, we dismiss the argument on whether qualitative experiences, such as colors, arise from discrepancies in observers’ tools, i.e., receivers and processors, or the subjectivity of colors themselves. For now, we can also live with the second assumption; qualia/consciousness are subjective/non-observable. The third assumption is made simply based on the fact that formation of brain could not be a result of a process in which entropy increases. Therefore, mental processes, such as qualia/consciousness, are also considered negentropic. Even if so, this can be directly deduced from the second law of thermodynamics, regardless of subjectivity/non-observability of qualia/consciousness. As previously stated, open/closed systems have no limitations in having negentropic structures/processes. Taken as an isolated system, only the whole Universe has to maximize its entropy, as no surrounding can be excluded from it. The objective is that formation of life and all its belongings, such as consciousness, and any other negentropic macroscopic structures are the same in the eyes of thermodynamics. Subjective or not, they cannot exist in isolated systems. The authors have no comment/objections on the fourth assumption of Beshkar’s paper and only suffice to mention that complexity indeed increases in the
processes with positive feedback loops [39]. Positive feedback loops in complex systems trigger self-organization and thus emergent phenomena [39,40]. Emergent phenomena can be viewed subjectively in the sense that they do not represent the properties of their motives. The fifth assumption is loosely based on a paper by Maccone, hypothesizing the quantum mechanical origin of time directionality and the second law [2]. Regardless of the validity of the suggested hypothesis in Maccone’s paper, the main controversy arises from how it has been used to conclude the following: taken that negentropic structures remove any trace of them happening as default, qualia/consciousness are negentropic, quantum mechanical, subjective, and cannot be physically studied. These analyses result in the following remaining questions related to the Beshkar’s conjecture: 1) Does subjectivity of qualia/consciousness come from the negentropic structure of brain or the entropic (positive entropy) cognitive processes that it performs? 2) If the earlier holds, are all negentropic structures subjective? 3) If the latter does, are all physical realities subjective? 4) If both do, are we condemned to be deceived by our consciousness, or there are non-physical objective realities invariant of subjective observations/cognitions? 5) If such objective realities exist (physical or not), how would we gain any knowledge about them with our subjective receivers (senses) and processors (brains)? 6) What is the need to believe in quantum nature of warm/wet brain if all negentropic structures cannot be even formed otherwise, e.g., within statistical thermodynamics? 7) What is the benefit of knowing that qualia/consciousness (even if the same) cannot be physically studied? 8) Do we need to know this (7) as a piece of information to realize that qualia/consciousness are negentropic, or we already know that much?
Figure 1. A typical communication path between observers and observables
These questions could be approached from the logical/philosophical point of view even before the scientific one. This helps to distinguish different types of subjectivity, when a subjective observation is involved. The following is an outstanding example to see how an objective mind could transform subjective conscious experiences to objective cognitions. Einstein’s motivation for the formulation of special and general relativity was to unleash physical realities from subjective opinions of observers [41,42]. In a subjective observation/experiment, what guarantees the objectivity of a physical reality in an observer’s mind is that the subjectivity of the observation/experiment must be limited to only disruptions/imperfections in the signals and/or receivers, i.e., the mediators (Fig. 1). If there is any intrinsic problem with the two ends (processor and/or observable), an observation always remains subjective (Fig. 1). Thenceforth, it would be redundant to ask whether the problem referred to the processor or the observable as there would be no way to differentiate. In relativity however, observers (with a subjective point of view) are able to connect (via Lorentz transformations) subjective observations (e.g., time and distance) to objective realities (e.g., causality) [41]. For further illustration, the following question could be asked. What would be deduced if one observed an apparent multiplication of celestial objects without any knowledge of gravitational lensing [43]? One would be definitely deceived by
subjectivity of the observation; related to signals in this example. It took a touch of genius Albert Einstein to use objectivity of a logical mind to save objective realities from subjective observations.
Acknowledgments We thank Aleksandr Lykhin, Sean Casey, and Sergey Varganov for insightful views. Conflicts of Interest The author declares no conflict of interest.
References [1]
Beshkar M. A thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness. Med Hypotheses 2018;113:15–6.
[2]
Maccone L. Quantum Solution to the Arrow-of-Time Dilemma. Phys Rev Lett 2009;103:080401.
