Is matter conscious?

[STT]

I trust you believe the truth that the difference between a living man who is now a dead man is categorical.

I don’t know the intrinsic difference between death and life when it comes to different states of matter. Do you?

You can have a conversation only with the former.

He might be able to have a conversation with others in another realm. Who knows?

Since initially “mere matter” has not changed in the dead man something else changed in that he is unconscious forever more.

Well, that is might be the mistake that people make, matter does not change upon death.

 

[STT]

Sorry but that makes no sense to me.

It is simple. Consider a thought and awareness of the thought as two different emergent phenomena. The thought and awareness of the thought must emerge together in order to we become aware of the thought. They are however two independent phenomena therefore they are not never synchronized. This means that we cannot be aware of a single thought which is false. Therefore the assumption that awareness is an emergent phenomena is false.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It is simple. Consider a thought and awareness of the thought as two different emergent phenomena.

ok

The thought and awareness of the thought must emerge together in order to we become aware of the thought.

Not really. One can have a thought and only later realize it. Like I get swept up thinking about donuts and the many delicious kinds only to catch myself a minute later to say, “O there I go again thinking about donuts.” We get involved in all sets of things all the time without that reflective process do realizing it.

They are however two independent phenomena therefore they are not never synchronized.

They are not independent. You cant be aware of the thought unless you first think it. “Not never”? Do you mean that? Synchronization is hardly given since one can think a though without any reflective awareness of doing it.

This means that we cannot be aware of a single thought which is false.

that does not follow.

Therefore the assumption that awareness is an emergent phenomena is false.

that also does not follow.

 

[STT]

ok

So you agree that thought and experience of thought are two different phenomena.

Not really. One can have a thought and only later realize it. Like I get swept up thinking about donuts and the many delicious kinds only to catch myself a minute later to say, “O there I go again thinking about donuts.” We get involved in all sets of things all the time without that reflective process do realizing it.

How do you know that you realize a thought later if you haven’t experience it in the first place?

They are not independent. You cant be aware of the thought unless you first think it. “Not never”? Do you mean that? Synchronization is hardly given since one can think a though without any reflective awareness of doing it.

Yes, you have to think of a subject matter so your thought could evolve. You however don’t have control over the evolution of your thought. Sometimes you think for a while and nothing pops up into your mind and suddenly a thought pops up into your mind.

that does not follow.

So that follows now.

that also does not follow.

So that follows now.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

So you agree that thought and experience of thought are two different phenomena.

We have to be more careful with our terms here. One has a thought which seems to me to be the same as experiencing the thought. No distinction two terms for the same process.

But there may or may not be the reflexive awareness of the thought. Like my donut example. That is a meta thought, a thought about a thought. It is a separate thought but it depends on the first thought else there is nothing to be aware of.

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t know the intrinsic difference between death and life when it comes to different states of matter. Do you?

Even the caveman knew there was a difference between “dead cow” and “live cow.”

He might be able to have a conversation with others in another realm. Who knows?

Yes, we believe he will. But he won’t be using his corporeal parts (tongue, lips) to hold that conversation.

Well, that is might be the mistake that people make, matter does not change upon death.

Have you never smelt the stench of death? Touched a dead body? The parasites and bacteria go wild as soon as soon as the immune system stops defending the body. If the matter looks, smells and feels different then a reasonable scientist would infer the matter has changed.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

… the matter has changed.

In fact, not only does matter change in death, change is the only reality. Stability is illusion.

 

[STT]

We have to be more careful with our terms here. One has a thought which seems to me to be the same as experiencing the thought. No distinction two terms for the same process.

But you could be conscious and have no thought. Moreover a thought should come to your focal attention in order to be completely experienced otherwise you miss it.

 

[STT]

Even the caveman knew there was a difference between “dead cow” and “live cow.”

I mean, if you believe in life after death and if you believe that we are merely made of matter then I don’t know what is the state of matter after death because I haven’t experience it yet.

Yes, we believe he will. But he won’t be using his corporeal parts (tongue, lips) to hold that conversation.

Yes, he might use another form of matter to hold a conversation. Some form of matter that we cannot see now. I have a thread on this topic here.

Have you never smelt the stench of death? Touched a dead body? The parasites and bacteria go wild as soon as soon as the immune system stops defending the body. If the matter looks, smells and feels different then a reasonable scientist would infer the matter has changed.

Matter could have layers. The first layer we see with our naked eyes and other we don’t. This is well described in the thread which is cited in the previous comment.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

But you could be conscious and have no thought. Moreover a thought should come to your focal attention in order to be completely experienced otherwise you miss it.

Yes, you can be conscious with no discursive thought, no inner monologue. That would be a simple awareness of the present moment. And thoughts can be subtle, that we barely seem to have them. Still, there is the distinction between having a thought and being aware of having the thought. That happens when one tries to meditate, makes effort to rest in simple non verbal awareness or attention to the present moment. Distractions come but it may take a bit of time before we become aware we are distracted. Or praying the rosary and meditating on the prayers and the mysteries and then realizing that thoughts about dinner snuck in there.

 

[STT]

Yes, you can be conscious with no discursive thought, no inner monologue. That would be a simple awareness of the present moment. And thoughts can be subtle, that we barely seem to have them. Still, there is the distinction between having a thought and being aware of having the thought. That happens when one tries to meditate, makes effort to rest in simple non verbal awareness or attention to the present moment. Distractions come but it may take a bit of time before we become aware we are distracted. Or praying the rosary and meditating on the prayers and the mysteries and then realizing that thoughts about dinner snuck in there.

