Consciousness before physical creation

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

You need to read more carefully-

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...

A claim or explanation can be unacceptable or inadequate for reasons other than simply being false- if it is uninformative, and relies on a poor and arbitrary definition, then it is certainly unacceptable, even if it is trivially true.

 

[Looncall]

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.

Chemistry + time!

Life and consciousness are just things that occur when matter happens through time to become organized in the right way. Different lineages take different paths and gain different properties.

There really is not anything magic about all this; it is very prosaic. That may be disappointing, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is the case.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I mean, you've already allowed that most people won't accept your definition of consciousness; and that on your definition, it would seem to follow that "consciousness is all around us". It seems you've backed away from the latter claim, but you still want to hold on to your definition- well, make up your mind; you can't have it both ways. If consciousness is merely "interactions" between sub-atomic particles, then yes, consciousness is everywhere. But this is an absurd result, because in asking for a definition and explanation of consciousness, we are asking what differentiates consciousness from non-consciousness- an invalid, or at least impertinent, question if everything is conscious. But everything is not, and this is one reason why consciousness is an interesting topic- why is it that some things are conscious and others are not? What sets them apart? But then, if you say that consciousness consists of the same sorts of interactions that underlie all matter and all phenomena, then you clearly haven't answered the question very well- we want to know what sets it apart, and how that works, not what it has in common with non-consciousness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Chemistry + time!

Life and consciousness are just things that occur when matter happens through time to become organized in the right way. Different lineages take different paths and gain different properties.

There really is not anything magic about all this; it is very prosaic. That may be disappointing, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is the case.

No. You are exactly right and that is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If the theory of Evolution is true and conscious humans evolved from other animals, why would it not be logical to assume that those other animals have a less evolved form of that same consciousness? I do agree that life originated through the chemical reactions and interactions of matter. Over time those interactions between chemicals and molecules became more and more complex until those interactions eventually started taking on a more lifelike appearance…more interactive. I believe that primitive life was the beginnings of consciousness but the interactions in matter were the driving forces behind that beginning. So in my opinion, the real question should be… Why are some creatures more conscious than others? The answer is simple...Evolution. Certain creatures evolved with the capacity to have more of those interactions than others. Therefore, consciousness is not confined to a human brain, it is a property found in all life.

The notion that only humans are conscious (the way I see it) is purely ridiculous.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If the theory of Evolution is true and conscious humans evolved from other animals, why would it not be logical to assume that those other animals have a less evolved form of that same consciousness? I do agree that life originated through the chemical reactions and interactions of matter. Over time those interactions between chemicals and molecules became more and more complex until those interactions eventually started taking on a more lifelike appearance…more interactive. I believe that primitive life was the beginnings of consciousness but the interactions in matter were the driving forces behind that beginning. So in my opinion, the real question should be… Why are some creatures more conscious than others? The answer is simple...Evolution. Certain creatures evolved with the capacity to have more of those interactions than others. Therefore, consciousness is not confined to a human brain, it is a property found in all life.

The notion that only humans are conscious (the way I see it) is purely ridiculous.

Well it's about defining consciousness. Simply because we add layers of complexity to our actions does not mean they are actually complex. How much of what we do is not influenced by our interaction with our environment?

 

[Runewolf1973]

I simply CAN NOT accept evolution to be true if our own human consciousness/awareness did not in some way evolve along with it. However, I DO believe evolution to be true, so therefore my logic dictates that our consciousness/awareness MUST have evolved along with everything else...from the most primitive state to the most advanced.

By that logic, some degree of consciousness or awareness is to be found in ALL forms of life, and not just in human brains.


---

 

[Leftimies]

Reality is absolute and whole. Consciousnesses arise and fall, emerge and disintegrate; they do so as to serve as manifestations of what can be. Manifestations of possibility, and serve as embodiment to the perhaps uncountable faces of existence. Through us reality itself experiences, we are the reality experiencing itself. We may do so in different ways, to reach different conclusions, but it still holds equally true for each of us.

Consciousness is part of reality. Reality is absolute and whole. Thus, as part of something absolute and whole, consciousness too is absolute, pervading the reality itself throughout. Anything possible is absolute and all-pervading. It just is difficult for individual to perceive from our subjective standpoint. I think..