[3]
Solms M. The Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Free Energy Principle. Front Psychol 2019;9.
[4]
Singer W. A Naturalistic Approach to the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Front Syst Neurosci 2019;13.
[5]
Adolphs R. The unsolved problems of neuroscience. Trends Cogn Sci 2015;19:173–5.
[6]
Criss RE, Hofmeister AM. Thermodynamic cosmology. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 2001;65:4077–85.
[7]
Brandãoa F, Horodecki M, Ng N, Oppenheim J, Wehner S. The second laws of quantum thermodynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:3275–9.
[8]
SantaLucia J, Hicks D. The thermodynamics of DNA structural motifs. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2004;33:415–40.
[9]
De Castro A. The thermodynamic cost of fast thought. Minds Mach 2013;23:473–87.
[10]
Bérut A, Arakelyan A, Petrosyan A, Ciliberto S, Dillenschneider R, Lutz E. Experimental verification of Landauer’s principle linking information and thermodynamics. Nature 2012;483:187–9.
[11]
Whittington AC, Kamalaldinezabadi S, Santiago JI, Miller BG. Vertical Investigations of Enzyme Evolution Using Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction. Ref. Modul. Chem. Mol. Sci. Chem. Eng., Elsevier; 2019.
[12]
Ahmadvand S, Elahifard M, Peik B, Behjatmanesh-Ardakani R, Abbasi B, Abbasi B. Predictive Modeling of Corrosion in Al/Mg Dissimilar Joint. ChemEngineering 2019;3:70.
[13]
Ahmadvand S, Abbasi B, Azarfar B, Elhashimi M, Zhang X, Abbasi B. Looking beyond energy efficiency: An applied review of water desalination technologies and an introduction to capillary-driven desalination. Water (Switzerland) 2019;11:696.
[14]
Boushehri R, Hasanpour Estahbanati S, Ghasemi-Fare O. Controlling Frost Heaving in Ballast Railway Tracks Using Low Enthalpy Geothermal Energy. Natl Acad Sci Eng Med 2019.
[15]
Schneider ED, Kay JJ. Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Math Comput Model 1994;19:25–48.
[16]
Salthe SN. The natural philosophy of work. Entropy 2007;9:83–99.
[17]
Uffink J. Bluff Your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part B - Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 2001;32:305–94.
[18]
Sheehan DP. The second law of thermodynamics: Foundations and status. Found Phys
2007;37:1653–8. [19]
Ganguly J. First and Second Laws. Thermodyn. Earth Planet. Sci., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2008, p. 19–51.
[20]
Castillo LF del, Vera-Cruz P. Thermodynamic Formulation of Living Systems and Their Evolution. J Mod Phys 2011;02:379–91.
[21]
Knox RS, Parson WW. Entropy production and the Second Law in photosynthesis. Biochim Biophys Acta - Bioenerg 2007;1767:1189–93.
[22]
Zhang QR. Information conservation, entropy increase and statistical irreversibility for an isolated system. Phys A Stat Mech Its Appl 2009;388:4041–4.
[23]
Gross DHE. Geometric foundation of thermo-statistics, phase transitions, second law of thermodynamics, but without thermodynamic limit. Phys Chem Chem Phys 2002;4:863– 72.
[24]
Gross DHE. Second Law in Classical Non-Extensive Systems. AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 643, AIP; 2003, p. 131–6.
[25]
Brown HR, Myrvold W, Uffink J. Boltzmann’s H-theorem, its discontents, and the birth of statistical mechanics. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part B - Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 2009;40:174– 91.
[26]
Myrvold WC. Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics: A Maxwellian view. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part B - Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 2011;42:237–43.
[27]
Wang GM, Sevick EM, Mittag E, Searles DJ, Evans DJ. Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales. Phys Rev Lett 2002;89:050601.
[28]
Evans DJ, Cohen EGD, Morriss GP. Probability of second law violations in shearing steady
states. Phys Rev Lett 1993;71:2401–4. [29]
Crooks GE. Beyond Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics: Maximum entropy hyperensembles out of equilibrium. Phys Rev E - Stat Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys 2007;75:041119.
[30]
Mishin Y. Thermodynamic theory of equilibrium fluctuations. Ann Phys (N Y) 2015;363:48–97.
[31]
Schreiber A, Gimbel S. Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Effectively Communicating to Non-technicians. Evol Educ Outreach 2010;3:99–106.
