Is matter conscious?

[Vico]

The only thing that we cannot argue against is that we experience, we are conscious. There are two scenarios available here: (1) Matter is primary and is conscious or (2) Consciousness is primary and matter is a manifestation of consciousness, matter is an illusion.

Lets discuss (1) first. I know for sure that I am conscious, I could doubt about people. What makes me me is mere matter. What makes me different from a stone is the formation of matter. Formation however cannot cause consciousness. Therefore matter is conscious.

Lets discuss (2) now. Consciousness is primary. Consciousness is however immaterial and has no location therefore one should be able to experience all forms if s/he is consciousness. Our experiences however is bounded. This means that we are not consciousness. Therefore consciousness cannot be primary (the example of soul is related to second scenario).

Giulio Tononi (University of Wisconsin in Madison) proposed in 2008 that a system demonstrating consciousness needs:

1. to be able to store and process large amounts of information
2. the information must be integrated and indivisible.

 

[STT]

How do you define consciousness?

Essence of any being or thing with the ability to experience and act (self-cause).

What is the lowest limit?

We see many forms, many levels.

I think whatever lower limit we draw is arbitrary. There is no lower limit. We say atoms behave as they do because of natural forces, especially electromagnetic.

Yes, even atoms behave in specific manner.

But we get down to micro tubules in the brain. Is a singe micrtubule conscious?

Yes, given the above definition.

I think forces of nature are expressions of God’s consciousness and intent all the way to the subatomic.

Or matter is conscious by itself. We are made of matter and we are not an expression of God’s consciousness.

What is dust. There are many kinds of dust. Silicone dust, human flesh dust, biocarbon dust. They seem to us dead, inconscient. At the subatomic level they are full of activity. We usually do not recognize it as “consciousness” . Why now? It doesn’t fit into our arbitrary definition. That’s all. But suppose it is a form of consciousness with an impulse to further actual inaction. This impulse leads to more and more complex formations until we first acknowledge it. But it is there all the time and all around us. It finds many expressions as the pleasure of God.

Yes, any small particle seems dead yet actively experience and act based on how we disturb them.

Why do you say “formation cannot lead to consciousness” when by our observation and definition it does?

Because formation just defines how an entity interacts with its environment. A stone react to any applied force. We also react to any applied forced but in a more complex manner. What are the same things in both case are the experience and act. How a stone could possibly react to a force if it doesn’t experience it?

 

[STT]

The soul is a principle of existence for my whole self. There is a causal relationship between my intellect and my senses. It doesn’t exist “apart” from me, either. There’s no claim to everyone having the same intellect.

There is a problem here. Why your soul just have a causal relationship with your body considering the fact that soul is immaterial and has no location. I would accept your argument if soul has a location but it doesn’t.

That a soul is immaterial doesn’t mean it has infused knowledge of all things.

Why not? Soul doesn’t have any location so it should be able to have the infused knowledge of all things if it has capacity to experience. For example your soul in principle should be able to experience what I and you experience at the same time.

 

[STT]

Even if the human soul did not “reside in” the body, it would remain keyed to that body and to that body alone.

ICXC NIKA

How? That is the problem. There are numerous number of individuals which each has a body and a soul. How a soul could experience what a body perceive locally when soul doesn’t have any location?

 

[STT]

Giulio Tononi (University of Wisconsin in Madison) proposed in 2008 that a system demonstrating consciousness needs:

1. to be able to store and process large amounts of information
2. the information must be integrated and indivisible.

That couldn’t be correct. I think he is mixing intelligence with consciousness. Is a computer conscious in his opinion? Information is basically shape of a substance. Making it integrated and indivisible does add anything new, it is eventually a shape.

 

[Vico]

That couldn’t be correct. I think he is mixing intelligence with consciousness. Is a computer conscious in his opinion? Information is basically shape of a substance. Making it integrated and indivisible does add anything new, it is eventually a shape.

The idea is presented in “integrated information theory,” is that consciousness is a **product **of structures that can store large amounts of information and have a critical density of interconnections between their parts.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Essence of any being or thing with the ability to experience and act (self-cause).

Because formation just defines how an entity interacts with its environment. A stone react to any applied force. We also react to any applied forced but in a more complex manner. What are the same things in both case are the experience and act. How a stone could possibly react to a force if it doesn’t experience it?

Auto correct messed up my paragraph. Let me correct it, “What is dust. There are many kinds of dust. Silicone dust, human flesh dust, biocarbon dust. They seem to us dead, inconscient. At the subatomic level they are full of activity. We usually do not recognize it as “consciousness” . Why not? It doesn’t fit into our arbitrary definition. That’s all. But suppose it is a form of consciousness with an impulse to further actualize. This impulse leads to more and more complex formations until we first acknowledge it. But it is there all the time and all around us. It finds many expressions as the pleasure of God.”

