What If Consciousness Comes First?

[Truly Enlightened]

George: Consciousness is fundamental and matter is a derivative of Consciousness

Polymath: Matter is fundamental and consciousness is a derivative of Matter.
Actually our definitions of 'fundamental' are not really different. Our worldview is what is different as shown above.

No. what is consciousness fundamental to? Bosons, electrons, and quarks are the fundamental particles that make up matter. Without them, no stable matter could exist. But these particles can certainly exist on their own, without matter. If consciousness is a fundamental something, what are its properties? How does it interact with the physical brain? Can it exist outside of the brain? If it can't, then it is NOT fundamental. We can clearly demonstrate that consciousness is the emergent property of a physical brain. It is only a 5% representation of the brain's mental activities. It is the other 95% that is controlling us. Fundamental? I think not.

Also, how do we derive consciousness from matter. Consciousness have none of the properties of matter. Does matter have dimensions? Does matter have mass, inertia, or momentum? Is matter effected by gravity? Can matter absorb or reflect light? Does matter occupy space? Are any of these things a property of consciousness? So, how is it derived from matter?

 

[George-ananda]

We can clearly demonstrate that consciousness is the emergent property of a physical brain.

If you can indeed do that then you will get a Noble Prize for solving the 'hard' problem. It hasn't happened yet to my knowledge. You can show how the physical plane expression of consciousness is tied to the brain but as to the source of this consciousness, no, that has not been shown. You can see physical activity only in the brain but not consciousness.

Anyway, in Advaita Vedanta philosophy the entire material universe (including the quarks, bosons and whatnots) is a great thought-form of the fundamental Consciousness/God/Brahman.

As I said:

George: Consciousness is fundamental and matter is a derivative of Consciousness

And I understand how this flips everything in our normal scientific-material way of looking at reality.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If you can indeed do that then you will get a Noble Prize for solving the 'hard' problem. It hasn't happened yet to my knowledge. You can show how the physical plane expression of consciousness is tied to the brain but as to the source of this consciousness that has not been shown .

Anyway, in Advaita Vedanta philosophy the entire material universe (including the quarks, bosons and whatnots) is a great thought-form of the fundamental Consciousness/God/Brahman.

As I said:

George: Consciousness is fundamental and matter is a derivative of Consciousness

And I understand how this flips everything in our normal scientific-material way of looking at reality.

Sorry, I may have phrase that badly. I know that I can affect consciousness in many ways(physically, drugs, rewiring, hypnosis, suggestion, injury, etc.) through the physical brain. The only mystery about consciousness, is the mechanism itself. Consciousness is non localized. It is a composite of neural activity from different parts of the brain. This is why images are fleeting and incomplete in the mind's eye. When different parts of the brain are affected by disease or injury, our conscious perception of reality can be markedly noticeable. This includes our consciousness.

What if I had no senses? I could no longer be aware of my surroundings, my environment, or my position in space and time. Would I then have a consciousness? I don't think so. If I did, then what would I be conscious of? Logically, to be conscious I need to be conscious of something. In order to be conscious of something, I need to be able to interact with something. For that, I need my senses to perceive(not conceive) my physical reality. I say my physical reality, because my senses can only perceive physical stimuli. I don't know of any other stimuli, and the brain cannot stimulate itself. I actually wish there was some universal consciousness that I could seek advice. Unfortunately, I'm not good at fooling myself.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No. The capabilities are different according to their needs. Eagles have a better far vision, dogs have a better listening power, tigers, etc. have a better smelling power, lice have a better jumping power. Same goes in case of mind. To the extent required with sufficient reserve. Thanks to evolution.

So how is this not a continuum, or some kind of difference in levels of consciousness, because that is what I was suggesting. That is, that any consciousness (from the earliest life forms to all that exist now) has probably evolved along with the capabilities of any species.

 

[Bear Wild]

As far as I understand the Orch OR theory of consciousness, it starts at the pre-material (quantum) level of the universe. There is a baseline of pure energy and consciousness is a waveform that arises from that to collapse at the microtubules of the brain. These microtubules are capable of going into superposition.

In they last few years studies have shown that your sense of smell functions due to quantum entanglement. Its pretty interesting stuff. This theory would definitely place consciousness in the pre-material plane of existence first and the material plane second only after the waveform has collapsed (once every 60 milliseconds).

This vid is a little dated now but it explains the fundamentals of the theory well:

Very good video. He and Roger Penrose wrote a chapter in
"Biophysics of Consciousness: A Foundational Approach"
Here is a link to read the chapter for anyone interested.

