If information can’t cause consciousness, is it a social effect? Millions of ants form colonies that are described as a superorganisms, so perhaps neurons are the same, because physically:
“… ant colonies are no different from brains in many respects.” (Hofstadter & Dennett, 1981), p181.
In this theory, the brain is a colony of nerves that communicate electrically instead of chemically, as the chemical trails that ants lay down are like the paths of neurons, so it could have language as we do. Dumb neurons would then create consciousness as dumb ants create a colony, which remains as neurons come and go just as the colony remains as ants come and go. This proposal updates Crick’s pack of neurons idea to be that we are nothing but a colony of nerves.
The problem is that no evidence suggests that ant colonies are conscious. If an ant colony is a being that communicates, why haven’t we learned its language by now, as we did that of bees? It doesn’t help to suggest that perhaps countries like Russia or America are also beings:
“… 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.
Thinking about social entities, like families, tribes, and countries, however suggests that they are accepted constructs not beings (Whitworth & Sylla, 2012). For example, a bicycle is seen as an entity, but it doesn’t experience itself as such, so it isn’t a being like us. Likewise, we see countries as entities and act accordingly, but that doesn’t make them beings with thoughts and beliefs. We give storms names like Katrina but they aren’t beings, and neither are countries or ant colonies.
Finally, after showcasing various Gestalt pattern paradoxes, and speculating without evidence that ant colonies are conscious, the conclusion is that our mind is just a construct of itself:
“Mind is a pattern perceived by a mind.” (Hofstadter & Dennett, 1981), p200.
In this excellent example of circularity, the mind perceives a pattern that is then equated to the mind that perceived it, but a cause that causes itself is an infinite loop that never stops. The theory that the mind creates the mind then fails because it produces an infinite regression from which there is no escape, so social constructs that derive from the mind can’t be used to explain it.
In general, our ability to experience physical events can’t be explained either by them, or anything that derives from them, so what could cause it?