Consciousness before physical creation

[Ouroboros]

I do believe a simple form of consciousness can exist even in an organism without a brain, however there is no way that I can picture whereas a consciousness could exist outside of a life form. I don't think someone's pet rock has an e.e.g.

Totally agree.

There's no reason (especially from a naturalistic viewpoint) to believe that only a biological brain of our type can have a consciousness. If consciousness is emergent from the physical world and its processes, it is a strong possibility that a mind can emerge from other configurations.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yep.


Wait, where have we redefined what we think of as consciousness? I'm afraid I missed a step here. And then this next claim seems to come out of left field, and almost contradict what you've said already-


Unless you mean that consciousness is not limited to our brains, as in our brain as an individual, and is everywhere around us in that there are other brains and other consciousnesses- sure. But that's trivial. What reason is there to suppose there is anything that has consciousness that does not have a brain?

You definitely missed a step there and that is probably why the next step does not make sense to you. Consciousness has not been redefined, however, I said very explicitly... IF WE WERE TO SIMPLY REDEFINE CONSCIOUSNSSS....as being: the ability to act, react, or respond to external forces or stimuli, rather than it's current definition as having sentience or awareness, then we would see that some form of consciousness is all around us at every level.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You definitely missed a step there and that is probably why the next step does not make sense to you. Consciousness has not been redefined, however, I said very explicitly... IF WE WERE TO SIMPLY REDEFINE CONSCIOUSNSSS....as being: the ability to act, react, or respond to external forces or stimuli, rather than it's current definition as having sentience or awareness, then we would see that some form of consciousness is all around us at every level.

Well sure, if we define having consciousness as "being the color gray" then it turns out that nickels, rocks, and clouds are conscious. But so what? If I define "human" as "having four legs and antlers" then it turns out that reindeer are actually human. This doesn't tell us anything interesting. And given the standard definition of consciousness, there is no reason to suppose that "consciousness is all around us at every level".

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Well on a practical note, knowing that everything is similar to you on the inside, helps people easily gain compassion for other beings. It makes it way easier to be a good person, since we are all connected to hurt another is to hurt the world, And ultimately our bodies as well.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I do believe a simple form of consciousness can exist even in an organism without a brain, however there is no way that I can picture whereas a consciousness could exist outside of a life form. I don't think someone's pet rock has an e.e.g.

This is correct, to a point. Like I said before, IF we were to RETHINK what consciousness is and how we define it, you would see it quite differently. The way I see it, consciousness is an evolved form of the simple actions/reactions (ability to interact) found in ALL matter. If we look at consciousness from THIS perspective, we would see that the only conscious ability a rock has is very basic in nature, very non-lifelike. A rock has the very limited ability to simply act or react when an external force is applied to it. It can not think because it has not been structured with the capacity to operate on that higher level of interaction. Over millenia however, and out of that simple ability for matter to act/react to oustide forces, certain compounds with the same ability to interact came together in certain ways to create new forms...forms with the capacity for MORE actions and MORE reactions. (Evidence: There are more interactions going on in a molecule than there are in a single atom. Atoms joined together to create more interactions.) The more these early compounds changed/evolved, the more complex those simple interactions became eventually leading to the formation of life-like forms and higher evolved forms of conscious activity.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well sure, if we define having consciousness as "being the color gray" then it turns out that nickels, rocks, and clouds are conscious. But so what? If I define "human" as "having four legs and antlers" then it turns out that reindeer are actually human. This doesn't tell us anything interesting. And given the standard definition of consciousness, there is no reason to suppose that "consciousness is all around us at every level".

I am defining consciousness in a very mechanical, non-mysterious way almost. What do all those neurons and synapses actually DO in our brains that give rise to awareness? They interact. They act, react, or respond to stimuli in very complex manners giving us the ability for such a high evolved level of interaction that is our self-awareness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Totally agree.

