Is matter conscious?

[STT]

So there is life after death or we’re just dust. The latter scenario is inconsistent with your view.

Why the later scenario is not consistent?

How do you know that rocks are conscious, as you stated earlier, if you can not test to determine if they are conscious? What is the scientific worth of your view, if it is not testable in any way?

As for humans, it depends on how you define consciousness. If consciousness involves being aware of one’s surroundings, being able to think, solve problems, etc. Then there is a way to test for all of this. Have the person describe their surroundings. Have the person take an IQ test, do EKGs, fMRIs, etc.

This I have already discuss it in this thread. Consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomena. Consciousness cannot be primary. We experience therefore matter by fact is conscious.

Consciousness involves awareness. What is the arm “aware” of? In what way is it aware?

It is a state of being arm as it is a state of being human and have thought. An arm of course cannot have thought, memory, identity etc. It minimally respond to its surrounding though so in that sense it is conscious.

You also claimed that the basic constituents of consciousness (neurons?) are conscious. This raises more questions. For starters, do you have any empirical evidence to support for this particular claim? There is also a phenomenal character to consciousness. Is that present at the level of neurons?

It just seems that the type of consciousness that you’re referring to is not the same type of consciousness in sentient creatures, so your reasoning doesn’t follow.

A neuron is conscious if matter is conscious.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Why the later scenario is not consistent?

I thought when you said “mere matter”, you were excluding consciousness.

Consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomena. Consciousness cannot be primary. We experience therefore matter by fact is conscious.

There are a lot of assertions here which is why I’m asking for your evidence, especially for your last assertion. I can provide evidence that I am conscious depending on how you define consciousness, therefore, providing evidence that a glass bottle is conscious is a possible.

It is a state of being arm as it is a state of being human and have thought. An arm of course cannot have thought, memory, identity etc. It minimally respond to its surrounding though so in that sense it is conscious.

The problem here seems to be your definition. Consciousness involves ‘awareness’.

A neuron is conscious if matter is conscious.

All neurons do is “minimally respond” so they can not account for the phenomenal character that is inherent to human consciousness.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

STT, please, once again, give us you definition of consciousness.
I am quite sure that is where we disagree.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

STT, please, once again, give us you definition of consciousness.
I am quite sure that is where we disagree.

good observation. The problem with STTs view is that things without consciousness can also react. He posits something completely unnecessary which is why he has to resort to attributing consciousness to water bottles.

Furthermore, he offers no evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[STT]

I thought when you said “mere matter”, you were excluding consciousness.

No I didn’t mean so.

There are a lot of assertions here which is why I’m asking for your evidence, especially for your last assertion. I can provide evidence that I am conscious depending on how you define consciousness, therefore, providing evidence that a glass bottle is conscious is a possible.

Well, so lets argue them one by one:

(1) Consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomena: I have a thread on this topic here.

(2) Consciousness cannot be primary: First we need to define consciousnesses in this case. Consciousness is a non-local/non-physical entity (God or soul for example) who is causality related to everything. We know by fact that a non-local entity is causally related to everything since all points of space are equivalent to it. We know that in the case of person that his experience is local therefore soul cannot exist.

(3) Consciousness is a property of mater: Consciousness in this case means awareness of a stimuli either internal or external. We discussed all other cases and show that they are not acceptable therefore this is the only acceptable scenario.

The problem here seems to be your definition. Consciousness involves ‘awareness’.

Yes, I claim that the arm is conscious/aware (case (3)). There is this universal feature in everything in the world that everything responds to a stimuli whether it is a human, a rock, an arm etc. I claim that response is not possible in absence of consciousness.

All neurons do is “minimally respond” so they can not account for the phenomenal character that is inherent to human consciousness.

A human also simply respond to a stimuli from third point of view. The response of a person is only more complex than a rock.

 

[STT]

STT, please, once again, give us you definition of consciousness.
I am quite sure that is where we disagree.

