Is matter conscious?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
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).
 
What you want to discuss is solipsism: whether or not the mind is all that can be said to exist. I find the whole idea ridiculous but there’s no way to prove it one way or the other.
 
Life is conscious, and matter is capable of consciousness only to the extent that it holds high-grade life.

The dust in your home is material and, in part, was once the surface of your epidermis, as such, part of a conscious or thinking body. The dust, however, is not capable of consciousness per se. Only the life held by your body makes consciousness possible.

ICXX NIKA
 
seagal said:
What you want to discuss is solipsism: whether or not the mind is all that can be said to exist. I find the whole idea ridiculous but there’s no way to prove it one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Indeed, once you get into solipsism, you hit a dead end.

ICXC NIKA
 
STT said:
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).
Click to expand...
Are you asking if life can exist outside of matter; like a spirit, presuming that a spirit is not made of any kind of matter? Or, are you asking if rocks are alive? Or both?
 
STT said:
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).
Click to expand...
Rational thought is immaterial. Consciousness is something broader. Animals are conscious; their material selves are conscious. What do you mean by “experience all forms”? At once? Without any causal relationship to the outside world? Why must we assume infused knowledge like that?
 
IN my talks with materialist atheists they are satisfied that consciousness is an emergent phenomena. Mater becomes complex enough through natural physical and biochemical and electromagnetic processes to have consciousness slowly and gradually come into being from inconsciousness. But it seems to me that the processes are so specific and critical that there must be a conscious force guiding them in the face of a natural entropy.

I think it is all infused with God’s consciousness which directs the process to ever more fuller expressions…
 
seagal said:
What you want to discuss is solipsism: whether or not the mind is all that can be said to exist. I find the whole idea ridiculous but there’s no way to prove it one way or the other.
Click to expand...
No I am not discussing solipsism. I argue that one can be sure that he is conscious even if other people are not only for sake of discussion. You don’t lose anything if you assume that everybody is conscious.
 
GEddie said:
Life is conscious, and matter is capable of consciousness only to the extent that it holds high-grade life.

The dust in your home is material and, in part, was once the surface of your epidermis, as such, part of a conscious or thinking body. The dust, however, is not capable of consciousness per se. Only the life held by your body makes consciousness possible.

ICXX NIKA
Click to expand...
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.
 
STT said:
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.
Click to expand...
So by your logic dust is conscious.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
Are you asking if life can exist outside of matter; like a spirit, presuming that a spirit is not made of any kind of matter?
Click to expand...
Yes,and I call that spirit consciousness. There is a serious problem related to spirit though so we have to discard it. The problem is easy to see. Spirit is not material therefore it has no location. This means that your spirit and mine can share the same experience since they cannot possibly be bounded to our bodies. Our experience however is local and personal which this is against the idea of immateriality of spirit.
1Lord1Faith said:
Or, are you asking if rocks are alive? Or both?
Click to expand...
Apparently rocks are conscious (not alive, life is more complex than that).
 
Wesrock said:
Rational thought is immaterial. Consciousness is something broader. Animals are conscious; their material selves are conscious. What do you mean by “experience all forms”? At once?
Click to expand...
That is a little difficult. The soul is not physical therefore it has no location. This means that a soul cannot possibly be bounded to a body. This means that we should share our experiences which we don’t therefore there is a problem with this framework.
Wesrock said:
Without any causal relationship to the outside world? Why must we assume infused knowledge like that?
Click to expand...
That is the property of soul (consciousness within this thread), It is not physical therefore it has no location.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
IN my talks with materialist atheists they are satisfied that consciousness is an emergent phenomena. Mater becomes complex enough through natural physical and biochemical and electromagnetic processes to have consciousness slowly and gradually come into being from inconsciousness. But it seems to me that the processes are so specific and critical that there must be a conscious force guiding them in the face of a natural entropy.
Click to expand...
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.
Michael_Mayo said:
I think it is all infused with God’s consciousness which directs the process to ever more fuller expressions…
Click to expand...
Could you please expand this a little?
 
STT said:
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.

Could you please expand this a little?
Click to expand...
How do you define consciousness?

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. But we get down to micro tubules in the brain. Is a singe micrtubule conscious? I think forces of nature are expressions of God’s consciousness and intent all the way to the subatomic.

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.

Why do you say “formation cannot lead to consciousness” when by our observation and definition it does?
 
STT said:
That is a little difficult. The soul is not physical therefore it has no location. This means that a soul cannot possibly be bounded to a body. This means that we should share our experiences which we don’t therefore there is a problem with this framework.
Click to expand...
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.
That is the property of soul (consciousness within this thread), It is not physical therefore it has no location.
Click to expand...
That a soul is immaterial doesn’t mean it has infused knowledge of all things.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top