Is matter conscious?

[STT]

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.

You are not providing any objection to my argument. Moreover, a stone is responsive. Just kick it to see that it moves.

 

[STT]

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

I of course wouldn’t know that I am kicked when I am anesthetized. The idea is that any entity gives a response to a stimuli depending on its mode of consciousness. We are not awake when we are anesthetized but our body response to a external stimuli, of course not as we are awake.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I of course wouldn’t know that I am kicked when I am anesthetized. The idea is that any entity gives a response to a stimuli depending on its mode of consciousness. We are not awake when we are anesthetized but our body response to a external stimuli, of course not as we are awake.

Therefore, it cannot be said that when you are anesthetized there is a content in such “mode of consciousness”. On the other hand, it is obvious that there are those contents in the other “mode of consciousness” in which you are when you are awake, right?

 

[STT]

Therefore, it cannot be said that when you are anesthetized there is a content in such “mode of consciousness”. On the other hand, it is obvious that there are those contents in the other “mode of consciousness” in which you are when you are awake, right?

I would say that the content of my experience when I am anesthetized is not the same content of my experience when I am awake. The content of my experience is blank when I am anesthetized if I don’t have out of body experience which this means that I am in a specific mode of consciousness. That doesn’t mean that the content of my experience as a whole is blank since we know by fact that my body would react to a kick and move (the particles of my body experience something and move although I cannot experience anything like when I am awake, that is true because we know by fact that form cannot give rise to consciousness). I guess the state of anesthesia is blank since it is a border between being alive and dead. You cannot be alive when you are dead and vise versa. Death to me is a state of being and you can experience different things.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I would say that the content of my experience when I am anesthetized is not the same content of my experience when I am awake. The content of my experience is blank when I am anesthetized if I don’t have out of body experience which this means that I am in a specific mode of consciousness. That doesn’t mean that the content of my experience as a whole is blank since we know by fact that my body would react to a kick and move (the particles of my body experience something and move although I cannot experience anything like when I am awake, that is true because we know by fact that form cannot give rise to consciousness). I guess the state of anesthesia is blank since it is a border between being alive and dead. You cannot be alive when you are dead and vise versa. Death to me is a state of being and you can experience different things.

Right, you cannot be alive and dead at the same time and in the same respect. Identically, the content of your “mode of consciousness” cannot be blank and not blank at the same time and in the same respect. When you are anesthetized, it is a fact that there is no content in your anesthetized “mode of consciousness”, otherwise you would be conscious of it.

Therefore, among your “modes of consciousness” there is at least one in which there is no content, and there is at least other one in which it is obvious that there are contents. The “mode of consciousness” of your responsive rock would be, at the most (but in reality not even like it) similar to your anesthetized “mode of consciousness”, right?

 

[STT]

Right, you cannot be alive and dead at the same time and in the same respect. Identically, the content of your “mode of consciousness” cannot be blank and not blank at the same time and in the same respect. When you are anesthetized, it is a fact that there is no content in your anesthetized “mode of consciousness”, otherwise you would be conscious of it.

Yes.

Therefore, among your “modes of consciousness” there is at least one in which there is no content, and there is at least other one in which it is obvious that there are contents. The “mode of consciousness” of your responsive rock would be, at the most (but in reality not even like it) similar to your anesthetized “mode of consciousness”, right?

Yes.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes.

Yes.

Now, between the “mode of consciousness” that has no content and the “mode of consciousness” which has content there is a difference which is not just quantitative, but qualitative. The reductionist interpretation that you wanted to introduce by using the terms “consciousness” , “experience”, and “act” to describe interactions of electrons, rocks, human beings, etcetera, without any differentiation between them is broken by noticing that some of your “modes of consciousness” are qualitatively different between them.

 

[STT]

Now, between the “mode of consciousness” that has no content and the “mode of consciousness” which has content there is a difference which is not just quantitative, but qualitative. The reductionist interpretation that you wanted to introduce by using the terms “consciousness” , “experience”, and “act” to describe interactions of electrons, rocks, human beings, etcetera, without any differentiation between them is broken by noticing that some of your “modes of consciousness” are qualitatively different between them.