We have two definition for consciousness. (1) Consciousness is primary: Consciousness is defined as a a non-local/non-physical being which is causality related to everything. (2) Consciousness is secondary: Consciousness is defined as awareness.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

We have two definition for consciousness. (1) Consciousness is primary: Consciousness is defined as a a non-local/non-physical being which is causality related to everything. (2) Consciousness is secondary: Consciousness is defined as awareness.

Where are you getting #1? Who besides you defines it that way?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I mean, I like #2 and like to believe it is true but that does not make it so and not everyone agrees.

 

[STT]

Where are you getting #1? Who besides you defines it that way?

I define it myself. The only relevant example is God.

 

[STT]

I mean, I like #2 and like to believe it is true but that does not make it so and not everyone agrees.

Yes, we can work with this definition although the other definition has a relevance too.

 

[yppop]

SST
A few thoughts for you to chew on in your search for the truth.

Rocks are not conscious.
Consciousness is the manifestation of the immaterial substance that is encephalic in all human bodies. Consciousness is manifested primarily in two ways: as awareness and/or as sensitivity. When deeply sedated a human is neither aware nor sensate, he/she is unconscious; a sleeping a human may not be aware but is generally sensate, he/she is semi-conscious; when awake a human in both aware and sensate, i.e., is fully conscious. However an awake person can be sensate and not aware, therefore it is sensitivity that defines consciousness. Rocks are not conscious; they are neither aware nor sensate.

The soul is very local.
All metazoa are conscious. The degree of consciousness ranges from the negligible in the insect kingdom to the highest in the primates (and perhaps cetacea) with a quantum jump in humans. Consciousness tracks cephalization in its complexity. The immaterial substance in the human brain is called nous, the Greek word for mind. Even though all animals manifest consciousness, only humans have minds. This implies that the mind is composed of nous and something else. The something else must be the human language instinct because thought depends on words.

Thoughts, the mind, and consciousness are all associated with the object we call the soul. It is an individual object and very local, at least mine is since it goes wherever I go. What you are confusing as the non-local (infinite) soul is the immaterial substance, a particle of which is nous. Nous is contained in the brain, is individualized through cephalization, and is manifested as consciousness. Nous is the substance of the soul.
Yppop

 

[STT]

SST
A few thoughts for you to chew on in your search for the truth.

Thanks.

Rocks are not conscious.
Consciousness is the manifestation of the immaterial substance that is encephalic in all human bodies.

Immaterial substance which is located in the brain and is casually interacting with brain? That sounds like matter to me. Please define immaterial first.

Consciousness is manifested primarily in two ways: as awareness and/or as sensitivity. When deeply sedated a human is neither aware nor sensate, he/she is unconscious; a sleeping a human may not be aware but is generally sensate, he/she is semi-conscious; when awake a human in both aware and sensate, i.e., is fully conscious. However an awake person can be sensate and not aware, therefore it is sensitivity that defines consciousness. Rocks are not conscious; they are neither aware nor sensate.

Or perhaps a sedated human just not making memory. He of course perceive information from sensory system otherwise others cannot awake him.

The soul is very local.
All metazoa are conscious. The degree of consciousness ranges from the negligible in the insect kingdom to the highest in the primates (and perhaps cetacea) with a quantum jump in humans.

What do you mean with quantum jump? How soul could be local if is non-physical?

Consciousness tracks cephalization in its complexity. The immaterial substance in the human brain is called nous, the Greek word for mind. Even though all animals manifest consciousness, only humans have minds. This implies that the mind is composed of nous and something else. The something else must be the human language instinct because thought depends on words.

So by mind you mean intellect? I think animal can also think and solve problem. Perhaps you enjoy this short video about how crows are able to solve problems.

Thoughts, the mind, and consciousness are all associated with the object we call the soul. It is an individual object and very local, at least mine is since it goes wherever I go.

So I am confused here.

What do you mean that soul is object?

Is soul immaterial or material? What is the difference between material and immaterial?