From a different angle. What about everything you dreamed last night? It is all part of your consciousness. Everything and everyone we dream and imagine is an expression of our consciousness. Is it not likely that all creation is analogous to a thought in the mind of God?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

That is what we are arguing in favor, matter is conscious. That is true since the difference between you and dust is the formation and formation cannot lead to consciousness therefore matte has to be conscious.

Do you mean that matter as a whole (the universe) is conscious, or that every particle is, or every molecule, or every atom, or every subatomic particle?

I am composed of billions of subatomic particles. How many consciences are there in me? And, this conscience that says “me” this very moment, to which particle does it “belong”, and why is it different from the other consciences, which always remain silent?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Do you mean that matter as a whole (the universe) is conscious, or that every particle is, or every molecule, or every atom, or every subatomic particle?

I am composed of billions of subatomic particles. How many consciences are there in me? And, this conscience that says “me” this very moment, to which particle does it “belong”, and why is it different from the other consciences, which always remain silent?

The consciousness that says"me" is the aggregate of all the others. Not “different than” but a “synergy of”.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The consciousness that says"me" is the aggregate of all the others. Not “different than” but a “synergy of”.

Aggregate and synergy are disjoint notions. I will keep the term “synergy”, and leave behind the term “aggregate”. So…

Synergy of consciousnesses? If there is consciousness A (which should be the consciousness of X), and consciousness B (which might be the consciousness of Y -where X and Y might be different from each other)), what would be “the synergy” of A and B?

And if the consciousness that says “me” is the synergy of billions of consciousnesses, what would be the resulting consciousness be conscious of?

Besides, there is a continuous exchange of matter between what is called “my body” and what is called “its surroundings”. At an atomic level there are just zones of higher density than others, but it is not possible to say where does a “thing” start or end. Then, why is it that “synergy” does not proceed to a higher extent and you remain a consciousness which is different than me? If there is something like a “synergy of consciousnesses”, and it is not your invention of this morning, why is it that there are so many consciousnesses?

 

[STT]

Auto correct messed up my paragraph. Let me correct it, “What is dust. There are many kinds of dust. Silicone dust, human flesh dust, biocarbon dust. They seem to us dead, inconscient. At the subatomic level they are full of activity. We usually do not recognize it as “consciousness” . Why not? It doesn’t fit into our arbitrary definition. That’s all. But suppose it is a form of consciousness with an impulse to further actualize. This impulse leads to more and more complex formations until we first acknowledge it. But it is there all the time and all around us. It finds many expressions as the pleasure of God.”

You are not really saying much against my argument.

From a different angle. What about everything you dreamed last night? It is all part of your consciousness. Everything and everyone we dream and imagine is an expression of our consciousness. Is it not likely that all creation is analogous to a thought in the mind of God?

I have a problem with that. An agent in the mind of God cannot have free will since his very existence depends on something else.

 

[STT]

Do you mean that matter as a whole (the universe) is conscious, or that every particle is, or every molecule, or every atom, or every subatomic particle?

Any single entity is conscious. The sum of two interacting entities is also conscious too but in higher order and united.

I am composed of billions of subatomic particles. How many consciences are there in me?

As many as there are.

And, this conscience that says “me” this very moment, to which particle does it “belong”, and why is it different from the other consciences, which always remain silent?

The whole has its own consciousness because it is an entity by itself.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Any single entity is conscious. The sum of two interacting entities is also conscious too but in higher order and united.

As many as there are.

The whole has its own consciousness because it is an entity by itself.

All this sounds very dogmatic, STT…

So, do you think that the bricks of a wall are conscious in a higher and united order than its composing particles? And the wall, which is composed of many bricks, is it conscious in an even higher order and unity? And the house, which is composed of many walls, and other entities, is it conscious in a higher and higher order and unity? What about a block, and a residential area, and a city, and a country, and a continent, and the world…

A mountain has much more particles than you. It must be more conscious than you in a higher order and unity, shouldn’t it?

 

[STT]

All this sounds very dogmatic, STT…

So, do you think that the bricks of a wall are conscious in a higher and united order than its composing particles? And the wall, which is composed of many bricks, is it conscious in an even higher order and unity? And the house, which is composed of many walls, and other entities, is it conscious in a higher and higher order and unity? What about a block, and a residential area, and a city, and a country, and a continent, and the world…

I think it depends on configuration of particles. The configuration of particles doesn’t change as we change the size of a stone for example therefore we shouldn’t expect higher level of consciousness in term of size.