I think that the conclusion of our discussion was that there are mode of consciousness that has no content because these modes are in border between two different conscious modes. You are in a conscious mode when you are awake or alive. You are in another conscious mode when you are asleep or dead. Therefore your consciousness cannot have any content when you are on the border, falling in sleep or anesthetized.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think that the conclusion of our discussion was that there are mode of consciousness that has no content because these modes are in border between two different conscious modes. You are in a conscious mode when you are awake or alive. You are in another conscious mode when you are asleep or dead. Therefore your consciousness cannot have any content when you are on the border, falling in sleep or anesthetized.

You are imagining now your “modes of consciousness” as something spatial which might share limiting borders. But, is consciousness -in your opinion- something spatial? And, how do you know that your anesthetized “mode of consciousness” is the border between other “modes”?

 

[STT]

You are imagining now your “modes of consciousness” as something spatial which might share limiting borders. But, is consciousness -in your opinion- something spatial?

We could have a phase space in which all conscious mode are presented. The phase space is spatial.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Just a thought but if God is omnipresent then wouldn’t the entire universe be permeated with consciousness?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

We could have a phase space in which all conscious mode are presented. The phase space is spatial.

I think you have not the remotest idea of what you are saying.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

A phase space is a concept, and as such it is a non spatial content of a consciousness, not the other way around.

 

[Aloysium]

Just a thought but if God is omnipresent then wouldn’t the entire universe be permeated with consciousness?

I don’t know if words can ever convey an understanding that seeks to explain itself.
We do the best we can, I suppose. I look for awakenings more than the putting together of ideas.

The way I would describe all this is that primarily, it exists.
To exist, it must be brought into being - all things, places and times, by a transcendent Being, whom we can know through His creation.
All things exist in relation to God.

Temporally and ontologically, being is structured in a hierarchical fashion, becoming more complex utilizing and incorporating simpler forms into each successive whole, until we get the person.
Who we are physically rests on “light”, structured into the sub-atomic, the atomic and molecular, simple organic life, plants, then animals, leading to us.
Our being, that which constitutes the person who perceives, feels, thinks and acts, is whole, although we can be broken up into our constituents parts.
The person has a soul which is this whole and is in the form of a self-other. We exist in relation to the world and are capable of participating in and reflecting back the relationship all creation has with its Maker.

We are conscious because we are known. We can love, I,e, will the good of the other, because we are loved.

Simple matter interacts as we do on a physical level with other matter. Once we get to creatures that move, we see the beginnings of a primitive “consciousness”, a being that experiences different states, where there might be some sort of pain and pleasure, guiding its responses to the environment. Higher animals are able to connect emotionally. What we have is the capacity to view what happens in time from eternity. We sit in the moment reviewing the passage of life.

“Consciousness” is an even more ambiguous word than “evolution”. It takes a lot of effort to try and understand what the person is trying to convey. I’ve done my bit; hopefully it is found to be interesting.

 

[STT]

I think you have not the remotest idea of what you are saying.

The argument that I am trying to make has three steps: (1) Soul cannot be source of consciousness, (2) Consciousness cannot be the result of formation of matter and (3) Matter has to be conscious. (1) is true because an immaterial entity which does not have any location cannot have causative relation with body which has a location. (2) to me is common sense then (3) has to be true.

 

[STT]

A phase space is a concept, and as such it is a non spatial content of a consciousness, not the other way around.

Phase space is only a diagram which represent different modes of consciousness in term of different parameters. Consciousness is not spacial. It is the content of conscious experience which is spatial and has form (color, shape, etc.).

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The argument that I am trying to make has three steps: (1) Soul cannot be source of consciousness, (2) Consciousness cannot be the result of formation of matter and (3) Matter has to be conscious. (1) is true because an immaterial entity which does not have any location cannot have causative relation with body which has a location. (2) to me is common sense then (3) has to be true.