What you are confusing as the non-local (infinite) soul is the immaterial substance, a particle of which is nous. Nous is contained in the brain, is individualized through cephalization, and is manifested as consciousness. Nous is the substance of the soul.
Yppop

So nous is the substance of the soul, it is non-local and it is contained in the brain. That doesn’t make sense to me since a non-local entity, nous, cannot have location, brain.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Well, so lets argue them one by one:

(1) Consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomena: I have a thread on this topic here.

I’ve already responded to you on that thread. I disagree with your conclusion. I also question how did you refute the materialist worldview. That worldview involves the sum of the parts of the brain causing and controlling consciousness and that we’ll eventually be able to trace it’s cause back to the parts. In other words, consciousness is not just an inherent or fundamental part of matter, but rather it’s an effect of these fundamental parts (neurons, etc.). Your whole point just begs the question since you simply presume that consciousness must be fundamental without addressing the interaction problem and other points of view, esp. the materialist side. Seeing that you have no scientific evidence for your claims, your views won’t hold much weight.

(2) Consciousness cannot be primary: First we need to define consciousnesses in this case. Consciousness is a non-local/non-physical entity (God or soul for example) who is causality related to everything. We know by fact that a non-local entity is causally related to everything since all points of space are equivalent to it. We know that in the case of person that his experience is local therefore soul cannot exist.

You’re making some assumptions here. I don’t see how or why nonlocality (beyond space) necessitates that you experience everything at once. Either way, I think Eastern philosophers would disagree with you. The restriction from observing everything may just be a matter of awareness. We’re too fixed on time and matter, which may all be illusions. We can break these illusions with more focus on mind or consciousness (via meditation), the real fundamental of reality, which will lead us to transcend it.

((3) Consciousness is a property of mater: Consciousness in this case means awareness of a stimuli either internal or external. We discussed all other cases and show that they are not acceptable therefore this is the only acceptable scenario.

So because there’s an interaction problem it means that dualism and materialism is false? This is a cop-out. At least dualists and materialists are willing to search for solutions to solve the problem. I asked you to explain how can measure consciousness in a glass bottle and you just simply claimed we can not.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I’ve already responded to you on that thread. I disagree with your conclusion. I also question how did you refute the materialist worldview. That worldview involves the sum of the parts of the brain causing and controlling consciousness and that we’ll eventually be able to trace it’s cause back to the parts. In other words, consciousness is not just an inherent or fundamental part of matter, but rather it’s an effect of these fundamental parts (neurons, etc.). Your whole point just begs the question since you simply presume that consciousness must be fundamental without addressing the interaction problem and other points of view, esp. the materialist side. Seeing that you have no scientific evidence for your claims, your views won’t hold much weight.

You’re making some assumptions here. I don’t see how or why nonlocality (beyond space) necessitates that you experience everything at once. Either way, I think Eastern philosophers would disagree with you. The restriction from observing everything may just be a matter of awareness. We’re too fixed on time and matter, which may all be illusions. We can break these illusions with more focus on mind or consciousness (via meditation), the real fundamental of reality, which will lead us to transcend it.

So because there’s an interaction problem it means that dualism and materialism is false? This is a cop-out. At least dualists and materialists are willing to search for solutions to solve the problem. I asked you to explain how can measure consciousness in a glass bottle and you just simply claimed we can not.

Good points there, agnostic boy. I tend toward Non-dualism. I cannot prove anything so I am not much for argument. But it seems to me that there are two kinds of consciousness (which fools us into dualism). One is the consiousness we all commonly accept as a reality, the awareness we have as we live our lives. The other is the consciousness of the entire universe that brings atoms and molecules together in an organized way to make life. Consciousness submits itself to the inconsciousness, like a rock or bottle, in order to make the long journey to consciousness. Where does God fit in? God is omnipresent. God is the consiousness of the universe and more.

