Is matter conscious?

[STT]

More funny dogma?

No, I think what I said makes sense.

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

That is true. All we have is attraction or repulsion between entities.

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.

No. I didn’t change my mind given the definition of consciousness which is essence of any entity with the ability to experience and act. An electron fits in this definition as human being. What makes human different than a electron is the content of experience which is much richer and the human’s act also is more complex. What we are adding up is just more complexity otherwise they are basically the same when it comes to consciousness.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

No, I think what I said makes sense.

That is true. All we have is attraction or repulsion between entities.

No. I didn’t change my mind given the definition of consciousness which is essence of any entity with the ability to experience and act. An electron fits in this definition as human being. What makes human different than a electron is the content of experience which is much richer and the human’s act also is more complex. What we are adding up is just more complexity otherwise they are basically the same when it comes to consciousness.

So, is this what you say?:

• I define consciousness as the essence of any entity with the ability to experience and act.
• The only possible experiences and acts are repulsion, attraction and collisions.
• Particles attract or repulse or collide with others, therefore they experience and act.
• The difference between the electrons in a human being and a more isolated electron is that they are subject to more attractions, repulsions and collisions. Otherwise, they are the same.
• A human act or experience is no more than the synergy of all the collisions, attractions and repulsions taking place in the body.

 

[STT]

I define consciousness as the essence of any entity with the ability to experience and act.

Yes.

The only possible experiences and acts are repulsion, attraction and collisions.
Particles attract or repulse or collide with others, therefore they experience and act.

We have to be a little careful here. Forces, repulsion and attraction, in general are an interpretation of how entities in nature interacts. We need to replace force with experience in the new interpretation. So instead of saying that X applies a force of F to Y, we say, Y experience X. Y act based on its experience and this act resembles like Y move because it is under force F. So we need to replace force and move in the old interpretation with experience and act in the new interpretation. The problem of where the experience comes from naturally is resolved in the second interpretation whereas it remains as a hard problem in the first interpretation.

The difference between the electrons in a human being and a more isolated electron is that they are subject to more attractions, repulsions and collisions. Otherwise, they are the same.

An electron and a human are basically the same, when it come to consciousness. The content of their experiences are however different.

A human act or experience is no more than the synergy of all the collisions, attractions and repulsions taking place in the body.

Yes.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes.

We have to be a little careful here. Forces, repulsion and attraction, in general are an interpretation of how entities in nature interacts. We need to replace force with experience in the new interpretation. So instead of saying that X applies a force of F to Y, we say, Y experience X. Y act based on its experience and this act resembles like Y move because it is under force F. So we need to replace force and move in the old interpretation with experience and act in the new interpretation. The problem of where the experience comes from naturally is resolved in the second interpretation whereas it remains as a hard problem in the first interpretation.

An electron and a human are basically the same, when it come to consciousness. The content of their experiences are however different.

Yes.

I see… By the way, what is the content of the experience of an electron?

 

[STT]

I see… By the way, what is the content of the experience of an electron?

I have no idea. I have never been an electron.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I have no idea. I have never been an electron.

Right, still you dare to say that human experience and electron “experience” differ in content. :doh2:

 

[Vonsalza]

Obviously the whole conversation is dependent on the definition of “consciousness”.

Anyone that has seen my posts knows I prefer Oxford.

1 The state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings.
‘she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later’

2 A person’s awareness or perception of something.
‘her acute consciousness of Luke’s presence’

Per Oxford, an electron and a mountain can only have “consciousness” if they bear the property of “awareness”. We have no reason to suspect they do.

Rule #1 in any debate is the agreement on common semantic before proceeding. That was not done here.

 

[STT]

Obviously the whole conversation is dependent on the definition of “consciousness”.

Anyone that has seen my posts knows I prefer Oxford.

1 The state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings.
‘she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later’

2 A person’s awareness or perception of something.
‘her acute consciousness of Luke’s presence’

Per Oxford, an electron and a mountain can only have “consciousness” if they bear the property of “awareness”. We have no reason to suspect they do.

Rule #1 in any debate is the agreement on common semantic before proceeding. That was not done here.

We define consciousness as essence of any entity with the ability to experience and act. We have reason to suspect that an electron experience since we know that it act (move) when it is close to another electron.

