Unified Consciousness
Integrated Information Theory, General Resonance Theory, & Panpsychism
The nature of consciousness has puzzled humanity since the beginning of time. The question of how subjective experience arises from matter is referred to as the “hard problem of consciousness,” which posits a fundamental explanatory gap between the physical and the experiential. By integrating several theories of consciousness, I believe we can dissolve this problem and achieve a unified theory of consciousness that explains the emergence of complex consciousness in a way that is compatible with scientific naturalism. The relevant theories are Integrated Information Theory (IIT), General Resonance Theory (GRT), and panpsychism. In this essay, I will suggest that consciousness is both substrate-dependent and an intrinsic property of the universe, fundamentally tied to the integration of information and the resonant properties of physical systems.
An Evolved User Interface
Our conception of the world is a projection of the mind, an interpretation of sensory impressions moreso than plain perceptions. Our brain interprets the information it receives and presents us with a coherent picture of the world. This mental projection of the world is basically a user interface, not unlike the GUI (Graphical User Interface) in a computer. This user interface is not the product of intelligent design but rather a product of evolution. As species emerged and came to evolve competing user interfaces, natural selection led to the survival of those interfaces that were reliable enough to allow the species to interact with its environment in a reasonable way.
Consciousness can be thought of as a “user” and our mental projection of the world (what we see and hear, etc.) can be likened to a “user interface” that evolved to integrate sensory data and memory, allowing organisms to navigate their environments effectively. This interface simplifies the complex, underlying processes of the brain, presenting a coherent narrative to facilitate survival. The “user,” or the subjective sense of self, arises alongside this interface as a decision-maker, capable of resolving conflicts between competing inputs and inclinations. However, this “user” is not a fundamental entity like a soul or “the essence of a person” but is rather an emergent phenomenon resulting from the natural unification of distributed processes in the brain.
Modern neuroscience confirms this distributed nature of consciousness, revealing that what feels like a singular “self” is actually a constructed experience. Vision, memory, emotion, and cognition are processed in distinct brain regions, with consciousness arising from their integration. This aligns with the Buddhist concept of anatman (not-self), which posits that the “self” is an illusion arising from the interplay of impermanent aggregates. Recognizing the illusory nature of the self helps us understand consciousness as a dynamic, substrate-bound phenomenon.
Integrated Information Theory
Integrated Information Theory (IIT) offers a quantitative framework for understanding consciousness. It posits that consciousness arises from systems that integrate information in a highly unified and differentiated manner. The degree of consciousness in a system is measured by Φ (phi), a value representing the extent of integration. According to IIT:
- Consciousness is an intrinsic property of systems that process information in a certain way.
- The structure and dynamics of the system’s physical substrate determine how information is integrated.
IIT implies that any system with non-zero Φ has some degree of consciousness, even if rudimentary. This suggests a continuum of consciousness, from the minimal proto-consciousness of simple systems to the richly unified consciousness of a human brain. By emphasizing the dependence of consciousness on the integration of information, IIT provides a foundation for understanding how subjective experience arises within biological systems.
General Resonance Theory
While IIT explains how integrated information leads to consciousness, General Resonance Theory (GRT) describes the physical mechanism responsible for the unification of consciousness. GRT posits that resonances — synchronized oscillations within physical systems — bind disparate processes into coherent patterns. The brain’s resonant frequencies, shaped by its biological substrate, unify sensory inputs, memory, and cognitive processes into a single, cohesive experience. When parts of a brain resonate together (e.g. brain waves), they are able to share information and the information system which emerges obtains a unified consciousness.
Resonance depends on the specific physical properties of the brain, including its electrochemical interactions, neuronal architecture, and electromagnetic fields. This substrate dependence challenges the notion that consciousness is “substrate-independent,” as some proponents of artificial intelligence (AI) suggest. Without the brain’s unique resonant dynamics, the unified experience of consciousness cannot arise, even if computational processes are replicated in another medium. This means that ordinary AI on a computer cannot ever become conscious.