STT, sincerely I think that you have to work much more harder on your arguments.

Obviously, when you say “soul” you don’t have one in front of you in your lab practicing a series of physical analysis on it. You are dealing with “soul” as a concept. But it seems that you don’t know the varieties of it thoroughly.

When you say “consciousness” you have developed your own definition, but sometimes (like above) you are not using the term according to that definition, and you make a mess with everything.

You use the term “form”, but either it is a complete misunderstanding or it is your own definition, which by the way you never state. It is you talking to yourself.

You say “matter” as if there was a unique and universally accepted definition of it. And, just as in the case of “soul”, you are not dealing with “matter” as with an entity which you have in your lab under physical analysis. You are dealing with a non-defined (or poorly defined) concept.

So, your question “is matter conscious?” (which you respond affirmatively), is in reality quite another: Something like “is my concept of consciousness more compatible with my concept of matter than with my concept of soul or not?” (which you only will be able to respond, on the condition that you define all your concepts first).

If, on the other hand, it is reality what you want to describe, or even explain, then you would have to start simultaneously with the rigorous description of your experiences and the definition of the terms you use for those descriptions, asking yourself “what are the concepts that I have to develop in order to describe, or even explain, this reality in which I am immersed?”.

 

[STT]

STT, sincerely I think that you have to work much more harder on your arguments.

Ok, lets see if I can improve my argument.

Obviously, when you say “soul” you don’t have one in front of you in your lab practicing a series of physical analysis on it. You are dealing with “soul” as a concept. But it seems that you don’t know the varieties of it thoroughly.

That is not correct. I am not thinking that I have a soul in my lab. I consider soul as the experiencer which is not material and argue that soul cannot make a causal relationship with the body therefore it cannot be the experiencer.

When you say “consciousness” you have developed your own definition, but sometimes (like above) you are not using the term according to that definition, and you make a mess with everything.

Well, I am sorry for that. I tried my best to avoid such a inconsistency.

You use the term “form”, but either it is a complete misunderstanding or it is your own definition, which by the way you never state. It is you talking to yourself.

By form I simply mean configuration therefore form of matter is translated to configuration of matter.

You say “matter” as if there was a unique and universally accepted definition of it. And, just as in the case of “soul”, you are not dealing with “matter” as with an entity which you have in your lab under physical analysis. You are dealing with a non-defined (or poorly defined) concept.

By matter I mean the basic substance which occupies space and constructs our reality.

So, your question “is matter conscious?” (which you respond affirmatively), is in reality quite another: Something like “is my concept of consciousness more compatible with my concept of matter than with my concept of soul or not?” (which you only will be able to respond, on the condition that you define all your concepts first).

I hope everything is defined well by now.

If, on the other hand, it is reality what you want to describe, or even explain, then you would have to start simultaneously with the rigorous description of your experiences and the definition of the terms you use for those descriptions, asking yourself “what are the concepts that I have to develop in order to describe, or even explain, this reality in which I am immersed?”.

There are two three things in our reality: (1) We experience, (2) We act and (3) Matter exist.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Ok, lets see if I can improve my argument.

That is not correct. I am not thinking that I have a soul in my lab. I consider soul as the experiencer which is not material and argue that soul cannot make a causal relationship with the body therefore it cannot be the experiencer.

Ok, let’s start with this, and other things you have said before.

You have said that an electron is able to experience something. But also, along the discussion, you have accepted implicitly that an electron is material. So, it would be a material experiencer. On the contrary, a soul would be an immaterial experiencer. What would be you?: a material or an immaterial experiencer?

 

[STT]

Ok, let’s start with this, and other things you have said before.

You have said that an electron is able to experience something. But also, along the discussion, you have accepted implicitly that an electron is material. So, it would be a material experiencer. On the contrary, a soul would be an immaterial experiencer. What would be you?: a material or an immaterial experiencer?

I would be a material experiencer. I think that we have already discussed the case of soul that cannot be consider as a experiencer. What do you think? Do you think that soul can be an experiencer given the fact that it is immaterial and has no location.