The world we perceive is a recreation within our brains, a representation of what our sense bring as (name removed by moderator)ut. Meditation helps us break the fixation on time and matter. It frees us to know consciousness without the senses. The mystics agree across spiritual traditions on this. The “dark night of the senses” is the threshold of God.

 

[yppop]

SST
Sorry, but I don’t have time to engage in a discussion with you because you don’t seem to be searching for truth, but merely presenting your own strange version of reality.
Here is one more argument to think about:

*1. The definitive explanation of the essence of a person, depends on finding a resolution of the body/mind problem.

1. The body/mind problem and the mind/body problem can only be resolved by recognizing that the former is a digital/analog conversion and the latter is an analog/digital conversion.
2. The brain is a digital object formed from discrete neurons and the mind is an analog object composed of continuous representations.
3. The digital/analog conversion is an afferent event in which the afferent nerves terminate in and activate specific groups of neurons in the brain that interact with the nous part of the mind to produce specific mental representations such as qualia, images, percepts, and feelings.
4. The analog/digital conversion is an efferent event in which the mind activates specific efferent nerves that send impulses to the specific muscles that produce the intended behavior.
5. I contend that digital and analog conversions can be modeled “physically” using the two modalities of space: discrete and continuous. I use the word “physical” to describe any connection with the four elements of objective reality: space, matter, time, energy.
6. Matter is described by specific configurations of discrete space; the immaterial (spiritual) substance is represented by continuous space.
7. The discrete material neurons of the brain are immersed in the continuous immaterial substance (nous) to provide a hylomorphic foundation of the mind. note: One needs to understand the relationship between real numbers and continuous space and rational numbers and discrete space to understand the hylomorphic foundation of objective reality].
8. The hylomorphic structure of the mind results in dual memory: a material memory consisting of neuronal circuits of the brain and a perceptual memory formed in the immaterial (spiritual) nous.
9. The mind is the interface between the language instinct in the brain and the immaterial substance (nous) in the mind.
10. The material memory and everything external to the body (objective reality) consists primarily of the changing configurations of quarks, electrons, and photons. All else is in the perceptual memory.
11. Objective/subjective reality > digital/analog conversion > discrete/continuous space > material/perceptual memory > brain/mind.
12. Thus, the essence of a person is essentially the spiritual substance that forms the mind.*
13. The form of the essence is the soul; a spiritual form that is located in and defines each individual.

yppop

 

[STT]

I’ve already responded to you on that thread. I disagree with your conclusion. I also question how did you refute the materialist worldview. That worldview involves the sum of the parts of the brain causing and controlling consciousness and that we’ll eventually be able to trace it’s cause back to the parts. In other words, consciousness is not just an inherent or fundamental part of matter, but rather it’s an effect of these fundamental parts (neurons, etc.). Your whole point just begs the question since you simply presume that consciousness must be fundamental without addressing the interaction problem and other points of view, esp. the materialist side. Seeing that you have no scientific evidence for your claims, your views won’t hold much weight.

I answered to your comment in another thread.

You’re making some assumptions here. I don’t see how or why nonlocality (beyond space) necessitates that you experience everything at once. Either way, I think Eastern philosophers would disagree with you. The restriction from observing everything may just be a matter of awareness. We’re too fixed on time and matter, which may all be illusions. We can break these illusions with more focus on mind or consciousness (via meditation), the real fundamental of reality, which will lead us to transcend it.

The argument is very straightforward. All points of space are equivalent to a non-local entity therefore a non-local entity experience everything.

So because there’s an interaction problem it means that dualism and materialism is false? This is a cop-out. At least dualists and materialists are willing to search for solutions to solve the problem. I asked you to explain how can measure consciousness in a glass bottle and you just simply claimed we can not.

I already answer that. We cannot measure consciousness of a person too.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I answered to your comment in another thread.

I suspect that you’ve also brought this up on other forums, as well. Interestingly, I’ve found someone on reddit.com forum section who brought up similar views, and in the same similar style that you’ve presented it. On there, the member stated that his or her confidence was shaken in their original claim, so if this person is you, then I question if even you believe what you are claiming. If not, then you’re just here to argue just for the sake of arguing.