[32]
Michel D. Basic statistical recipes for the emergence of biochemical discernment. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2011;106:498–516.
[33]
Ahmadvand S, Zaari RR, Varganov SA. Spin-forbidden and spin-allowed cyclopropenone (c-H2C3O) formation in interstellar medium. Astrophys J 2014;795:173.
[34]
Ludovisi A. Energy degradation and ecosystem development: Theoretical framing, indicators definition and application to a test case study. Ecol Indic 2012;20:204–12.
[35]
Torío H, Schmidt D. Framework for analysis of solar energy systems in the built environment from an exergy perspective. Renew Energy 2010;35:2689–97.
[36]
Schrodinger E. What is life? Cambridge University Press; 1944.
[37]
Miedziejko EM, Kedziora A. Impact of plant canopy structure on the transport of ecosystem entropy. Ecol Modell 2014;289:15–25.
[38]
Swenson R, Turvey MT. Thermodynamic Reasons for Perception-Action Cycles. Ecol Psychol 1991;3:317–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0304_2.
[39]
Vasileiadou E, Safarzyńska K. Transitions: Taking complexity seriously. Futures 2010;42:1176–86.
[40]
Benbya H, McKelvey B. Toward a complexity theory of information systems development.
Inf Technol People 2006;19:12–34. [41]
Mühlhölzer F. On objectivity. Erkenntnis 1988;28:185–230.
[42]
Hentschel K. Philosophical Interpretations of Relativity Theory: 1910-1930. 1990.
[43]
Einstein A. Über den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes. Ann Phys 1911;340:898–908.
S0306-9877(19)31191-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2019.109500 YMEHY 109500
To appear in:
Medical Hypotheses
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
23 October 2019 12 November 2019 16 November 2019
Please cite this article as: S. Ahmadvand, B. Peik, B. Azarfar, Comment on “A thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness”, Medical Hypotheses (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2019.109500
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Comment on “A thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness” Seyedsaeid Ahmadvand1*, Bijan Peik2, Babak Azarfar3 1Department 2
of Chemistry, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557, USA
Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557, USA 3Environmental
Engineer, Tetra Tech Inc
*Email address: [email protected]
Abstract Recently, Beshkar has published a paper on the nature of qualia. His argument is based on several assumptions leading to a conjecture that qualia have a negentropic nature and so as consciousness. The assumptions are: 1) quale (singular of qualia) is the building block of consciousness and thus they are equivalent, 2) qualia and consciousness are both subjective and non-observable by any experiment, 3) qualia/consciousness are negentropic (∆𝑆 < 0) structures and yet the product of a universal evolution (∆𝑆 ≥ 0) in an attempt to maximize entropy (∆𝑆 = 0), 4) “quale is a structure generated by a specific region of the cerebral cortex”, 5) subjectivity/non-observability of qualia/consciousness stems from quantum laws erasing the trace of negentropic processes. Herein, the fundamental assumptions of this conjecture are disputed from the thermodynamic point of view, and subjectivity is scrutinized in more details. Throughout this paper, the word “observer” implies a conscious observer.
