Consciousness before physical creation

[Runewolf1973]

Isn't consciousness already defined in a rather arbitrary way? I mean considering that the term was likely coined origjnally without even knowing what consciousness actually was to begin with.

I seek to redefine consciousness based on the vital interactions that cause it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

You haven't offered a theory; you've simply stipulated an alternate definition of "consciousness".

Why? Because my theory is based on scientific facts.

Not really, or if it is, only trivially so.

Isn't consciousness already defined in a rather arbitrary way? I mean considering that the term was likely coined origjnally without even knowing what consciousness actually was to begin with.

I seek to redefine consciousness based on the vital interactions that cause it.

Only, you haven't specified any vital interactions, you've simply defined consciousness as interactions; which is vague, and is not a sufficient condition for consciousness. Generally, we want a definition for X to set out necessary and sufficient conditions for X. Your definition does not, and is clearly deficient; aside from the fact that it appears measured for a particular conclusion in the first place.

 

[metis]

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.

Knowing at least a bit about Planck, I think your last sentence especially captures what he probably was saying.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You haven't offered a theory; you've simply stipulated an alternate definition of "consciousness".

And the theory lies behind that alternate definition of "consciousness". I gave my theory, and it goes something like this...

The simple "activity" or "interactions" found in matter evolved/expanded to form the basis of the "activity" or "interactions" found within all things including all life-like forms or all life-like systems of matter. The interactions between matter are vital, for without those interactions the universe and the conscious creatures or forms that arose out of that matter would not exist...matter itself would not even exist.

The fact that this may seem "trivial" does not mean that it does not work.

Only, you haven't specified any vital interactions, you've simply defined consciousness as interactions; which is vague, and is not a sufficient condition for consciousness. Generally, we want a definition for X to set out necessary and sufficient conditions for X. Your definition does not, and is clearly deficient; aside from the fact that it appears measured for a particular conclusion in the first place.

The vital interactions (if you wish me to specify) are the those same interactions that are observed/measured when the quantum field of a subatomic particle comes into proximity of the quantum field of another particle or "field". There is a kind of "excitation" (action/reaction) going on when that happens. That is the vital interaction within matter and is in a way it's Life Force or it's Animating Force.

I think that's fairly accurate from a physics standpoint. I am not a physicist though, lol. I will say though that regardless of my physics explanation being accurate or not does not mean those interactions don't exist. I assure you, they exist.

As defined in physics...

Quantum Field Theory is the study of the quantum mechanical INTERACTION of elementary particles and fields.

---

 

[Runewolf1973]

I have a challenge for you...

Tell me one thing that exists or is known to exist in the natural universe that is not in some way dependent on the interactions of matter.

If you can't come up with an answer to that, then tell me why (setting aside semantics) we should not consider those interactions the Vital Force or Animating Factor of the universe?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And the theory lies behind that alternate definition of "consciousness". I gave my theory, and it goes something like this...

The simple "activity" or "interactions" found in matter evolved/expanded to form the basis of the "activity" or "interactions" found within all things including all life-like forms or all life-like systems of matter. The interactions between matter are vital, for without those interactions the universe and the conscious creatures or forms that arose out of that matter would not exist...matter itself would not even exist.

The fact that this may seem "trivial" does not mean that it does not work.

This isn't the part that I said doesn't work- and for the most part this looks fine, aside from the fact that it is, as you've noted, almost entirely trivial.

The vital interactions (if you wish me to specify) are the those same interactions that are observed/measured when the quantum field of a subatomic particle comes into proximity of the quantum field of another particle or "field". There is a kind of "excitation" (action/reaction) going on when that happens. That is the vital interaction within matter and is in a way it's Life Force or it's Animating Force.

I think that's fairly accurate from a physics standpoint. I am not a physicist though, lol. I will say though that regardless of my physics explanation being accurate or not does not mean those interactions don't exist. I assure you, they exist.

As defined in physics...

Quantum Field Theory is the study of the quantum mechanical INTERACTION of elementary particles and fields.
---

Right; but since this is true of the subatomic particles which compose all matter, this is nothing distinctive about consciousness, and at any rate doesn't tell us anything we didn't know already with respect to consciousness.

I have a challenge for you...

Tell me one thing that exists or is known to exist in the natural universe that is not in some way dependent on the interactions of matter.

You're asking me to name something that exists (i.e. belongs to the physical universe), which is no way dependent upon matter? Clearly I won't be able to answer that, nor do I wish to; I'm not claiming any such thing in the first place.

If you can't come up with an answer to that, then tell me why (setting aside semantics) we should not consider those interactions the Vital Force or Animating Factor of the universe?