There's no reason (especially from a naturalistic viewpoint) to believe that only a biological brain of our type can have a consciousness. If consciousness is emergent from the physical world and its processes, it is a strong possibility that a mind can emerge from other configurations.

Yes, I agree. But let's consider for a minute...what did that primitive form of consciousness emerge from? What did that "ability to respond to stimuli" emerge from? It emerged from the simple actions/reactions or interactions that were already present within the matter that made up this physical world right from the beginning.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You are still ignoring the idea of process.

In my professional life I often create computer programs that can make decisions. Those programs run as processes in hardware. I see no reason not to suppose that consciousness is a complex process running in what some folk colourfully call wetware.

A corollary is that it makes no sense to suppose that consciousness can occur in objects that lack any organization that could support it, such as subatomic particles.

The process that gives rise to human self-awareness IS very complex indeed. However, the STARTING POINT from which that process evolved was from the simple interactions found in ordinary matter. My theory does not go against any science or physics that I am aware of and by all rights it should not. For a theory to hold any validity, it should work in tandem with science and this does. It should provide EVIDENCE, and this does, in fact it is science that provides the evidence that makes this theory work. The only thing that my theory goes against, to my knowlegdge, is our conventional definition of "consiousness" and perhaps some of the philosophical or psychological ideas or notions that go along with that. It does not necessarily propose anything fantastical such as life after death, nor does it necesarily make consciousness seem "mystical", but it does open those doors of possibility. In a way this is my "Theory of Everything".

 

[Runewolf1973]

Meditation retracts the senses, so one can percieve reality, rather than a mental interpretation of reality.
Runewolf must have seen such to have this knowledge.

The experience itself is so validating that any ammount if scientific evidence extremely reinforces those experiences, hense why quantum theory is so exciting to many meditation practitioner.

My ideas a spurred on by deep meditative thought whilst sipping on a glass of fine whisky, smoking my clay pipe, and listening to classical (baroque period) music...much like the picture in my avatar would indicate.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, I agree. But let's consider for a minute...what did that primitive form of consciousness emerge from? What did that "ability to respond to stimuli" emerge from? It emerged from the simple actions/reactions or interactions that were already present within the matter that made up this physical world right from the beginning.

No argument here.

I see consciousness as a "primitive" building block of reality. Even in a naturalistic view, the universe must've contained the potential of bringing about consciousness from the beginning, even if it wasn't in actuality present at the start, or it wouldn't exist here and now.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No argument here.

I see consciousness as a "primitive" building block of reality. Even in a naturalistic view, the universe must've contained the potential of bringing about consciousness from the beginning, even if it wasn't in actuality present at the start, or it wouldn't exist here and now.

Yes. That is so true. The potential was always there.

I always quite liked this quote from the Gospel of Thomas...

"I am the light that shines over all things. I am everything. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there."


---

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I am defining consciousness in a very mechanical, non-mysterious way almost. What do all those neurons and synapses actually DO in our brains that give rise to awareness? They interact. They act, react, or respond to stimuli in very complex manners giving us the ability for such a high evolved level of interaction that is our self-awareness.

Ok, but that's like defining gold as "something that is the color yellow"- that's certainly one property that it has, just like interacting, acting, or reacting is one property of consciousness; but it is not an exhaustive property (i.e. a sufficient condition)- in other words, there is more to gold and consciousness than this one property- nor does it appear unique. In other words, it is an arbitrarily selective definition; one measured precisely for the conclusion you wish to reach... If we define consciousness as interaction or something, then sure, maybe consciousness is all around us (just like when we define gold as being yellow it turns out lots of ordinary things are gold); but consciousness in the usual sense, the more robust sense, we only see consciousness around us to the extent that we see organisms with neural activity.