A mountain has much more particles than you. It must be more conscious than you in a higher order and unity, shouldn’t it?

I think that a human being is more conscious than a mountain because of configuration of neurons inside his brain. I think it has to do with complexity.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think it depends on configuration of particles. The configuration of particles doesn’t change as we change the size of a stone for example therefore we shouldn’t expect higher level of consciousness in term of size.

I think that a human being is more conscious than a mountain because of configuration of neurons inside his brain. I think it has to do with complexity.

But what do configuration and complexity have to do with consciousness? According to you, it is matter, and matter alone, which is conscious. Therefore, “logically”, the more matter, the more consciousness, isn’t it? So, there is necessarily more consciousness in a mountain than there is in you.

But, on the other hand, why is it that a larger quantity of consciousnesses will give rise to a consciousness of higher “order and unity”? Why does an aggregate of consciousnesses, (if that happens, which I doubt) become a consciousness of higher “order and unity”?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Aggregate and synergy are disjoint notions. I will keep the term “synergy”, and leave behind the term “aggregate”. So…

Synergy of consciousnesses? If there is consciousness A (which should be the consciousness of X), and consciousness B (which might be the consciousness of Y -where X and Y might be different from each other)), what would be “the synergy” of A and B?

Like marriage, we have something more than two discreet individuals. We have two who become one and bring out more of each other. It is more than just complementarity. More than just the sum of its parts.

And if the consciousness that says “me” is the synergy of billions of consciousnesses, what would be the resulting consciousness be conscious of?

Could you rephrase that question?

Besides, there is a continuous exchange of matter between what is called “my body” and what is called “its surroundings”. At an atomic level there are just zones of higher density than others, but it is not possible to say where does a “thing” start or end. Then, why is it that “synergy” does not proceed to a higher extent and you remain a consciousness which is different than me? If there is something like a “synergy of consciousnesses”, and it is not your invention of this morning, why is it that there are so many consciousnesses?

Why not? That is the mystery of diversity in unity, unity in diversity. A synergy of consciousness doe not preclude individual consciousness.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

You are not really saying much against my argument.

I have a problem with that. An agent in the mind of God cannot have free will since his very existence depends on something else.

i don’t think I am trying to counter your argument.

But, all existence does depend on something else, so to speak, God. We only have a share in God’s being, God’s reality. Without it we do not exist. And yet God submits our part of consciousness to the free will of the individual. The incarnation gives us an analogy. God becomes flesh. The infinite becomes finite.

 

[STT]

But what do configuration and complexity have to do with consciousness? According to you, it is matter, and matter alone, which is conscious. Therefore, “logically”, the more matter, the more consciousness, isn’t it? So, there is necessarily more consciousness in a mountain than there is in you.

As I mentioned in previous post consciousness is matter of size and complexity together. Lets define consciousness as essence of any being with the ability to experience and act. A person’s experience and act is much richer than a stone’s. So you are right in your observation that a mountain is more conscious than a stone but a person’s consciousness is much richer than a mountain–of course because of complexity of matter.

But, on the other hand, why is it that a larger quantity of consciousnesses will give rise to a consciousness of higher “order and unity”? Why does an aggregate of consciousnesses, (if that happens, which I doubt) become a consciousness of higher “order and unity”?

Because two generally is more than sum of two which this is due to the interaction between two. You have two separate consciousness if two are not interacting otherwise you have a separate consciousness for each and one for the whole.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

As I mentioned in previous post consciousness is matter of size and complexity together. Lets define consciousness as essence of any being with the ability to experience and act. A person’s experience and act is much richer than a stone’s. So you are right in your observation that a mountain is more conscious than a stone but a person’s consciousness is much richer than a mountain–of course because of complexity of matter.

Because two generally is more than sum of two which this is due to the interaction between two. You have two separate consciousness if two are not interacting otherwise you have a separate consciousness for each and one for the whole.

More funny dogma?

What kind of interactions can you distinguish in matter, besides attraction, repulsion and collisions? Which other acts and experiences can you attribute to it?

I guess you have changed your mind now, and are ready to accept the role of “form” (though you prefer to use the term “complexity”) to be able to talk about consciousness.

 

[STT]

i don’t think I am trying to counter your argument.

But, all existence does depend on something else, so to speak, God. We only have a share in God’s being, God’s reality. Without it we do not exist…

If things are hold in existence by God then we cannot have an agent with free will. That is true because the will is self-caused otherwise the very existence of the agent depends on God hence his will.