I'm afraid my objections would be largely semantic- these phrases sound almost intentionally vague and esoteric, and thus are like to mislead. Why not something a little more straightforward like, "Fundamental Interactions"? I mean, "Animating Factor" or "Vital Force" sounds like some of mysterious, animating spirit substance, and that isn't what we're talking about at all.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This isn't the part that I said doesn't work- and for the most part this looks fine, aside from the fact that it is, as you've noted, almost entirely trivial.


Right; but since this is true of the subatomic particles which compose all matter, this is nothing distinctive about consciousness, and at any rate doesn't tell us anything we didn't know already with respect to consciousness.


You're asking me to name something that exists (i.e. belongs to the physical universe), which is no way dependent upon matter? Clearly I won't be able to answer that, nor do I wish to; I'm not claiming any such thing in the first place.


I'm afraid my objections would be largely semantic- these phrases sound almost intentionally vague and esoteric, and thus are like to mislead. Why not something a little more straightforward like, "Fundamental Interactions"? I mean, "Animating Factor" or "Vital Force" sounds like some of mysterious, animating spirit substance, and that isn't what we're talking about at all.

So let me get this straight...

From my point of view, it seems as though you are saying you don't agree with this idea simply because in your opinion, it sounds trivial, non-distinctive, vague, and esoteric, but aside from that, you have really no good reason to reject it other than it doesn't agree with your use of semantics. It does however agree with and follow the natural laws of the universe as science has laid them out for us. It also shows us a possible link between ordinary matter and the origins of life, mind and matter, and yet you still choose to reject it because in your opinion it sounds too "mysterious".

What a convincing argument on your behalf...well, not really. However, I will make these points a little clearer for you...

It is not mysterious at all...It is the fundamental (as you prefer I call it) interactions that exist in all matter.

An interaction is not a substance...It is a Force. (Would you reject if I called it a Fundamental Force that exists in all matter, or is that too mysterious?)

Does it make any difference whether you agree with this or not? I don't think so.

Those vital, fundamental, animating, forceful interactions exist and affect us and everything around us on every level whether you have anything to say about it or not.

---

 

[Looncall]

So let me get this straight...

From my point of view, it seems as though you are saying you don't agree with this idea simply because in your opinion, it sounds trivial, non-distinctive, vague, and esoteric, but aside from that, you have really no good reason to reject it other than it doesn't agree with your use of semantics. It does however agree with and follow the natural laws of the universe as science has laid them out for us. It also shows us a possible link between ordinary matter and the origins of life, mind and matter, and yet you still choose to reject it because in your opinion it sounds too "mysterious".

What a convincing argument on your behalf...well, not really. However, I will make these points a little clearer for you...

It is not mysterious at all...It is the fundamental (as you prefer I call it) interactions that exist in all matter.

An interaction is not a substance...It is a Force. (Would you reject if I called it a Fundamental Force that exists in all matter, or is that too mysterious?)

Does it make any difference whether you agree with this or not? I don't think so.

Those vital, fundamental, animating, forceful interactions exist and affect us and everything around us on every level whether you have anything to say about it or not.

---

As you say, these interactions are just the outcomes of properties of matter that arise due to the presence of a variety of forces (eg electomagnetic, weak, strong etc). To then say that that makes everything conscious is the leap that looks silly.

To say that the interactions are what you mean by consciousness merely hijacks the word consciousness to make the interactions seem more important, more mystical. The word has a usual, useful meaning. It makes no sense to use it for something else.

 

[Runewolf1973]

In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change. There are many types of forces (all non-mysterious and naturally existing), but they are all ultimately derived from the same interaction or force found within the fields of subatomic particles. It is from those quantum-scale interactions that we have ANY forces in the universe at all.

Hence when Max Planck said…

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force…”

Those interactions (forces) are THE most important, fundamental thing that causes anything we know to exist including life and what we call consciousness. Without that force, or combination of forces, the changes or interactions in the very “building blocks of life” would not have occurred. We humans, or anything for that matter, would not exist.

Therefore, call it whatever you want, but I have every right and justification to call that force or those forces the Animating Factor of the universe. Others have every right and justification to call it Brahman, Tao, Universal Consciousness, or whatever they wish to call that animating force. It does not matter, it's all the same. It exists and it is a scientific FACT.

 

[Runewolf1973]

So not everything is conscious even though everything does have that ability to interact (force) which is it's Potential, but ALL LIFE IS CONSCIOUS via those same interactions... Humans evolved out of those simple, rather primitive, yet conscious interactions the capacity for self-awareness, another form of interaction and an even higher, more complex form of consciousness.