I mean, there really aren't any important conclusions to be drawn from this, since you're simply stipulating a definition; and one we would have every reason to reject.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ok, but that's like defining gold as "something that is the color yellow"- that's certainly one property that it has, just like interacting, acting, or reacting is one property of consciousness; but it is not an exhaustive property (i.e. a sufficient condition)- in other words, there is more to gold and consciousness than this one property- nor does it appear unique. In other words, it is an arbitrarily selective definition; one measured precisely for the conclusion you wish to reach... If we define consciousness as interaction or something, then sure, maybe consciousness is all around us (just like when we define gold as being yellow it turns out lots of ordinary things are gold); but consciousness in the usual sense, the more robust sense, we only see consciousness around us to the extent that we see organisms with neural activity.

I mean, there really aren't any important conclusions to be drawn from this, since you're simply stipulating a definition; and one we would have every reason to reject.

No, it's more like defining gold as being a form of matter, revealing its truest nature. Really we could accurately describe or define everything in the observable universe as matter that is in a constant state of interaction, action, and reaction with other matter. I know a physicist could describe it in a much more technical manner than I can, but ultimately it is what it is....the interactions or matter.

I feel as though you are trying to grasp at straws...trying desperately to find some flaw in my way of thinking, but falling short. The reason why you are falling short is because in your claim that consciousness is "all in the brain" your are in fact unknowingly rejecting scientific understanding...evolution and physics for example. Consciousness/awareness is not some mysterious form of alchemy in the brain as you seem to make it out to be. It is not "created" just like BAM!! or POOF!! there it is in the brain, it is formed by the billions of complex interactions that evolved over long periods of time. Interactions, actions, reactions derived from the very same seemingly non-conscious or non-lifelike interactions found in all matter.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No, it's more like defining gold as being a form of matter, revealing its truest nature.

Either one works; "a form of matter' is a property of gold, but it doesn't distinguish gold as such. Just like interaction is a property of consciousness, but doesn't distinguish consciousness. Thus, either is a poor definition, and any conclusions drawn therefrom are largely worthless.

I feel as though you are trying to grasp at straws...trying desperately to find some flaw in my way of thinking, but falling short. The reason why you are falling short is because in your claim that consciousness is "all in the brain" your are in fact unknowingly rejecting scientific understanding...evolution and physics for example.

Elaborate? This sounds like a hollow accusation. In fact, its ironic that you would say this at all, since what you're trying to say flies in the face of all sound science on the matter; for instance, you reject the definition of consciousness found in the cognitive sciences, in order to claim something contrary to everything we know about the subject.

Consciousness/awareness is not some mysterious form of alchemy in the brain as you seem to make it out to be. It is not "created" just like BAM!! or POOF!!

Um, where did I say anything remotely like this? Post # or quote, please. (and BTW, who is grasping at straws here?)

there it is in the brain, it is formed by the billions of complex interactions that evolved over long periods of time. Interactions, actions, reactions derived from the very same seemingly non-conscious or non-lifelike interactions found in all matter.

Being "derived from" the same non-conscious and non-lifelike interactions found in all matter isn't quite the same thing as being the same interactions- all matter, organic matter included, is made up of the same stuff. And yet, gold and iron have different properties because, despite being made up of the same fundamental stuff- they are different things. To say that iron is actually gold because both are made of atoms is clearly ludicrous and non-sequitur; so then is saying that all matter is conscious, because consciousness is made up of the same fundamental interactions as non-conscious stuff.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Either one works; "a form of matter' is a property of gold, but it doesn't distinguish gold as such. Just like interaction is a property of consciousness, but doesn't distinguish consciousness. Thus, either is a poor definition, and any conclusions drawn therefrom are largely worthless.

Gold is a chemical element (form of matter) with an atomic number having the properties and characteristics of being dense, soft, malleable, and ductile with an attractive, bright yellow color and luster, and a resistance to tarnishing. It is the atomic number...the number of protons in its nucleus that determines what gold is, not what we choose to call it. It is the ability to interact and respond to stimuli or external forces that is the important distinction, not what we choose to call those interactions. We could call those interactions "consciousness" or "awareness" or even "sensitivity", but it really makes no difference. The universe and everything in it is interacting with us at every level, some of those levels more conscious or more "life-like" than others. I like to sometimes call it the Animating Factor.