Does IIT Imply Panpsychism?
IIT has significant implications for panpsychism, the view that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. Since IIT holds that any system with integrated information possesses some degree of consciousness, even simple systems — such as particles, atoms, or molecules — might have a rudimentary form of awareness, or “proto-consciousness.” This aligns with panpsychism’s assertion that consciousness is not confined to complex organisms but exists along a continuum throughout the universe.
Panpsychism extends IIT by positing that proto-consciousness is an intrinsic property of all matter. Biological systems, like the human brain, do not “create” consciousness but amplify and integrate proto-consciousness into a unified form through processes described by IIT and GRT. Thus, consciousness does not emerge from non-conscious matter but evolves as an organized manifestation of pre-existing proto-consciousnesses into a more complex unified consciousness.
Dissolving the Hard Problem of Consciousness
The “hard problem of consciousness” arises when we assume a dichotomy between the physical and the experiential, asking how subjective experience can emerge from purely physical processes. By adopting a panpsychist framework, this problem dissolves:
- Proto-Consciousness as Fundamental: If proto-consciousness is an inherent property of all matter, there is no explanatory gap. The transition from physical processes to subjective experience is simply the organization of this intrinsic property.
- Integration and Resonance: Unified consciousness arises when systems integrate information (IIT) and synchronize their processes through resonance (GRT). The brain achieves this through its unique biological substrate, resulting in the subjective “user” experience.
This perspective frames consciousness (or proto-consciousness) as a natural property of the universe. The “user” experience emerges as the flipside of the evolved “user interface,” where an agent is needed to process and act upon disparate information that comes from sensory inputs and memory.
The Substrate Dependence of Consciousness
Consciousness, as described by IIT and GRT, is deeply tied to the physical properties of its substrate:
- Integration Requires Structure: The brain’s ability to integrate information depends on its specific architecture, including its neuronal connections, chemical gradients, and electrical activity.
- Resonance Requires Medium: The brain’s resonances depend on the elasticity, conductivity, and electromagnetic properties of its biological tissues. These dynamics cannot be replicated in digital systems like computers, which lack the analog oscillatory properties necessary for resonance.
This challenges the notion that consciousness can be “uploaded” to a computer. Even if a computer replicates the brain’s informational processes, it would lack the resonances essential for unifying consciousness. Thus, consciousness is substrate-dependent, tied to the specific properties of biological systems.
Consciousness and the Universe
By integrating IIT, GRT, and panpsychism, we can view the universe as fundamentally imbued with consciousness. Proto-consciousness is a basic property of matter, present in all systems to varying degrees. Complex systems like brains organize this proto-consciousness into unified experiences, creating the rich subjective worlds we associate with human consciousness.
This perspective has profound implications:
- Continuity of Consciousness: Consciousness exists on a spectrum, from the minimal proto-consciousness of simple systems to the unified awareness of complex organisms.
- Emergence of Unified Consciousness: Evolution facilitated the organization of proto-consciousness into increasingly complex, integrated, and resonant forms.
Integrating IIT, GRT, and Panpsychism
By combining Integrated Information Theory, General Resonance Theory, and panpsychism, we can construct a comprehensive model of consciousness that is both substrate-dependent and intrinsic to the universe. Consciousness arises not as an emergent property but as the unified organization of pre-existing proto-consciousness through information integration and resonance. This framework dissolves the “hard problem of consciousness,” reframing it as a natural consequence of the universe’s fundamental properties. Consciousness, in this view, is not something humans uniquely possess but a universal phenomenon that we uniquely amplify and unify through the remarkable architecture of the brain.
The Case for Panpsychism
First, what is panpsychism? Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that posits consciousness, or at least some form of mental aspect, as a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. This perspective challenges the traditional divide between mind and matter, suggesting instead that all physical entities — even seemingly “inanimate” ones like atoms and quarks — have some rudimentary form of experience or awareness. This does not necessarily mean that things like rocks and trees are conscious entities the way dogs and humans are. It merely means that they are made up of parts that have a sort of proto-consciousness. This proto-consciousness in quantum systems can be thought of as a sort of blank awareness. Without a neural network and sensory inputs from a body, there is no experience akin to human consciousness but rather a very primitive proto-consciousness that consists merely of an awareness of being.
