Theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel has been thinking about the origin of consciousness as well as the origin of the universe. He asks, “At a fundamental level, only a few particles and forces govern all of reality. How do their combinations create human consciousness?”

He has an idea about that. He starts with this proposition:

In theory, everything that exists in the physical Universe is dependent only on the same fundamental entities and interactions that we find by splitting matter apart down to the smallest possible scales. Living creatures can be divided into cells; cells themselves are composed of organelles; organelles can be broken down into molecules; molecules are made up of atoms; atoms are comprised of electrons and atomic nuclei; electrons cannot be broken down further, but nuclei themselves consist of quarks and gluons. We should, therefore, be able to take these fundamental constituents of matter — quarks, gluons, and electrons — and assemble them in various ways to explain everything that we encounter in everyday life.

Ethan Siegel, “Can the known particles and interactions explain consciousness? Big Think, September 9, 2022/republished April 30, 2024

A reader had queried this sort of claim, writing “This precise ‘fitting’ can hardly be a pure coincidence,” especially when it leads to consciousness — and astrophysics. Siegel sets out to show that it is indeed pure coincidence.

He offers a longish but clearly articulated summary of the fundamental physics of our universe, then makes an astonishing assertion:

The emergence of life from non-life certainly occurred, but we’re still puzzling out precisely how it occurred on our planet. However, the forces of electromagnetism and gravity, given the conditions that arose naturally and the presence of complex molecules, seem to be all that’s required. Similarly, life has survived, thrived, and evolved over billions of years, giving rise to the diverse set of organisms that exists today, including us. As far as we can tell, what makes a “living being” alive is simply the presence of electricity: the flow of electrons.

Siegel, “Explain consciousness

Origin of life theorists, geneticists, physiologists, biochemists, and ecologists must wonder why they have been wasting their time for so long. A zap! is all it takes… And who knew? And as for consciousness:

Although there are many with wild ideas about what consciousness is and what its connection to the quantum realm might be, it’s possible — perhaps even likely — that simple electricity (i.e., the flow of electrons throughout a brain and/or nervous system in animals) is enough, given the right external configuration of atoms and molecules, to create the phenomenon we identify as consciousness.

Siegel, “Explain consciousness

Again, on this view, all those neuroscientists puzzling over theories of consciousness are just wasting their time. It’s not even a “Hard Problem” after all; we have just a few details about electricity flow to iron out.

His key point is,

If the laws of physics were so different that we couldn’t have come into existence, we never would have arisen to find these things out. Alas, we only have the one Universe, with the rules and limitations that it possesses, to study. Until we either find another, or discover precisely why and how our Universe has the rules and laws that it does, questions such as “Do the rules that our Universe plays by have a cause or a designer?” will firmly remain outside of the realm of science: beyond what it’s possible to know.

Siegel, “Explain consciousness

Note that we didn’t actually “find these things out,” as Siegel asserts. We haven’t found out anything of the kind. He is offering pure speculation, unencumbered (as he admits) by the “how exactly?” of essential details.

If accepted non-cause/non-design arguments are as imprecise and implausible as this, that fact in itself is an argument for considering cause and design as fundamental to the existence of the universe in which we live. Call it, if you like, an Argument from the Implausibility of the Alternatives.

It’s useful to know that this is the state of a materialist interpretation of consciousness today.

This sort of sleight of hand usually works, not because many of Siegel’s colleagues don’t see the weaknesses but precisely because they do. And I expect that they want him to go on this way too. That way, no one will have to, in the math sense, show their work to prove that there is no cause and no design, and that human consciousness is just ____________ (fill in the blank).

So everyone strives to keep the wheels churning, which includes dreaming up unsupported nonsense theories around the “Hard Problem of Consciousness.” By contrast, whatever readers may think of Hameroff et al’s Orch Or theory, at least the team is undertaking the hard work of trying to support it.

You may also wish to read: Science team argues, consciousness came before life. Can the authors take issue with Darwinian evolution claims while maintaining a materialist stance? Apart from demoting evolution, “consciousness first” it is yet another attempt to naturalize consciousness by making it a basic origin of life process.