 

[Contemplative Cat]

How does consciousness evolve?consciousness is awareness not intelligence.
Still again why should we insist of equating awareness with intellect, that's why people think only brains can have consciousness.
if awareness is simply inherent in nature, all objects are percieving a black nothingness, but that's still an awareness of voidness, similar but not the same as deep sleep.
Once senses and a mind form, awareness experiences through those objects that have that ability, a person forms with a unique perspective of nature.
When a mind dies the consciousness now experiences voidness again since the body and its senses are now a corpse.
Consciousness is just presence in nature, an alternate theory perhaps,but why would this conflict with science?
In fact most Atheists agree on the afterlife as nothingness, or an extinction of self, but some presence still witness's that nothing.
And scientists just guess at where awareness originates,they assume in an intellect because during contemplation, they can only observe the awareness of their intellect. They identify as thought, but awareness is that which is aware of thought.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

By that logic, some degree of consciousness or awareness is to be found in ALL forms of life, and not just in human brains.
---

I'm not disputing that, and one relatively common definition of consciousness is simply the ability to sense and respond to stimuli (something obviously not unique to humans)- I'm disputing that consciousness is "all around us" in the sense that things like lakes, rocks, cars, and microwave ovens are conscious. As in, this sort of nonsense-

How does consciousness evolve?consciousness is awareness not intelligence.
Still again why should we insist of equating awareness with intellect, that's why people think only brains can have consciousness.

People think that only brains can have consciousness because the only conscious things we've ever encountered have brains.

if awareness is simply inherent in nature

The consequent to this conditional becomes irrelevant when we note that awareness is not "inherent in nature" in the sense I suspect you mean; water is not aware of anything, nor is granite, for instance.

all objects are percieving a black nothingness

In what sense does, e.g. a rock, "perceive"?

 

[Runewolf1973]

In the sense that humans are self-aware or that creatures are aware of their surroundings, I completely agree and have indicated before that those types of interactions are unique to life-forms with some level of conscious ability even if that means down to the most primitive level of plants or single cells. On the other hand, such things as lakes, rivers, rocks, etc...interact with the environment on a much different level, on a purely elementary level....the level of atoms and subatomic particles and physical actions and reactions. However both types of interactions whether they be conscious interactions or non-conscious interactions are ultimately governed by or caused by some underlying, naturally existing force or forces. Because we agree that consciousness does not exist in all things, but there is some underlying force or forces causing the interactions of all things, I am going to refrain from calling this "consciousness". I see how this would be misleading. Instead, I am simply going to call those naturally existing forces that are the framework or "matrix" of all matter the Animating Factor. This is not a mystical term, nor is it misleading. This is NOT a belief because there is in fact sufficient evidence for the existence of those interactions or forces provided through science. It is quite simply the fundamental force or forces in nature that gave rise to all matter and all forms, conscious or otherwise.

 

[Looncall]

In the sense that humans are self-aware or that creatures are aware of their surroundings, I completely agree and have indicated before that those types of interactions are unique to life-forms with some level of conscious ability even if that means down to the most primitive level of plants or single cells. On the other hand, such things as lakes, rivers, rocks, etc...interact with the environment on a much different level, on a purely elementary level....the level of atoms and subatomic particles and physical actions and reactions. However both types of interactions whether they be conscious interactions or non-conscious interactions are ultimately governed by or caused by some underlying, naturally existing force or forces. Because we agree that consciousness does not exist in all things, but there is some underlying force or forces causing the interactions of all things, I am going to refrain from calling this "consciousness". I see how this would be misleading. Instead, I am simply going to call those naturally existing forces that are the framework or "matrix" of all matter the Animating Factor. This is not a mystical term, nor is it misleading. This is NOT a belief because there is in fact sufficient evidence for the existence of those interactions or forces provided through science. It is quite simply the fundamental force or forces in nature that gave rise to all matter and all forms, conscious or otherwise.

Why invent a new word for things we already have well-established words for?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

A rock percieves nothing, literally (it has no sense organs) but it still percieves. Awareness is the witness, if there is a brain to distinguish qualities with, eyes to see color and depth, ears to hear, and speech to
communicate the mental observations of conscious existence.
Then awareness can experience.
Awareness is self existent, but the organs of perception, memory, & communication are not, they are born and die.
A personality and memories dwell in a mind, they die with it. But the consciousness continues on, even when the body dies. After the brain and senses die the awareness local to the body experiences the reality much like a rock would, or a clump of dirt, or the microwave oven would.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Why invent a new word for things we already have well-established words for?

To prevent others from trying to invalidate the overall concept or idea simply based on semantics. MY word or word combination, MY definition.

Why did the French philosopher Henri Bergson decide to coin the word Élan vital? Being a philosopher, he probably knew all about semantics. So are you now trying to invalidate my ideas simply because I decided to coin my own word for them? I admire your stubbornness, I really do. The Animating Factor is not merely a term that I use to describe things we already have words for. There is also a theory behind that word...