Introduction In a recent paper titled “a thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness”, Beshkar has conjectured that subjective conscious experiences (qualia), such as the taste of a specific apple, are related to negentropic formation of human brain (decreasing entropy). Thereupon, he extends this conjecture to all conscious experiences, taken that all brain related activities are subjected to negentropy and subjectivity. He uses subjectivity and non-observability as two interconnected elements to support his idea throughout the paper. Finally, this subjectivity/non-observability is linked to a quantum phenomenon, namely unitary transformation, in negentropic structures [1]. This unitary transformation ensures that the second law of thermodynamic is not violated by erasing the trace of negentropic processes [2]. Several approaches have been used in understanding consciousness [3–5], however, Beshkar’s approach is unique in the sense that it incorporates science (thermodynamics and quantum mechanics), cognition (qualia and consciousness), and philosophy (subjectivity). Soon after its advent, thermodynamics has come to help in variety of science and engineering disciplines [6–14]. Yet, among all physical laws, the second “law” of thermodynamics has remained the most controversial and philosophical [15–18]. The main significance of the second law arises from its directionality and universality; entropy of the Universe (universality) “always” increases (directionality) [19]. The second “law” inhibits universal negentropy in isolated systems, such as the Universe [20,21]. As far as our conscious experience is concerned, the so-called “violations” of the second law can be ignored in the macroscopic world [22]. Practically, this means no negentropy in isolated macroscopic systems; as opposed to “adiabatically isolated” systems in Beshkar’s paper [1]. However, the magnificence of the second law relies on its probabilistic nature, contrary to the so-called “deterministic laws” of nature [23,24]. Although
misleading, the words “law” and “violation” do not refer to an external obligation which must be obeyed, and only used for historical reasons. Rather, the word inhibition implies an internal push arising from the system itself. In other words, the second law limits the negentropic processes not because it filters them out or forbids them in a deterministic manner! This limitation is the consequence of extremely low occurrence probability of these processes in the thermodynamic limit [25,26]. All kinds of negentropic processes with higher probabilities could be observed for small isolated systems in the long run [27,28]. For an isolated system, once the equilibrium state is reached, the state with maximum entropy (∆𝑆 = 0), the future steps/fluctuations towards lowering the entropy are inevitable [29,30]. Not only biological systems but also all negentropic structures in the Universe could not exist independent of negentropic processes. However, this is only possible if the Universe is viewed as numerous substructures, i.e., open/closed systems, each of which surrounded by other substructures, i.e., surroundings. Seemingly, the more negentropic a system/process is, the more entropy needs to be released as the minimum payment to its surrounding and thus the Universe [31,32]. A simple example is the formation of interstellar molecules; if two species collide to form a molecule, the product needs to be stabilized by somehow dissipating the formation energy (if exothermic) in the low-density interstellar environment, even if the collision energy is zero [33]. In other words, the formation energy (Δ𝐻𝑟) is the minimum expense that needs to be paid to the Universe for an exothermic reaction to occur. The most random form of energy is thermal radiation, and the lower the energy of its component photons, the higher the entropy [34,35]. Living beings, as the most complex structures, are incredible heat dissipation entropy maximizing machines. They avoid equilibrium by maximizing the entropy of the Universe; life feeds on negative entropy (negentropy) [36]. A plant absorbs the concentrated ultraviolet light from the sun
and reprocesses it into a much higher entropy infrared radiation [37]. Animals consume highenergy density packets of matter called food and convert it to lower energy density waste, as well as that same infrared radiation [38].
Remarks Beshkar’s paper revolves around qualia and their properties, yet the equivalence of qualia and consciousness is the first assumption, apparent from his arguments, e.g., “to have qualia” is synonymous with “to be conscious” and the title of the paper [1]. The validity of this assumption is unclear, but to start with, we also assume that they are synonymous and all conscious experiences are “literally” qualitative. In addition, we dismiss the argument on whether qualitative experiences, such as colors, arise from discrepancies in observers’ tools, i.e., receivers and processors, or the subjectivity of colors themselves. For now, we can also live with the second assumption; qualia/consciousness are subjective/non-observable. The third assumption is made simply based on the fact that formation of brain could not be a result of a process in which entropy increases. Therefore, mental processes, such as qualia/consciousness, are also considered negentropic. Even if so, this can be directly deduced from the second law of thermodynamics, regardless of subjectivity/non-observability of qualia/consciousness. As previously stated, open/closed systems have no limitations in having negentropic structures/processes. Taken as an isolated system, only the whole Universe has to maximize its entropy, as no surrounding can be excluded from it. The objective is that formation of life and all its belongings, such as consciousness, and any other negentropic macroscopic structures are the same in the eyes of thermodynamics. Subjective or not, they cannot exist in isolated systems. The authors have no comment/objections on the fourth assumption of Beshkar’s paper and only suffice to mention that complexity indeed increases in the
processes with positive feedback loops [39]. Positive feedback loops in complex systems trigger self-organization and thus emergent phenomena [39,40]. Emergent phenomena can be viewed subjectively in the sense that they do not represent the properties of their motives. The fifth assumption is loosely based on a paper by Maccone, hypothesizing the quantum mechanical origin of time directionality and the second law [2]. Regardless of the validity of the suggested hypothesis in Maccone’s paper, the main controversy arises from how it has been used to conclude the following: taken that negentropic structures remove any trace of them happening as default, qualia/consciousness are negentropic, quantum mechanical, subjective, and cannot be physically studied. These analyses result in the following remaining questions related to the Beshkar’s conjecture: 1) Does subjectivity of qualia/consciousness come from the negentropic structure of brain or the entropic (positive entropy) cognitive processes that it performs? 2) If the earlier holds, are all negentropic structures subjective? 3) If the latter does, are all physical realities subjective? 4) If both do, are we condemned to be deceived by our consciousness, or there are non-physical objective realities invariant of subjective observations/cognitions? 5) If such objective realities exist (physical or not), how would we gain any knowledge about them with our subjective receivers (senses) and processors (brains)? 6) What is the need to believe in quantum nature of warm/wet brain if all negentropic structures cannot be even formed otherwise, e.g., within statistical thermodynamics? 7) What is the benefit of knowing that qualia/consciousness (even if the same) cannot be physically studied? 8) Do we need to know this (7) as a piece of information to realize that qualia/consciousness are negentropic, or we already know that much?