We owe it ALL to a force...


---

 

[Runewolf1973]

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.

Sorry, l left out one very important detail...

All whist stitting under a Tree...

:yes:

 

[Aupmanyav]

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."

Planck was correct. But what you are doing is to equate the reactivity of sub-nuclear particles to human consciousness. The two things are different. The sub-nuclear particle does not care about religion or God.

 

[OneWithoutASecond]

A basic view, but it stands: I don't think consciousness can be proven nor disproven by science. You need to sit in the quiet, with your eyes closed, your mind still, and just decide whether what you are then aware off is merely a lump of animal gristle in your head, or something else, which cannot be located (as consciousness cannot) anywhere within your body.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Planck was correct. But what you are doing is to equate the reactivity of sub-nuclear particles to human consciousness. The two things are different. The sub-nuclear particle does not care about religion or God.

Not equating them...they are not equal, for not everything is evolved/configured in such a way as to have that same level of awareness. You are correct in that sense. A sub-nuclear particle does not care about anything. I am simply finding the relationship between matter and consciousness...and that is the Force behind it.

If All is One as they say, then should we not seek the relationship that unites ALL as One?

---

 

[Runewolf1973]

A basic view, but it stands: I don't think consciousness can be proven nor disproven by science. You need to sit in the quiet, with your eyes closed, your mind still, and just decide whether what you are then aware off is merely a lump of animal gristle in your head, or something else, which cannot be located (as consciousness cannot) anywhere within your body.

It is hard to point the finger at something which is ( in a way) everywhere, but science has done a pretty good job of it so far.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So let me get this straight...

From my point of view, it seems as though you are saying you don't agree with this idea simply because in your opinion, it sounds trivial, non-distinctive, vague, and esoteric, but aside from that, you have really no good reason to reject it other than it doesn't agree with your use of semantics. It does however agree with and follow the natural laws of the universe as science has laid them out for us. It also shows us a possible link between ordinary matter and the origins of life, mind and matter, and yet you still choose to reject it because in your opinion it sounds too "mysterious".

A bit of a caricature, but in essence, yeah, that's more or less it.

What a convincing argument on your behalf...well, not really.

Well, unless you intend to rebut the charges that-

1. your entire claim is trivial, and close to vacuous- it tells us virtually nothing we didn't already know
2. your definition of consciousness is vague, doesn't provide a sufficient condition for consciousness, and thus is inadequate
3. your label for an extremely commonplace event- the interactions of subatomic particles- is extremely misleading

then I'd say that the argument was successful, in that it established exactly what I intended it to.

However, I will make these points a little clearer for you...

An interaction is not a substance...It is a Force.

Is it? Forces and interactions are distinct concepts; in physics, forces involve interactions, but they are not identical to interaction in general. Also, why is "force" capitalized?

Those vital, fundamental, animating, forceful interactions exist and affect us and everything around us on every level whether you have anything to say about it or not.

That brains are composed of matter and that the sorts of interactions between sub-atomic particles which occur in inanimate matter occur, and play a role, in the biology of sentient creatures isn't really a controversial claim, and nothing I've said implies I think otherwise. My question is- so what?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Originally Posted by Runewolf1973
So let me get this straight...

From my point of view, it seems as though you are saying you don't agree with this idea simply because in your opinion, it sounds trivial, non-distinctive, vague, and esoteric, but aside from that, you have really no good reason to reject it other than it doesn't agree with your use of semantics. It does however agree with and follow the natural laws of the universe as science has laid them out for us. It also shows us a possible link between ordinary matter and the origins of life, mind and matter, and yet you still choose to reject it because in your opinion it sounds too "mysterious".

Your response to that...

A bit of a caricature, but in essence, yeah, that's more or less it.

Then that’s all I needed to know. Thanks!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Then that’s all I needed to know. Thanks!

In other words, you concede that-

1. your entire claim is trivial, and close to vacuous- it tells us virtually nothing we didn't already know
2. your definition of consciousness is vague, doesn't provide a sufficient condition for consciousness, and thus is inadequate
3. your label for an extremely commonplace event- the interactions of subatomic particles- is extremely misleading

Works for me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As if the only way for a claim or explanation to be unacceptable is by being literally false, as opposed to being vacuous or uninformative...

 

[Runewolf1973]

So if my theory or idea is false, (I admit that may be possible) do you have a different one you would like to share? I want your explanation as to what specifically caused inanimate matter to become animate. I would also like to know how humans evolved to be conscious and "aware" but other forms of life are not conscious at some level.