What is Consciousness?

[Runewolf1973]

I find it kind of funny when people talk about "consciousness" as though it were something so mysterious, compelling and inexplicable, but that's just me...

Consciousness is not a mystical, inexplicable thing, nor is it the ground of all being, nor is it a fundamental property of the universe. It is described as the ability to be aware or have feelings, emotions, senses, but that doesn’t really explain what specifically it is or what causes it from a physical standpoint. This is my explanation… From a physical standpoint, consciousness is the ability to interact with our environment in a complex manner. Everything interacts with the environment in some way, even rocks and plants. The ability for energy forms to interact and change form is fundamental to all of existence. That is why we have such thing as the Fundamental Interactions. Interaction is the fundamental driving force behind our universe, not consciousness. A rock or tree interacts with its surroundings, but what makes something “conscious” however, is the complexity of those interactions. A human interacts in a far more complex manner than a tree or a rock. Humans interact with the environment in a number of ways…light, sound, touch, taste, smell, etc… A rock interacts with its environment also, but on a much more basic level. Consciousness therefore is no more than a complex form of interaction, or a combination of several complex interactions working together, which evolved over millions of years from much simpler forms of interaction. Of course this is an extremely simplified explanation, but it really doesn't take a novel to explain what consciousness is.

 

[Bunyip]

Very well said. I think that 'consciousness' tends to be over complicated and cantilevered into all manner of strange notions in order to justify a suite of traditional religious notions.

 

[Willamena]

… From a physical standpoint, consciousness is the ability to interact with our environment in a complex manner. Everything interacts with the environment in some way, even rocks and plants. The ability for energy forms to interact and change form is fundamental to all of existence. That is why we have such thing as the Fundamental Interactions. Interaction is the fundamental driving force behind our universe, not consciousness. A rock or tree interacts with its surroundings, but what makes something “conscious” however, is the complexity of those interactions. A human interacts in a far more complex manner than a tree or a rock. Humans interact with the environment in a number of ways…light, sound, touch, taste, smell, etc… A rock interacts with its environment also, but on a much more basic level. Consciousness therefore is no more than a complex form of interaction, or a combination of several complex interactions working together which evolved over millions of years from much simpler forms of interaction. Of course this is an extremely simplified explanation, but it doesn't take a novel to explain what consciousness is....a complex form of interaction.

And from another standpoint?

(Which begs the question, how many standpoints, and therefore views of consciousness, might there be?)

 

[Runewolf1973]

And from another standpoint?

(Which begs the question, how many standpoints, and therefore views of consciousness, might there be?)

Everything that exists in our universe is physical in some way, shape, or form because it is energy in one form or another. Non-physical to me equates to non-existing.

 

[Willamena]

Everything that exists in our universe is physical in some way, shape, or form because it is energy in one form or another. Non-physical to me equates to non-existing.

Fair enough. Physicalism is popular.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

From a physical standpoint, consciousness is the ability to interact with our environment in a complex manner.

Ant colonies do this. Cells do this. Brains (including non-human) present a serious additional problem: how do we account for at least the appearance of mental causation? Even if mental causation doesn't exist, we still lack the ability to explain the experience of it.

Everything interacts with the environment in some way, even rocks and plants.

If so, then it would seem the environment doesn't exist (everything interacts with it, ergo nothing actually "is" it). What do you mean by "interact" and "environment"?

The ability for energy forms to interact and change form is fundamental to all of existence.

Could you elaborate? What do you mean by "energy forms" and what do they change into?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ant colonies do this. Cells do this. Brains (including non-human) present a serious additional problem: how do we account for at least the appearance of mental causation? Even if mental causation doesn't exist, we still lack the ability to explain the experience of it.


If so, then it would seem the environment doesn't exist (everything interacts with it, ergo nothing actually "is" it). What do you mean by "interact" and "environment"?


Could you elaborate? What do you mean by "energy forms" and what do they change into?

Even our thoughts are physical in some way (everything is physical in some way, even our dreams) therefore it would make sense that even our thoughts or our dreams can affect or lead to further physical actions.

I read this on Wikipedia regarding the term interaction: "A closely related term is interconnectivity, which deals with the interactions of interactions within systems: combinations of many simple interactions can lead to surprising emergent phenomena."

I personally would rephrase this as such: "...combinations of many simple interactions can lead to surprisingly complex interactions."

Environment is simply the external world around us.

By energy forms I mean matter.

 

[idav]

I find it kind of funny when people talk about "consciousness" as though it were something so mysterious, compelling and inexplicable, but that's just me...

Consciousness is not a mystical, inexplicable thing, nor is it the ground of all being, nor is it a fundamental property of the universe. It is described as the ability to be aware or have feelings, emotions, senses, but that doesn’t really explain what specifically it is or what causes it from a physical standpoint. This is my explanation… From a physical standpoint, consciousness is the ability to interact with our environment in a complex manner. Everything interacts with the environment in some way, even rocks and plants. The ability for energy forms to interact and change form is fundamental to all of existence. That is why we have such thing as the Fundamental Interactions. Interaction is the fundamental driving force behind our universe, not consciousness. A rock or tree interacts with its surroundings, but what makes something “conscious” however, is the complexity of those interactions. A human interacts in a far more complex manner than a tree or a rock. Humans interact with the environment in a number of ways…light, sound, touch, taste, smell, etc… A rock interacts with its environment also, but on a much more basic level. Consciousness therefore is no more than a complex form of interaction, or a combination of several complex interactions working together, which evolved over millions of years from much simpler forms of interaction. Of course this is an extremely simplified explanation, but it really doesn't take a novel to explain what consciousness is.

