Musser’s “Is It Really So Hard?”
Science journalist George Musser explores the relationship between consciousness and physics with two explanatory arrows pointing in opposite directions. In addition to the normal using-science-to-explain-consciousness framework, he focuses on “why physicists are studying human consciousness and AI to unravel the mysteries of the universe.”
Verified*
George Musser
Science Writer
George Musser is an American science writer with degrees in electrical engineering, mathematics, and planetary science. He has received multiple awards for his work with *Scientific American* and is the author of *Spooky Action at a Distance*. His research and writing explore topics from planetary geology to the nature of space and time.
Key Takeaways
Core Claim
Explores a two-way link between physics and consciousness, asking if each could help explain the other.
How It Works
Considers relational and perspectival theories, where properties (including qualia) arise only through interactions.
Distinguishing Idea
Rejects strict mysterianism, arguing there’s no evidence science has reached an insurmountable wall.
Role of AI
Suggests advanced AI might uncover theories about consciousness or physics beyond unaided human capacity.
Optimistic Outlook
Believes our evolved minds can, in principle, understand consciousness because we are part of the world we study.
Musser’s “Is It Really So Hard?”
Science journalist George Musser explores the relationship between consciousness and physics with two explanatory arrows pointing in opposite directions. In addition to the normal using-science-to-explain-consciousness framework, he focuses on “why physicists are studying human consciousness and AI to unravel the mysteries of the universe.” Must physics, to find its holy-grail “theory of everything,” account for consciousness? Reciprocally, could such investigations provide new insights into physics? (Musser, 2023a, 2023b).
Musser centers his inquiry at the intersection of fundamental physics, neuroscience, and rapidly developing AI, and after examining diverse approaches, such as neural networks and quantum computing, predictive coding, and integrated information theory, he concludes with cautious optimism that we humans do have a shot at comprehending our consciousness. “There is as yet no sign that science has hit a wall,” Musser says. “Our minds evolved to understand the world, which requires that the world be understandable. And we are of this world” (Musser, 2023a, 2023b, p. 251).
From Mysterianism to Relational Explanations
Musser wants to reject the “mysterian” position of Colin McGinn, Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, and others, who think we might never grasp how consciousness works, even though they still have consciousness as a product of the natural, physical world, “rather than an exotic add-on” (like panpsychism) (Musser, 2023a, 2023b, p. 240). Although he comes to no firm conclusion, Musser gives pride of place to explanations of consciousness that are “perspectival” or “relational.” He approvingly quotes Carlo Rovelli that the physical world is “a web of relations … things have no properties in isolation, but acquire them only at their point of contact with other things” (Musser, 2023a, 2023b, p. 148). Musser then begins “to think about how qualia might be relational” (Musser, 2023a, 2023b, p. 243).
Musser and colleagues wonder whether the exponentially growing power of AI could, at some future point, devise or discover theories that a human mind could not, from foundations of quantum mechanics to the essence of consciousness. Perhaps, Musser muses, “the machines will help us the most when they are their most inscrutable” (Musser, 2023a, 2023b, p. 250). (Personally, I [RLK] would find it a very large surprise if AI, however successful at predicting protein structures and checking mega-math proofs, could provide novel insight to the hard problem. AI might enjoy proving me wrong.)
Tools
Cite