Figure 1. A typical communication path between observers and observables
These questions could be approached from the logical/philosophical point of view even before the scientific one. This helps to distinguish different types of subjectivity, when a subjective observation is involved. The following is an outstanding example to see how an objective mind could transform subjective conscious experiences to objective cognitions. Einstein’s motivation for the formulation of special and general relativity was to unleash physical realities from subjective opinions of observers [41,42]. In a subjective observation/experiment, what guarantees the objectivity of a physical reality in an observer’s mind is that the subjectivity of the observation/experiment must be limited to only disruptions/imperfections in the signals and/or receivers, i.e., the mediators (Fig. 1). If there is any intrinsic problem with the two ends (processor and/or observable), an observation always remains subjective (Fig. 1). Thenceforth, it would be redundant to ask whether the problem referred to the processor or the observable as there would be no way to differentiate. In relativity however, observers (with a subjective point of view) are able to connect (via Lorentz transformations) subjective observations (e.g., time and distance) to objective realities (e.g., causality) [41]. For further illustration, the following question could be asked. What would be deduced if one observed an apparent multiplication of celestial objects without any knowledge of gravitational lensing [43]? One would be definitely deceived by
subjectivity of the observation; related to signals in this example. It took a touch of genius Albert Einstein to use objectivity of a logical mind to save objective realities from subjective observations.
Acknowledgments We thank Aleksandr Lykhin, Sean Casey, and Sergey Varganov for insightful views. Conflicts of Interest The author declares no conflict of interest.
References [1]
Beshkar M. A thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness. Med Hypotheses 2018;113:15–6.
[2]
Maccone L. Quantum Solution to the Arrow-of-Time Dilemma. Phys Rev Lett 2009;103:080401.
[3]
Solms M. The Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Free Energy Principle. Front Psychol 2019;9.
[4]
Singer W. A Naturalistic Approach to the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Front Syst Neurosci 2019;13.
[5]
Adolphs R. The unsolved problems of neuroscience. Trends Cogn Sci 2015;19:173–5.
[6]
Criss RE, Hofmeister AM. Thermodynamic cosmology. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 2001;65:4077–85.
[7]
Brandãoa F, Horodecki M, Ng N, Oppenheim J, Wehner S. The second laws of quantum thermodynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:3275–9.
[8]
SantaLucia J, Hicks D. The thermodynamics of DNA structural motifs. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2004;33:415–40.
[9]
De Castro A. The thermodynamic cost of fast thought. Minds Mach 2013;23:473–87.
[10]
Bérut A, Arakelyan A, Petrosyan A, Ciliberto S, Dillenschneider R, Lutz E. Experimental verification of Landauer’s principle linking information and thermodynamics. Nature 2012;483:187–9.
[11]
Whittington AC, Kamalaldinezabadi S, Santiago JI, Miller BG. Vertical Investigations of Enzyme Evolution Using Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction. Ref. Modul. Chem. Mol. Sci. Chem. Eng., Elsevier; 2019.
[12]
Ahmadvand S, Elahifard M, Peik B, Behjatmanesh-Ardakani R, Abbasi B, Abbasi B. Predictive Modeling of Corrosion in Al/Mg Dissimilar Joint. ChemEngineering 2019;3:70.
[13]
Ahmadvand S, Abbasi B, Azarfar B, Elhashimi M, Zhang X, Abbasi B. Looking beyond energy efficiency: An applied review of water desalination technologies and an introduction to capillary-driven desalination. Water (Switzerland) 2019;11:696.