We speak of quantum systems “behaving” a certain way and, panpsychism suggests, perhaps the way things behave at the quantum level actually is behavior. Perhaps matter is conscious and properties like spin and charge are behaviors on the part of primitive consciousness. With the most primitive and basic types of proto-consciousness, we might expect their behavior to be predictable as if following a law. A particle, of course, does not have complex consciousness and, therefore, experiences nothing like deliberation and decision making — it simply follows its inclinations and does what it is inclined to do, behaving as is natural to it.
There are two interesting arguments for panpsychism that I’d like to talk about. The first of these arguments for panpsychism hinges on the idea that it avoids the hard problem of consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness refers to the question of how matter can give rise to consciousness. How does non-conscious matter suddenly become conscious? How does the complex network of neurons in the brain give rise to awareness? Well, the panpsychists suggest that perhaps matter is conscious at some level. Consciousness isn’t an emergent phenomena that comes from complex material conditions but rather is a basic feature of physical stuff. Complex consciousness, then, does not emerge from non-conscious matter but rather grows in complexity as systems emerge in which conscious matter, joined together in particular ways, can share information throughout a single conscious system.
Panpsychism addresses the hard problem of consciousness by suggesting that consciousness isn’t something that simply “emerges” at high levels of complexity (like in human brains) but is instead a fundamental feature of all matter, just as mass or charge are. In this view, even the simplest particles have a form of “proto-consciousness,” or elementary awareness. When complex systems like brains form, these tiny “units” of consciousness integrate, creating the unified conscious experience we recognize in ourselves.
The most compelling aspect of this idea is that it sidesteps the hard problem by proposing that consciousness isn’t something that needs to “arise” or be explained in terms of complex processes. Instead, it’s always there, inherently embedded in the fabric of the universe. The brain’s role, in this view, isn’t to produce consciousness from scratch but to organize and intensify it, creating the rich, subjective experience we recognize.
Proponents argue that panpsychism provides a more parsimonious explanation than dualistic views (which posit an immaterial mind interacting with the physical) and purely physicalist views (which struggle to explain subjective experience). By making consciousness a basic building block of reality, panpsychism offers a framework where consciousness is as universal as matter and energy, suggesting a more fundamental continuity between the mind and the physical world.
The second argument for panpsychism appeals to Occam’s razor. The one thing that we know for sure is that consciousness exists. We experience consciousness directly. We do not, however, know that matter exists. Everything we know about the world around us is mediated through conscious experience and it is only the mental phenomena that we directly know. There are two possibilities: (1) that matter exists as a second type of thing, distinct from consciousness, or (2) that matter is the same as consciousness. We know for certain that consciousness exists. We don’t know for certain that anything else exists. And Occam’s razor suggests that the idea that matter and consciousness are one thing ought to be the preferred solution unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Is there really sufficient evidence to suggest that “matter” exists as a second kind of stuff that is distinct from consciousness?
One approach to panpsychism is general resonance theory. The general resonance theory of consciousness, as proposed by Tam Hunt, argues that complex consciousness arises from synchronized vibrations (resonance) across matter. In this theory, quantum systems have a primitive form of consciousness. This basic, primitive consciousness can be aggregated into more complex awareness as the vibrational energies of different quantum systems within a network (such as the brain) resonate with one another. The brain’s electrical and chemical signals create various brainwaves and, it is posited, resonances created by brainwave synchronization across the brain lead to unified awareness and complex subjective experiences.
I don’t necessarily believe that the theory of consciousness put forth here is correct. I believe it is a probable solution but I do not think we have enough info to definitely say it is true. I also doubt that it is possible to have any certainty with regard to theories of consciousness. It may be an inherent limitation of the human mind that it cannot ever explain itself to itself.
