We assume realism when we observe, that a reality out there exists apart from us. Physical realism calls it physical and quantum realism calls it quantum but either way, most people agree that physical events affect nerves to cause observation. If physical events cause nerve events that cause mental observations, one can short-circuit the sequence to argue that mind alone creates observations. This goes against realism, but it is still logical.
Solipsism for example claims that mind alone creates reality, as it does when we dream. This theory is impossible to disprove but it isn’t accepted by science because it predicts nothing new and doesn’t explain how a mind that can dream arose in the first place.
QBism is a theory of physics that uses this “mind-trick” to dismiss not physical reality, as solipsism does, but quantum reality. It argues that quantum probabilities are degrees of belief about physical outcomes, so quantum waves are just in the mind. Like solipsism, it is impossible to disprove, as one could say gravity is a belief about how matter moves, so it is in the mind too. QBism doesn’t do this, as it selectively uses the mind argument to deny quantum reality not physical reality. Like solipsism, QBism lacks scientific value because it makes no predictions nor does it explain how a mind with beliefs can exist (McQueen, 2017). That physicists now invoke the mind to deny quantum reality is telling, because the elephant in the room of physics today is that quantum causes explain what physical causes don’t.
Cognitive theories of consciousness in contrast assume the mind arises from complexity. They claim that brains are conscious in the same way that ant colonies are, because:
“… ant colonies are no different from brains in many respects.” (Hofstadter & Dennett, 1981) p181.
It is argued that the brain is just a colony of nerves, but while ants communicate chemically, nerves use electricity. By this logic, the chemical trails ants lay down are the colony’s “language” just as neuron wiring causes our language. If dumb neurons create consciousness as dumb ants create a colony, consciousness remains as neurons come and go, just as a colony remains as ants come and go. This approach reinvents Crick’s “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons” theory.
The evidence is weak, as if an ant colony is a being that communicates by ant trails, why haven’t we learned its language by now, as we did that of the bees? It doesn’t help to suggest the same logic applies to countries like Russia or America:
“… let us think a bit right now about whether it makes sense to think of ‘being’ a country. Does a country have thoughts or beliefs?” (Hofstadter & Dennett, 1981) p192
To say that consciousness is private so countries might be conscious is just a smoke-screen. Scientists don’t ask others to disprove their speculations but go where the evidence leads and no evidence at all suggests that countries are beings. To argue that a seen unity might be a being is an appeal to naivety. If something was a being when it appeared to have a unity, tornadoes would be conscious beings. They aren’t, and neither are ant colonies or countries. When we connect physical parts into a bicycle, it becomes an entity to us but not to itself.
After presenting mysterious Gestalt patterns and speculating that ant colonies are conscious, the underwhelming conclusion of this theory is that:
“Mind is a pattern perceived by a mind.” (Hofstadter & Dennett, 1981) p200.
It isn’t hard to see that this statement is circular, because a mind is assumed to perceive a pattern that is then equated to the mind that perceived it. This theory, that mind is a creation of mind, is just another miracle thrown up to maintain physical realism.