人妻少妇专区

In Review

As you would expect, Adam Frank, a professor of physics and astronomy, has a pretty good handle on the laws of physics in this universe. But what happens when the universe under discussion is fictional? And the beings who populate that universe have super powers?

The makers of the latest Marvel blockbuster, Doctor Strange, wanted the fantasy film to have scientific substance. For help, they turned to Frank, who was a science consultant on the film.

Who is Doctor Strange?

Stephen Strange is a brilliant but arrogant neurosurgeon who loses the use of his hands, at least to conduct surgery, because of a car accident. He looks for some way to heal his hands, and goes through all kinds of surgeries. He ends up in Tibet as a last resort, in front of the Ancient One, a mystical master. She opens him up to the fact that there鈥檚 more to life, and to the world, than his reductionist way of looking at things. He becomes her disciple and trains to become a sorcerer, an occult mystical master fighting against the forces of evil.

If Strange becomes a sorcerer, why do the filmmakers need a science consultant? Aren鈥檛 magic and science incompatible?

The interesting thing about the Marvel movies is that they鈥檝e built a consistent and coherent universe with laws of physics.

They are, of course, not our laws of physics. But they鈥檙e built off of our laws of physics. So when you鈥檝e got this science-y universe and a character who鈥檚 all about sorcery and magic, how do you bring that character into the universe鈥擬arvel鈥檚 cinematic science of the universe鈥攊n a way that鈥檚 coherent, but that doesn鈥檛 damage the character? How do you account for Strange鈥檚 powers? Where do they come from? I was brought in to help answer those questions.

What solution did you propose?

My take on this was to look at consciousness, rather than to try to explain his powers using neuroscience. In philosophy there is the mind-body problem: what is the relationship between the neurons that are in your brain and the experience of consciousness itself?

There鈥檚 a reductionist view that says anything, whatever your feelings, love or joy, they鈥檙e really just neurons, and those neurons are just atoms, so everything can be reduced to the lowest level of structure. But we don鈥檛 really have a science of consciousness.

I鈥檓 a lapsed reductionist. I went into science because I was a reductionist, and as time has gone on, I think there鈥檚 more that needs to be accounted for. The philosopher David Chalmers wrote a very influential paper in the 1990s called 鈥淥n the Hard Problem of Consciousness.鈥� His perspective was that the vividness of internal experience鈥攖he fact that you鈥檙e present, that there is a present for you in the world鈥攃an鈥檛 be explained just by atoms. You may need to explain it by some new thing, something else in the universe to explain it.

And I thought that opened up possibilities for the narrative. Now, suddenly, Strange is tapping into this 鈥渟omething else鈥� that is what consciousness is.

Do you regret any of the compromises the movie makes with science鈥攐r, at least, our universe鈥檚 science?

The one place in the movie where I winced a bit was then they used the word 鈥渟oul.鈥� The Ancient One pushes Strange鈥檚 soul out of his body, and there鈥檚 a moment of astral projection

I don鈥檛 really believe in souls. The awesome part for me is I get to tell people about, in Chalmers鈥檚 words, 鈥渢he hard problem of consciousness.鈥�

My job as a science communicator is to get people to think about how science works. But philosophy is just as important to me in getting people to think about this fundamental question, what is the nature of consciousness? How does consciousness express itself in the material world? What does that tell us about the material world and the world of consciousness? When I do that, I can go home and be happy.

---

Adapted and edited from a University podcast at Rochester.edu/newscenter/doctor-strange-science.锘匡豢