1
2
3
​
KEY POINT: There is currently open debate about what consciousness is.
Some people argue that consciousness is more foundational than matter & energy. Sometimes consciousness is even proposed to be primary to the laws of physics. This anti-physicalist perspective has been popularized by Deepak Chopra, Natalie Dyer, Dean Radin, and others.
​
Conifold Theory takes a different approach, arguing that consciousness arises from matter and energy - specifically from the operations of neural networks obeying physical laws. By following the laws of physical information processing, the theory allows us to understand how we perceive the world, how we remember the past and form expectations of the future, how we set goals and how we make decisions. In this view, consciousness is not some mysterious thing, but rather an incredible trait that evolved to help us better navigate our world.
​
​
​
​
​
KEY POINT: Positing the existence of a non-physical realm does not provide a better explanation of reality than physics does. It is simply not evident that non-physical realms or forces play any role in our world. While there are certainly events that cannot be explained in our current understanding, we are continuously improving our explanatory power. With science, we can grow to understand how things work. And there is no evidence that non-physical forces can influence the structure or operation of our universe. It just runs according to physical laws.
​
While Conifold Theory does postulate the existence of additional spatial dimensions, these are physical dimensions, obeying physical laws and populated by physical particles. Within this scientific framework, information is an actual quantity produced by neural activity - encoded on the neural network structure and holographically projected into a higher spatial dimension. While this explanation does require that information content is actually contained in a 'hidden' dimension, the conifold structure is again a physical object obeying physical laws.
Many anti-physicalists will say that consciousness obeys a ‘deeper, more fundamental law'. Scientists certainly agree there are fundamental laws which guide the structure and operation of the universe, but the existence of these laws does not make consciousness more fundamental than matter, energy, and entropy. Anti-physicalists equate consciousness with the fundamental law itself. Meanwhile scientists view consciousness as an emergent property of matter, energy, and entropy, which themselves obey mathematical and physical laws. It seems strange to get stuck on a metaphysical position which provides no real explanation of what consciousness is and what it does, when all evidence points to consciousness arising from the structural and functional properties of neural networks, serving a purpose by helping us to navigate reality.
​
​
​
​
​
​
KEY POINT: Particles and fields exist, and these physical phenomena explain the structure and operation of the universe quite well. There is no need to posit a non-physical realm to explain how things work. While our understanding of the true nature of reality is incomplete, the scientific method allows us to continually approach a greater understanding of our reality. This applies to understanding our selves as much as any other physical phenomena.
​
Some people find it difficult to believe that physical reality exists. Instead, they prefer to believe that reality is an illusion, and our 'real selves' are elsewhere. This philosophical position implies that it is 'not good enough' to be physical entities. Is it so bad to be a physical being - operating in accordance with physical laws, with the amazing capacity to perceive our world through our senses, understand our world by exercising our brains, and direct behavior through our limbs? If this philosophical position feels uncomfortable, it may be useful to ask yourself why.
​
​