Elaborate? This sounds like a hollow accusation. In fact, its ironic that you would say this at all, since what you're trying to say flies in the face of all sound science on the matter; for instance, you reject the definition of consciousness found in the cognitive sciences, in order to claim something contrary to everything we know about the subject.

Yeah, it is kind of ironic, and I know it's hard for people to accept new things when they were taught their whole lives otherwise. I get that.

Um, where did I say anything remotely like this? Post # or quote, please. (and BTW, who is grasping at straws here?)

All I said or indicated was that you are making consciousness SEEM like some form of alchemy in the brain. I was not quoting directly anything you said.

Being "derived from" the same non-conscious and non-lifelike interactions found in all matter isn't quite the same thing as being the same interactions- all matter, organic matter included, is made up of the same stuff. And yet, gold and iron have different properties because, despite being made up of the same fundamental stuff- they are different things. To say that iron is actually gold because both are made of atoms is clearly ludicrous and non-sequitur; so then is saying that all matter is conscious, because consciousness is made up of the same fundamental interactions as non-conscious stuff.

This a complete misunderstanding of what I was trying to say. Everything that exists is made up of the same fundamental "stuff"...matter, but every form of matter is also unique in its own way. Every form of matter acts, reacts, or interacts in its own way with its own atomic "signature" thereby resulting in its own unique properties. I am not meaning to say that all matter is fully conscious as in it has some form of self-awareness. What I am saying is that the ability for matter to act/react or interact with other matter was the REASON why those molecules and amino acids were able to interact and come together to form the "building blocks" of life. They were able to interact. As forms of matter came together in continually more and more complex ways (evolved) those interactions became ever increasingly lifelike..."conscious".

I suppose it would be misleading to say that everything is "conscious", if not everyone agrees with my personal definition of the term. It would be more accurate to say that all matter or forms of matter have the ability to interact or behave/respond differently under different conditions. However, it is this ability for matter to interact that is KEY to understanding the origins of life, consciousness, and awareness.

In light of everything being made of the same fundamental "stuff", to say that consciousness is not in some way related to that "stuff" is clearly ludicrous and non-sequitur.

Care to gasp at any more straws?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Consciousness is with the mind/brain. None before that or after death.

 

[metis]

This is correct, to a point. Like I said before, IF we were to RETHINK what consciousness is and how we define it, you would see it quite differently. The way I see it, consciousness is an evolved form of the simple actions/reactions (ability to interact) found in ALL matter. If we look at consciousness from THIS perspective, we would see that the only conscious ability a rock has is very basic in nature, very non-lifelike. A rock has the very limited ability to simply act or react when an external force is applied to it. It can not think because it has not been structured with the capacity to operate on that higher level of interaction. Over millenia however, and out of that simple ability for matter to act/react to oustide forces, certain compounds with the same ability to interact came together in certain ways to create new forms...forms with the capacity for MORE actions and MORE reactions. (Evidence: There are more interactions going on in a molecule than there are in a single atom. Atoms joined together to create more interactions.) The more these early compounds changed/evolved, the more complex those simple interactions became eventually leading to the formation of life-like forms and higher evolved forms of conscious activity.

I understand what you're saying here, and I can agree to a point, but I simply don't define "consciousness" as just any kind of molecular reaction. To me, the term means something well beyond that.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I understand what you're saying here, and I can agree to a point, but I simply don't define "consciousness" as just any kind of molecular reaction. To me, the term means something well beyond that.