Ok, let me argue it another ways: (1) You believe that consciousness is an emergent physical state which experience another emergent physical state, thought for example. Doesn’t that sound nonsense to you that a physical state experience another physical state? (2) You believe that brain produces consciousness and the subject matter, a thought for example. Then we experience the thought through consciousness. Instead we could only have the experience of subject matter without consciousness. This is more economical. There is no use of being conscious of nothing.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Ok, let me argue it another ways: (1) You believe that consciousness is an emergent physical state which experience another emergent physical state, thought for example. Doesn’t that sound nonsense to you that a physical state experience another physical state?

I believe the consciousness that emerges from our physical state is one level of consciousness, one mode, one expression. Why nonsense to think one physical state could expereince another. They speak the same language.

(2) You believe that brain produces consciousness and the subject matter, a thought for example. Then we experience the thought through consciousness. Instead we could only have the experience of subject matter without consciousness. This is more economical. There is no use of being conscious of nothing.

How could you have the experience of subject matter without consciousness?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

I was following your logic until you got to the point where you said, “formation cannot cause consciousness”. You say this because you presume that consciousness is not physical, and I’d agree with you. But then you dodged that point just to conclude that matter (physical) is consciousness (nonphysical)? If matter can’t cause consciousness then how does it make it better just defining the two (nonphysical and physical entities) as being the same?

Here are the facts:

• Matter exist. Consciousness exist.
• Matter is physical. Consciousness is nonphysical - has yet to be reduced to physical properties.

There is no valid argument here until you can reconcile the two rather than redefining the terms. In other words, if you want to assert that the consciousness is physical, you have to do the work to empirically demonstrate that claim, rather than just redefining it.

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).

I don’t think Deepak Chopra would agree. I think it is just a matter of our focus.

 

[STT]

I believe the consciousness that emerges from our physical state is one level of consciousness, one mode, one expression. Why nonsense to think one physical state could expereince another. They speak the same language.

Because a physical state is a condition in which matter respond to external stimuli in a specific form. It is not something. It is a state.

How could you have the experience of subject matter without consciousness?

This we have already discuss it but it seems that you cannot accept it. Experience can just happen as a local event.

 

[STT]

I was following your logic until you got to the point where you said, “formation cannot cause consciousness”. You say this because you presume that consciousness is not physical, and I’d agree with you. But then you dodged that point just to conclude that matter (physical) is consciousness (nonphysical)? If matter can’t cause consciousness then how does it make it better just defining the two (nonphysical and physical entities) as being the same?

Well, I divide the definition of consciousness to two different categories: (1) Mere experience and (2) Consciousness is primary. We exclude the second one by arguing that we cannot experience everything so we are left with (1). We however know that consciousness cannot arises from form therefore matter has to be conscious.

Here are the facts:

• Matter exist. Consciousness exist.
• Matter is physical. Consciousness is nonphysical - has yet to be reduced to physical properties.

There is no valid argument here until you can reconcile the two rather than redefining the terms. In other words, if you want to assert that the consciousness is physical, you have to do the work to empirically demonstrate that claim, rather than just redefining it.

I think that the argument should be clear by now considering the previous comment.

I don’t think Deepak Chopra would agree. I think it is just a matter of our focus.

So he claims that he can experience everything!?

 

[o_mlly]

… Some form of matter that we cannot see now…

We agree. We cannot see the form of matter – the soul.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Because a physical state is a condition in which matter respond to external stimuli in a specific form. It is not something. It is a state.

This we have already discuss it but it seems that you cannot accept it. Experience can just happen as a local event.

OK physical state of an organism.

No I cannot as it does not met the standard definition of experience and consciousness.

The standard definition of experience requires and ability to gain knowledge

Definition of experience
1 a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge
b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation

2 a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity
b : the length of such participation has 10 years’ experience in the job

3 a : the conscious events that make up an individual life
b : the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally

4: something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
5: the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality

and Consciousness with awareness

Definition of consciousness
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers.

2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind

3: the totality of conscious states of an individual

4: the normal state of conscious life regained consciousness

5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

We however know that consciousness cannot arises from form therefore matter has to be conscious.

We do not know this.

 

[STT]

We agree. We cannot see the form of matter – the soul.

That was not what I meant. I am discussing the problem of soul in another thread. You are welcome to join.

 

[STT]

OK physical state of an organism.

No I cannot as it does not met the standard definition of experience and consciousness.

The standard definition of experience requires and ability to gain knowledge

Definition of experience
1 a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge
b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation

2 a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity
b : the length of such participation has 10 years’ experience in the job

3 a : the conscious events that make up an individual life
b : the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally

4: something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
5: the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality

and Consciousness with awareness

Definition of consciousness
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers.

2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind

3: the totality of conscious states of an individual

4: the normal state of conscious life regained consciousness

5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

I don’t really know where do you have problem so I could discuss it further.

We do not know this.

The form of matter just produce the type of response of the system, so called physical state, to external stimuli. Matter is responsive.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I don’t really know where do you have problem so I could discuss it further.

The form of matter just produce the type of response of the system, so called physical state, to external stimuli. Matter is responsive.

You indicate that you believe experience does not require a thinking aware subject.
A response is not necessarily an experience. A rock falls to the ground in response to gravity but it does not experience since experience require a sensation. A rock does not sense gravity. Gravity moves it.