RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014

Hi Folk,
I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science's grapplings with 
consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and 
so incredibly unseen it beggars belief. I know it's a long way from physics to 
neuroscience (discipline-wise). But surely in 2014 we can see it for what it 
is. Can't they (Tegmark and ilk)  see that the so-called "science of 
consciousness" is

*         the "the science of the scientific observer"

*         trying to explain observing with observations

*         trying to explain experience with experiences

*         trying to explain how scientists do science.

*         a science of scientific behaviour.

*         Descriptive and never explanatory.

*         Assuming that the use of consciousness to confirm 'laws of nature' 
contacts the actual underlying reality...

*         Assuming there's only 1 scientific behaviour and never ever ever 
questioning that.

*         Assuming scientists are not scientific evidence of anything.

*         Assuming that objectivity, in objectifying something out of 
subjectivity, doesn't evidence the subjectivity at the heart of it.

*         Confusing scientific evidence as being an identity with objectified 

2500 years of blinkered paradigmatic tacit gives us 
exactly what happened for phlogiston during the 1600s. A new 'state of matter'? 
 Bah! Phlogiston!!! Of course not! All we have to do is admit we are actually 
inside the universe, made of whatever it is made of, getting a view from the 
point of view of being a bit of it...... grrrrrrrr. The big mistake is that 
thinking that physics has ever, in the history of science, ever ever ever dealt 
with what the universe is actually made of, as opposed to merely describing 
what a presupposed observer 'sees it looking like'. The next biggest mistake is 
assuming that we can't deal with what the universe is actually made of, when 
that very stuff is delivering an ability to scientifically observe in the first 

These sorts of expositions have failed before the authors have even lifted a 
finger over the keyboard. Those involved don't even know what the problem is. 
The problem is not one _for_ science. The problem is _science itself_  ... _us_.

Sorry. I just get very very frustrated at times. I have written a book on this 
and hopefully it'll be out within 6 months. That'll sort them out.

Happy new year!


Colin   (@Dr_Cuspy, if you tweet).
<phew rant over, feel better now>

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to