Oh absolutely it is more than that and goes well beyond that. I am simply demonstrating how in some way this consciousness can be seen as a truly existing part of nature and how it interacts with us on every level. That consciousness, animating factor, Brahman,Tao, or simply "the ability to interact", whatever you wish to call it, is what sits behind the scenes and animates and directs all things known to exist...all matter. It does this because it is an integral part of matter. It is the field or background upon which all things can be seen or known or understood whether they be scientific or otherwise. The way I describe that very same thing..."the ability to interact"... can be seen and demonstrated through science and there is evidence for it's presence everywhere we find matter. For it to even make sense from a scientific standpoint, it must be demonstrated in a somewhat mechanical way (interactions)...as being a tangible function of all that exists.

If there were no interactions of any kind in the universe would we even know matter or consciousness to exist? Would we know ourselves to exist? As Max Planck put it...
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness."

Perhaps he was referring to the interactive nature of matter and it's ability to affect everything we regard as existing, even our own consciousness.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Gold is a chemical element (form of matter) with an atomic number having the properties and characteristics of being dense, soft, malleable, and ductile with an attractive, bright yellow color and luster, and a resistance to tarnishing. It is the atomic number...the number of protons in its nucleus that determines what gold is, not what we choose to call it. It is the ability to interact and respond to stimuli or external forces that is the important distinction, not what we choose to call those interactions. We could call those interactions "consciousness" or "awareness" or even "sensitivity", but it really makes no difference. The universe and everything in it is interacting with us at every level, some of those levels more conscious or more "life-like" than others. I like to sometimes call it the Animating Factor.

This is not an on-topic reply to anything I said. The point is that offering one property of X, which is neither unique nor exhaustive of X, as the definition of X, doesn't work.

Yeah, it is kind of ironic, and I know it's hard for people to accept new things when they were taught their whole lives otherwise. I get that.

Particularly when its something with little or no basis or support.

All I said or indicated was that you are making consciousness SEEM like some form of alchemy in the brain. I was not quoting directly anything you said.

Then I guess this seeming is more on your end, if you're unable to say what or where I said anything that implied this.

I suppose it would be misleading to say that everything is "conscious", if not everyone agrees with my personal definition of the term.

:clap :clap :clap

It would be more accurate to say that all matter or forms of matter have the ability to interact or behave/respond differently under different conditions. However, it is this ability for matter to interact that is KEY to understanding the origins of life, consciousness, and awareness.

Well sure, but that's not saying much.

In light of everything being made of the same fundamental "stuff", to say that consciousness is not in some way related to that "stuff" is clearly ludicrous and non-sequitur.

And in the sense that consciousness is what brains do, and that brains are made of matter just like everything else, I doubt anyone has any interest in denying that consciousness is "in some way related" to inanimate and non-organic matter. The point is that claiming that consciousness is everywhere is either completely unsubstantiated, or requires that we redefine consciousness in a somewhat arbitrary way.

Care to gasp at any more straws?

I'll leave that to you.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This is not an on-topic reply to anything I said. The point is that offering one property of X, which is neither unique nor exhaustive of X, as the definition of X, doesn't work.


Particularly when its something with little or no basis or support.


Then I guess this seeming is more on your end, if you're unable to say what or where I said anything that implied this.


:clap :clap :clap


Well sure, but that's not saying much.


And in the sense that consciousness is what brains do, and that brains are made of matter just like everything else, I doubt anyone has any interest in denying that consciousness is "in some way related" to inanimate and non-organic matter. The point is that claiming that consciousness is everywhere is either completely unsubstantiated, or requires that we redefine consciousness in a somewhat arbitrary way.


I'll leave that to you.

Other than implying a lot of "No way", "That's doesn't seem right", or "You don't know what you're talking about"...your attempts to disprove my theory have been thus far unsuccesful. Why? Because my theory is based on scientific facts. It is those interactions present in all matter that are key because without those vital interactions between matter, consciousness, life, and this very universe would not exist. Those interactions are the Life Force of the universe. The Animating Factor.