You claim that “formation can not cause consciousness”. This is a big hole in your reasoning since it is unproven and is therefore an assumption. Yet, you draw a conclusion from it which leaves your argument as an argument from ignorance. Materialists and dualists are working on an explanation, and both believe that they’ll eventually get to it.

The argument is very straightforward. All points of space are equivalent to a non-local entity therefore a non-local entity experience everything.

You did not answer my point about what Eastern philosophers have to say about this.

I already answer that. We cannot measure consciousness of a person too.

If that were true, then your view would be no different than any other unproven assertion.

 

[STT]

I suspect that you’ve also brought this up on other forums, as well. Interestingly, I’ve found someone on reddit.com forum section who brought up similar views, and in the same similar style that you’ve presented it. On there, the member stated that his or her confidence was shaken in their original claim, so if this person is you, then I question if even you believe what you are claiming. If not, then you’re just here to argue just for the sake of arguing.

I am not that person. I believe that matter is conscious unless someone brings a strong argument or evidence against it. Could you please give me the link in reddit.com?

You claim that “formation can not cause consciousness”. This is a big hole in your reasoning since it is unproven and is therefore an assumption. Yet, you draw a conclusion from it which leaves your argument as an argument from ignorance. Materialists and dualists are working on an explanation, and both believe that they’ll eventually get to it.

This I already argue against in another thread. There is nothing such as emergent phenomena. The main message of another OP is that one can find an operator for evolution of system in term of operators for evolution of its constitutes. One needs to show that the evolution of system is not as what suggested in the OP in order to show that we are dealing with an emergent phenomena. This is impossible as it is proven in OP. I can argue in favor of my claim,“formation can not cause consciousness”, too: Suppose that you have a system in a given configuration C. The state of this system, S, as we showed evolves by E. Now lets just change the configuration of system to C’. The state of system, S’, in the new configuration also evolve in term of E. Therefore the same operator, E, provide the evolution of system hence there is no emergent phenomena by changing the configuration either.

You did not answer my point about what Eastern philosophers have to say about this.

If what they claim is true then they need to explain how something non-local is bounded to body.

If that were true, then your view would be no different than any other unproven assertion.

I am just telling that I don’t have any evidence supported by measurement that a rock is conscious. I however argue in favor of that.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I am not that person. I believe that matter is conscious unless someone brings a strong argument or evidence against it. Could you please give me the link in reddit.com?

reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3d3llt/cmv_consciousness_is_most_likely_a_fundamental/?sort=confidence

Here are some statements made by the author of that thread which is similar to your views on this thread in terms of content and style,

1.The only thing that can be known to be true is that there is such a thing as conscious experience. I cannot know for sure that anyone but me has a conscious experience, but I do know for a fact that I do.

This is what you also opened with. This person goes on to argue the following,

We can boil it down to two theories.

1.Consciousness arises only after a certain amount of complexity, and it does not exist in any for up until then.

2.Consciousness is an inherent property of our universe and an increase in complexity makes it more apparent.

Obviously, I argue for 2. I disagree that I am making the bigger leap. As /u/omrakt said: “The idea that consciousness is a property of matter is actually a far more simple and elegant notion than consciousness being some inexplicable emergent property of sufficiently complex information processing.” Furthermore, all these complexities we know of in our world can be explained down to the fundamental properties of our universe. Since that is the case for all other sciences, that should also be the case for consciousness. To argue differently is to take the bigger leap of faith.

 

[STT]

reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3d3llt/cmv_consciousness_is_most_likely_a_fundamental/?sort=confidence

Here are some statements made by the author of that thread which is similar to your views on this thread in terms of content and style,

This is what you also opened with. This person goes on to argue the following,

Thanks. I submitted another thread in reddit which summarize my understanding in here. Lets see how the other thread proceeds.