There resides in nature an underlying, fundamental force by which all things exist and by which all of existence is animated. I call this the Animating Factor. ALL existing forces (known or unknown to science) are in some way interconnected, and even those forces or interactions which give rise to consciousness or life are in some way dependent on and ultimately derived from the interactions found within ALL matter. As matter interacts it shows us its propensity to change and take on new form, including that peculiar form we call Life, but behind those changes or forms are those same animating forces within nature which are in fact both ceaseless and formless.


I shall further note that this Animating Factor includes ALL forces or interactions in the known universe, and even those forces, interactions, or phenomena which are naturally existing yet currently unknown to science. This therefore would include paranormal phenomena such as spirits, ghosts, etc…provided those things are a naturally existing part of the universe.



ALL is ONE:meditate:

---

 

[Enai de a lukal]

A rock percieves nothing, literally (it has no sense organs) but it still percieves.

If a rock perceives nothing, then it is not the case that a rock perceives anything- or, it is not the case that a rock perceives.

In other words, what you've just said is self-contradictory.

Awareness is the witness, if there is a brain to distinguish qualities with, eyes to see color and depth, ears to hear, and speech to
communicate the mental observations of conscious existence.

Awareness/consciousness consists, at least in part, in sensing stimuli and processing that information- thus, there is no coherent sense in which, e.g. rocks, are conscious or aware.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

That's the point, if consciousnesses is not the witness then the witness would simply be beyond consciousness.
Consciousness is not part of the stimuli or any part of the brain.
The brain arises in Consciousness. The witness of the mind and senses.
A rock has no senses or brain, so no perception arises in the awareness local to that form.
But in a brain with senses, various perceptions and distinctions arise in the consciousness local to that body
Symantecs, since English is considered ill equiped to discuss philosophy.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's the point, if consciousnesses is not the witness then the witness would simply be beyond consciousness.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

A rock has no senses or brain, so no perception arises in the awareness local to that form.

There is no "awareness local to that form".

But in a brain with senses, various perceptions and distinctions arise in the consciousness local to that body

No. Something without sense organs does not perceive, clearly. And since consciousness consists in (at least in part) the ability to sense and respond to stimuli, rocks are not conscious either.

Symantecs, since English is considered ill equiped to discuss philosophy.

"Symantec" is an anti-virus software company. And English, like most languages, works pretty well for discussing things- including philosophy.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Well outright denial isn't any good.
Plug your ears , or stick your head in the sand.
Worshiping an everchanging science
as a constant reality doesnt make sense.
Theories are not facts, to outright deny the possibility of other theories is to be Dogmatic, which is pretty odd for irreligious people to be dogmatic.

Theories can be disproven,
they are based on the observations of
proponents of that theory.
Its possible many ideas held as true by the scientific community are false, and that later evidence will prove such.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well outright denial isn't any good.
Plug your ears , or stick your head in the sand.

If someone tries to tell you that trees own cell phones or that dogs can fly, pointing out the patent falsity of their statement is not sticking your head in the sand. Given that consciousness is often defined as the ability to sense and respond to stimuli, it follows pretty clearly that things like rocks are not conscious. Nothing that you've said here admits of any confirming evidence, and quite a bit of contradictory evidence.

Worshiping an everchanging science
as a constant reality doesnt make sense.

Nobody is worshipping science. Being critical and skeptical of dubious and ludicrous assertions is not "worshipping science", its simple common sense.

Theories are not facts, to outright deny the possibility of other theories is to be Dogmatic, which is pretty odd for irreligious people to be dogmatic.

Nobody is denying the possibility of other theories. But we aren't talking about "other theories", but rather a bunch of bare (and ludicrous) assertions you're making that fly in the face of virtually everything we know or have ever observed. Given that, the onus is on you to substantiate your claims, not on other people who are skeptical of them. Is it possible for non-organic matter to be conscious? I suppose. But is it the case? No. Possibility and actuality are separate items, and we have zero evidence to suppose that rocks are conscious.

Theories can be disproven,
they are based on the observations of
proponents of that theory.
Its possible many ideas held as true by the scientific community are false, and that later evidence will prove such.

Sure. But unless you can/care to disprove our current understanding of consciousness, this is all sort of moot.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Not at present, can any scientific equipmnt sense consciousness, most people will say it can only be intuitively sensed.
That's why many confuse awareness with the
movements within the brain, which is thought & impulse.
But its a rational theory. To clarify further only a brain can have
a personality, but everything has silent witnessing.