 

[Vonsalza]

citation please?

 

[STT]

citation please?

Citation for what? That electrons interact with each other?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

We define consciousness as essence of any entity with the ability to experience and act. We have reason to suspect that an electron experience since we know that it act (move) when it is close to another electron.

When you say “we define…”, do you mean you and Bahman?, or who else?

 

[STT]

When you say “we define…”, do you mean you and Bahman?, or who else?

I mean I define.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I mean I define.

Ok, much better.

So far, it is clear that you have no authority to say “the only difference between human and electron experiences is their content”. Let’s see now if you can support this other statement:

We have reason to suspect that an electron experience since we know that it act (move) when it is close to another electron.

If you believe that you have a reason to suspect something, it is because you observe similarities between the unknown and something that you know. In this case, what you know is your own personal experience. And you know that when you experience something you might act in reaction to the stimulus. Then, you believe that this leads you to think that if an electron becomes close to another and it acts (moves away), it must be because it experiences something, just as you do, right?

Would you say that you are always and permanently conscious?

 

[STT]

Ok, much better.

So far, it is clear that you have no authority to say “the only difference between human and electron experiences is their content”. Let’s see now if you can support this other statement:

If you believe that you have a reason to suspect something, it is because you observe similarities between the unknown and something that you know. In this case, what you know is your own personal experience. And you know that when you experience something you might act in reaction to the stimulus. Then, you believe that this leads you to think that if an electron becomes close to another and it acts (moves away), it must be because it experiences something, just as you do, right?

Yes. To my understanding an electron can experience the existence of an stimuli and act based on it. This stimuli can be the electric field produced by another electron. This is an better interpretation which as it was mentioned resolve the hard problem of consciousness too.

Would you say that you are always and permanently conscious?

Yes, I am always conscious. My reaction however chances depending on the mode of consciousness. My body react to a kick even when I am under deep medication, anesthesia.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes. To my understanding an electron can experience the existence of an stimuli and act based on it. This stimuli can be the electric field produced by another electron. This is an better interpretation which as it was mentioned resolve the hard problem of consciousness too.

Yes, I am always conscious. My reaction however chances depending on the mode of consciousness. My body react to a kick even when I am under deep medication, anesthesia.

Which ones are your modes of consciousness?

 

[STT]

Which ones are your modes of consciousness?

(1) Awake, (2) sleep and awake (3), sleep and dreaming (4) sleep without dreaming and (5); anesthesia. I don’t know about the state of consciousness after death so lets put that aside.

 

[PlatformWAGAR]

That is something which I am arguing against. The difference between brain and rock is just formation of matter. Formation cannot lead to consciousness. Therefore rock also should be conscious.

You can look at it in many ways. Let’s start from the definition of consciousness:
Consciousness. /ˈkɒnʃəsnɪs/ noun
noun: consciousness; plural noun: consciousnesses
the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings.

Is the rock aware AND RESPONSIVE to its surroundings? Aware, maybe, is not determinable but surely we can tell if the rock is responsive; and from what I’ve experienced, it never is. Irritability is a quality of life, not matter.

But then, there’s this from the book of 2 Esdras 4:13-15:

13 He answered me: “I went forth to a forest of trees on the plain,[m] and they devised a plan 14 and said: ‘Come, let’s go and make war on the sea so that it may recede before us, and let’s make for ourselves more forests.’ 15 And likewise, the waves of the sea also formed a plan and said, ‘Come, let’s go up and subdue the forest on the plain so that there too we may complete another region for ourselves.’

Conscious sea???

Arrggghhh!!! I rest my case.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

(1) Awake, (2) sleep and awake (3), sleep and dreaming (4) sleep without dreaming and (5); anesthesia. I don’t know about the state of consciousness after death so lets put that aside.

And you say that when anesthetized, your body reacts to a kick. In which way does it react, and how do you know it?

 

[seagal]

And you say that when anesthetized, your body reacts to a kick. In which way does it react, and how do you know it?

Isn’t the point of being anesthetized is so you don’t react to stimuli?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Isn’t the point of being anesthetized is so you don’t react to stimuli?

That is what I think, and when I once was anesthetized it was like I didn’t exist. But, what does STT say?, because I am trying to understand him.