[14]
Boushehri R, Hasanpour Estahbanati S, Ghasemi-Fare O. Controlling Frost Heaving in Ballast Railway Tracks Using Low Enthalpy Geothermal Energy. Natl Acad Sci Eng Med 2019.
[15]
Schneider ED, Kay JJ. Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Math Comput Model 1994;19:25–48.
[16]
Salthe SN. The natural philosophy of work. Entropy 2007;9:83–99.
[17]
Uffink J. Bluff Your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part B - Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 2001;32:305–94.
[18]
Sheehan DP. The second law of thermodynamics: Foundations and status. Found Phys
2007;37:1653–8. [19]
Ganguly J. First and Second Laws. Thermodyn. Earth Planet. Sci., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2008, p. 19–51.
[20]
Castillo LF del, Vera-Cruz P. Thermodynamic Formulation of Living Systems and Their Evolution. J Mod Phys 2011;02:379–91.
[21]
Knox RS, Parson WW. Entropy production and the Second Law in photosynthesis. Biochim Biophys Acta - Bioenerg 2007;1767:1189–93.
[22]
Zhang QR. Information conservation, entropy increase and statistical irreversibility for an isolated system. Phys A Stat Mech Its Appl 2009;388:4041–4.
[23]
Gross DHE. Geometric foundation of thermo-statistics, phase transitions, second law of thermodynamics, but without thermodynamic limit. Phys Chem Chem Phys 2002;4:863– 72.
[24]
Gross DHE. Second Law in Classical Non-Extensive Systems. AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 643, AIP; 2003, p. 131–6.
[25]
Brown HR, Myrvold W, Uffink J. Boltzmann’s H-theorem, its discontents, and the birth of statistical mechanics. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part B - Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 2009;40:174– 91.
[26]
Myrvold WC. Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics: A Maxwellian view. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part B - Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 2011;42:237–43.
[27]
Wang GM, Sevick EM, Mittag E, Searles DJ, Evans DJ. Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales. Phys Rev Lett 2002;89:050601.
[28]
Evans DJ, Cohen EGD, Morriss GP. Probability of second law violations in shearing steady
states. Phys Rev Lett 1993;71:2401–4. [29]
Crooks GE. Beyond Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics: Maximum entropy hyperensembles out of equilibrium. Phys Rev E - Stat Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys 2007;75:041119.
[30]
Mishin Y. Thermodynamic theory of equilibrium fluctuations. Ann Phys (N Y) 2015;363:48–97.
[31]
Schreiber A, Gimbel S. Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Effectively Communicating to Non-technicians. Evol Educ Outreach 2010;3:99–106.
[32]
Michel D. Basic statistical recipes for the emergence of biochemical discernment. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2011;106:498–516.
[33]
Ahmadvand S, Zaari RR, Varganov SA. Spin-forbidden and spin-allowed cyclopropenone (c-H2C3O) formation in interstellar medium. Astrophys J 2014;795:173.
[34]
Ludovisi A. Energy degradation and ecosystem development: Theoretical framing, indicators definition and application to a test case study. Ecol Indic 2012;20:204–12.
[35]
Torío H, Schmidt D. Framework for analysis of solar energy systems in the built environment from an exergy perspective. Renew Energy 2010;35:2689–97.
[36]
Schrodinger E. What is life? Cambridge University Press; 1944.
[37]
Miedziejko EM, Kedziora A. Impact of plant canopy structure on the transport of ecosystem entropy. Ecol Modell 2014;289:15–25.
[38]
Swenson R, Turvey MT. Thermodynamic Reasons for Perception-Action Cycles. Ecol Psychol 1991;3:317–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0304_2.
[39]
Vasileiadou E, Safarzyńska K. Transitions: Taking complexity seriously. Futures 2010;42:1176–86.
[40]
Benbya H, McKelvey B. Toward a complexity theory of information systems development.
Inf Technol People 2006;19:12–34. [41]
Mühlhölzer F. On objectivity. Erkenntnis 1988;28:185–230.
[42]
Hentschel K. Philosophical Interpretations of Relativity Theory: 1910-1930. 1990.
[43]
Einstein A. Über den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes. Ann Phys 1911;340:898–908.