"www.consciousness.arizona.edu/documents/Hameroff-PenroseUpdatedReviewofOrchOR2016b2237_Ch-14_Revised-2-3.pdf"

The introduction proposes three possible origins of consciousness to consider. The chapter is excellent but my physics/mathematics is not so excellent with some of it was difficult but still very interesting. The video was good.
1. "Consciousness is not an independent quality but arose, in terms of
conventional physical processes, as a natural evolutionary consequence of the biological adaptation of the brains and nervous systems. (science, materialism)"


2. "Consciousness is a separate (“spiritual”) quality, distinct from physical actions and not controlled by physical laws, that has always been in the universe. (dualism/spirituality)"


3. "Consciousness results from discrete physical events; such events have always existed in the universe as non-cognitive, proto-conscious events, these acting as part of precise physical laws not fully understood.
Biology evolved a mechanism to orchestrate such events and to couple the to neuronal activity, resulting in meaningful, cognitive, conscious moments and thence also to causal control of behavior. (science, and physical laws not yet understood)"

Personally I believe in the first origin and believe we are making significant progress to understand such a complicated process. This also supports the idea that consciousness is found in animals at least.

 

[Bear Wild]

The problem with definitions is that they frame the view and determine what you see.

Now try a neutral approach. Forget what reality really is and don't view physical other than a description of certain processes. Does physical process influences what humans do? Yes, e.g. a blow to the head can change the behavior.
Do chemical process influence what humans do? Yes, e.g alcohol can change the behavior.
Now I will name these external, they are external to the brain itself and can change the behavior in a brain. Can we describe in observational terms, what happens in a brain for at least some external influences? Yes.
Now here is the trick and it revolves around words.
Do all words have referents external to brains? No, the word "no" is such an example.
Are all words about perceptual experiences? No, the word "no" is such an example.
Are all words cases of involving seeing, tasting, hearing, feeling by touch or smelling? No.

Do you begin to see a pattern? There is a class of words, which have no external referents. They are connected to physical, chemical, biochemical and so on processes in a brain, I will give you that.
But there is the problem. Some words have no external natural referent and can't be reduced to or explained using only external referents. Does that mean that they are supernatural? No, it means that there is a limit to natural explanations based on observations.
In technical terms we are playing different version of metaphysics. I.e. non-reductive versus reductive physicalism. Or in empirical terms are all human experiences reducible to external experiences only? No.!

Now it is tied to the problem of methodology. Is it possible to have only one methodology to do everything as a human? Or the approach of explaining the world as only objective reality as having existence independent of the mind?

I have been doing this for many years now and I know that thinking frames, what you understand. So depending on what you take for granted you get different results.
If you take for granted an external model of only explanations back to objective reality, you frame what you look for in certain way. If you start with humans and explain the world as how humans experience it and use words, you get a different result.
So which one is correct? It depends on what you take for granted.
It is here:

philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

What you define consciousness as, frames, what you understand. If you then shift the approach you understand it differently.
I have learned to do this as - of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
Some humans do it as reality as a whole and then view it thorough a metaphysical lens.
So what is consciousness? That depends on what you in your mind as concepts take for granted, when you start looking.
Science:

Read it and connect the dots to how I explain it.
Are there parts of the world, which don't depend on humans? Yes. Are there parts of the world, which depend on how humans think and feel? Yes. Can these 2 be reduced down to one and not the other? No, so stop doing metaphysics and what not.
Learn that there is no single methodology for doing everything as a human. It always involve objective elements and subjective elements as limited cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective relativism and nobody have been able to reduce the one to the other. I know this, because I have look in the books and what not of the collective human knowledge of different ways of doing a life and I have learned that in some cases what you take for granted, frames what you understand. That is philosophy. Learn to spot as much as what you take for granted and not just everybody else.

Now can you do this differently that me? Yes, because you can use your brain differently than me. Or dare I say, your mind and consciousness.

I do agree how difficult consciousness is to define but to understand it one must start somewhere and build and modify from their. Our interpretation of what we observe is clearly affected by language and our experiences but as with many areas of the natural world as we build our understanding we modify and change our experiences tying to approximate the reality as much as possible.
So I think that all of our feelings (emotions), and awareness/sentience is a good starting place.
Consciousness developed first before any human was aware of it and certainly before it has been studied. It is a product of evolution with the advantages of social living providing adaptive pressure for its development.

 

[George-ananda]

Sorry, I may have phrase that badly. I know that I can affect consciousness in many ways(physically, drugs, rewiring, hypnosis, suggestion, injury, etc.) through the physical brain. The only mystery about consciousness, is the mechanism itself. Consciousness is non localized. It is a composite of neural activity from different parts of the brain. This is why images are fleeting and incomplete in the mind's eye. When different parts of the brain are affected by disease or injury, our conscious perception of reality can be markedly noticeable. This includes our consciousness.

What if I had no senses? I could no longer be aware of my surroundings, my environment, or my position in space and time. Would I then have a consciousness? I don't think so. If I did, then what would I be conscious of? Logically, to be conscious I need to be conscious of something. In order to be conscious of something, I need to be able to interact with something. For that, I need my senses to perceive(not conceive) my physical reality. I say my physical reality, because my senses can only perceive physical stimuli. I don't know of any other stimuli, and the brain cannot stimulate itself. I actually wish there was some universal consciousness that I could seek advice. Unfortunately, I'm not good at fooling myself.

In Advaita Vedanta there is fundamental ‘still’ Consciousness/God/Brahman. Masters and Adepts of the Vedantic (Hindu) tradition tell us that by stilling the senses and thinking they experience this ground consciousness. It is best described as a state of still sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss).

 

[Willamena]

I am reading your post. Do you mean to say that there is no distinction between me and your post?

As I said, "me" is a placeholder for something more than just a reading of the post. So, yes, it does differ meaningfully from the post, but it can also be mentally eliminated and there will still be a reading of the post. It just requires an adjustment of language (in English, at least) to pose it properly.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So how is this not a continuum, or some kind of difference in levels of consciousness, because that is what I was suggesting. That is, that any consciousness (from the earliest life forms to all that exist now) has probably evolved along with the capabilities of any species.

And that is what I am objecting to. No continuum. Each beings consciousness is individual, which is born with the being and dies with the being. As for evolution, among the various mutations, the best suited for the environment of the time, survives. If the environment changes suddenly, then there is mass extinction. In the changed environment, some with lesser demands survive and evolve further. That is perhaps why dinos disappeared and tree shrew survived to evolve into humans. Basic evolution theory.

Our dear cousins.

 

[Bear Wild]

And that is what I am objecting to. No continuum. Each beings consciousness is individual, which is born with the being and dies with the being. As for evolution, among the various mutations, the best suited for the environment of the time, survives. If the environment changes suddenly, then there is mass extinction. In the changed environment, some with lesser demands survive and evolve further. That is perhaps why dinos disappeared and tree shrew survived to evolve into humans. Basic evolution theory.

Our cousins.

Actually the environment forces favored the genetic change of what we identify as dinosaurs to birds. Their genetic heritage has been modified not completely lost. The same way that the environmental forces changed the genetic makeup of mammals. Just a thought.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Which is very true. Over-specialization has its own draw-backs like the polar bear is facing now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Our consciousness is simply the conscious representation of the brain processing and compartmentalizing sensory inputs. ...
Besides, after reading your post on the other thread, I think that it is you that is over-compensating with "big words" for your own lack of scientific understanding. I think that it is you that is projecting your own insecurity and fears of inadequacy. But that is just my subjective opinion. I would need more objective evidence to be certain.​

The interesting word is processing.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy | Psychology Today
Mentalization-Based Therapy | Psychology Today UK
What Is Metacognitive Therapy And How Can It Help Anxiety? | MHM
Metacognition
https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/272307-metacognition.pdf
Self-Reflective Awareness: A Crucial Life Skill

Now don't read those. They are not all about mental disorders and they don't have anything in common with "processing", because that is not really relevant. The 5% are passive and only an afterthought, right?

As for the second part: Here it is a fun fact. Yes, I do think you are on to something for my bolded part. But there is more and it is not that simple. It is a part of my, but not all of my. I know, because I have been subject to some of the techniques in the links above. But there is more. You have missed that this "processing" can do more than what you describe and now consider me a broken analog clock. You still have to check if I got "lucky" and spotted that you missed something. You haven't addressed that. You simply explained that away as irrelevant by looking at my personality. Can anybody say - defense mechanism. You should know if that is the case. So I am asking you about that.
Now you seem well trained to I leave it to you to do what you do. But I can still spot if you don't tackle my actual point. There is apparently more to the 5%, than you claim.
So learn to divide personality and the actual point I raised.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And that is what I am objecting to. No continuum. Each beings consciousness is individual, which is born with the being and dies with the being. As for evolution, among the various mutations, the best suited for the environment of the time, survives. If the environment changes suddenly, then there is mass extinction. In the changed environment, some with lesser demands survive and evolve further. That is perhaps why dinos disappeared and tree shrew survived to evolve into humans. Basic evolution theory.

Our dear cousins.

But if there is no continuum, as in a changes in levels of consciousness, how did we get from being microbes to being humans? Or do you assert that all life has equivalent consciousness? By continuum I mean if we assessed various species we would see a difference in their levels of consciousness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But if there is no continuum, as in a changes in levels of consciousness, how did we get from being microbes to being humans? Or do you assert that all life has equivalent consciousness? By continuum I mean if we assessed various species we would see a difference in their levels of consciousness.

Consciousness is funny. Look at something as looking at it and you can't see consciousness. Now add the psychological term "theory of mind" and ask how come it is called "theory of mind"? Because we infer consciousness in other lifeforms including humans.
Now this connects to your problem. Consciousness is an emergent property in some forms of things, live forms, but it hasn't always been there unless you claim it is in rocks, water and what not.
So what do all life do? Well, now it becomes really weird. It reacts to its environment, even microbes. But so does a thermostat. It changes due to the heat around it. So in philosophy you get these silly questions like: Are thermostats conscious?
So are thermostats conscious? Are microbes? Does it require neurons and if so how many? What if I am heavily sedated, am I still conscious?
There is a lot of funny stuff going on with consciousness, so here is a classic: What it feels like to be a bat?
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac.../humananimalstudies/lectures/32/nagel_bat.pdf

So here is my advice. We really don't know everything and don't worry about it. It seems to work for you, right? So leave it at that in one sense. In another if you really what to know, I will answer as a skeptic - we really don't know. We infer and make educated guesses.
Oh, almost forget. P-zombies.
Zombies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
And the Chinese Room
The Chinese Room Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You can have a lot of fun with it.
So one final question: What do you do if one day a computer says to you - I am conscious, please don't turn me off!

 

[Aupmanyav]

But if there is no continuum, as in a changes in levels of consciousness, how did we get from being microbes to being humans?

All beings have their chemistry and depend on that. Those beings who have brains have evolved for different environments and have consciousness suited to their environment - which is born with them and dies with them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So one final question: What do you do if one day a computer says to you - I am conscious, please don't turn me off!

Either accept its request or voice a resounding 'no' and ask it to shut up.

Most computers have not the power to punch me in the face though one can create such a computer. When that happens, I will be more polite. Then perhaps I would ask, "Hey Comp, are you tired? Wont you allow me to complete this post? Thanks in advance".
.. and follow it up with a smiley like this

 

[atanu]

As I said, "me" is a placeholder for something more than just a reading of the post. So, yes, it does differ meaningfully from the post, but it can also be mentally eliminated and there will still be a reading of the post. It just requires an adjustment of language (in English, at least) to pose it properly.

You are correct partially. Let me elaborate. That 'I' and 'Me' are placeholders for mythical notions of selfhood and are receptacles of pain is the teaching of Hinduism, if not of all religions. We have discussed earlier how the drig-drishya (the Seer-Seen) discrimination is taught as a means to arrive at the source of discernment.

But then. 'Me' is mythical does not mean that the experiences are mythical and that the consciousness (competence for discernment) is mythical. There are two possibilities. Based on observation of correlation of brain states to various mind states, some (such as Dennet and @Polymath257) resort to eliminative materialism -- that there is no consciousness and no seer but the brain states. This is an absurd proposition. What is Dennet's or Churchland's source of knowledge? How is the proposition of eliminativist derived and supported? Brain states do not suggest any such thing as Dennet does.

The other option is that discernment is the very fabric of existence. The practice of seer-seen discrimination can easily demonstrate the obvious folly of eliminative materialism to the self. Senses cognise objects. Mind cognizes senses. Movements in mind are seen in awareness. There is none to see the awareness.

 

[Polymath257]

But then. 'Me' is mythical does not mean that the experiences are mythical and that the consciousness (competence for discernment) is mythical. There are two possibilities. Based on observation of correlation of brain states to various mind states, some (such as Dennet and @Polymath257) resort to eliminative materialism -- that there is no consciousness and no seer but the brain states. This is an absurd proposition. What is Dennet's or Churchland's source of knowledge? How is the proposition of eliminativist derived and supported? Brain states do not suggest any such thing as Dennet does.

What is the source of knowledge? Sensory information. This is processed by a brain that is the result of evolution, making at least some of the conclusions reliable.

The correlation between conscious states and brain states does, in fact, suggest exactly what Dennett says.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is the source of knowledge? Sensory information. This is processed by a brain that is the result of evolution, making at least some of the conclusions reliable.

The correlation between conscious states and brain states does, in fact, suggest exactly what Dennett says.

No, because you don't know the meaning of no through external sensation alone.
Naive empiricism is the idea that all experience is external sensory experience.

I don't know, if you hold that position or if you mean sensory as all cognition, feelings and emotions.

 

[Polymath257]

No, because you don't know the meaning of no through external sensation alone.
Naive empiricism is the idea that all experience is external sensory experience.

I don't know, if you hold that position or if you mean sensory as all cognition, feelings and emotions.

Once again, the brain has evolved to process information. It is reliable, at least in some situations, because it *had* to be for survival. So we have a working processor with some basic information wired in. On top of that, we get sensory information.

Yes, we do learn the word 'no' via our senses. If you never hear the word 'no', and are never conditioned to its meaning, you will never understand that vocalization.