Its qualia that seems mysterious. I think it is in the essence of being of form. A rock interacts with something, it would know due to physical interaction. It takes intelligence to do anything with it. I agree it is due to complexity, even when compare to other mammals even our memory is more complex for example but still based on physical reactions. Some plants even show some memory. The mimosa plant shows long term memory can be entirely mechanistic.
http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-mimosa-plants-memory-01695.html

 

[psychoslice]

There is self conscious, and Universal Consciousness, the self belongs the mind body organism, the Universal is all there is, everything comes from the Universal Consciousness and everything goes back to it, the self consciousness is like the waves on the ocean believing its separate from the ocean, when the wave emerges back into the sea it is then One with the ocean, and we are also like the waves that arises from the Universal Consciousness, when we or our body dies we emerge back to our true home, Universal Consciousness, or God, or Heaven or whatever name you want to call it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Even our thoughts are physical in some way (everything is physical in some way, even our dreams)

What do you mean by "physical?" Are immaterial forces physical? What about immaterial causal links between space-like separated systems? Also, even granting the basically universally held view among specialists that consciousness and cognition reduce to neural activity, that doesn't mean that the word or corresponding concept "chair" or "computer" or whatever does. It doesn't (that is, there is a neurophysiological basis for concepts but no one-to-one correspondence between discrete thoughts or concepts either in use or some form of memory/representation).

therefore it would make sense that even our thoughts or our dreams can affect or lead to further physical actions.

Nothing in physics currently explains (and many would say even allows) this possibility or the experience of it. In fact, thoughts and dreams are in general so far from any possible mechanistic (physical) explanation that many of those who study the mind have abandoned reductionalism, physicalism, and even modern physics. Others have looked to quantum physics, while still others seek to explain consciousness in terms of classical physics which allow for quantum-like effects or closure to efficient causation. There are still classical reductionist here, especially among cognitive neuroscientists, but then the vast majority of these don't know much about physics, alas.

I read this on Wikipedia regarding the term interaction: "A closely related term is interconnectivity, which deals with the interactions of interactions within systems: combinations of many simple interactions can lead to surprising emergent phenomena."

Emergence is certainly a possibility. The problem is that complex interactions leading to emergent phenomena aren't all equal. The dynamics that govern the collective behavior of ant colonies or cells or plants or bee hives or weather all are similar to the dynamics of systems described by Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Laplace, etc. That is, as complex as living systems are (even a cell is qualitatively more complex than the climate system), EVERY behavior is ENTIRELY reactionary. Emergence here is just reactionary semi-nonlocality/collective action. But feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc., aren't reactionary like this. Consciousness, if anything, is as far from the pure reactionary processes involved in planetary motion or a rock rolling down a hill as can be. Even the illusion of non-locality involves experience, which is fundamentally distinct from any other kind of emergent process.

By energy forms I mean matter.

But energy and matter are distinct (even if the creation and destruction of matter involves the creation and destruction of energy per conservation).

 

[Runewolf1973]

LegionOnomaMoi, are you saying that it is possible to have non-physical phenomena emerge from a purely physical system? The way I see it, just because certain interactions are so complex that they cannot be explained from a current physical standpoint (thoughts and dreams) doesn't mean they are necessarily non-physical. Also, what are "immaterial forces" is that like ghosts or something? I am a materialist, so I don't believe anything "immaterial" or "non-physical" exists. Oddly though, I do believe ghosts or spirits exist, but I believe even they are material or physical in some inexplicable way. That is just a personal belief though...

 

[Runewolf1973]

There is self conscious, and Universal Consciousness, the self belongs the mind body organism, the Universal is all there is, everything comes from the Universal Consciousness and everything goes back to it, the self consciousness is like the waves on the ocean believing its separate from the ocean, when the wave emerges back into the sea it is then One with the ocean, and we are also like the waves that arises from the Universal Consciousness, when we or our body dies we emerge back to our true home, Universal Consciousness, or God, or Heaven or whatever name you want to call it.

I respect your beliefs, but I do not share them.

 

[George-ananda]

I find it kind of funny when people talk about "consciousness" as though it were something so mysterious, compelling and inexplicable, but that's just me...

Consciousness is not a mystical, inexplicable thing, nor is it the ground of all being, nor is it a fundamental property of the universe. It is described as the ability to be aware or have feelings, emotions, senses, but that doesn’t really explain what specifically it is or what causes it from a physical standpoint. This is my explanation… From a physical standpoint, consciousness is the ability to interact with our environment in a complex manner. Everything interacts with the environment in some way, even rocks and plants. The ability for energy forms to interact and change form is fundamental to all of existence. That is why we have such thing as the Fundamental Interactions. Interaction is the fundamental driving force behind our universe, not consciousness. A rock or tree interacts with its surroundings, but what makes something “conscious” however, is the complexity of those interactions. A human interacts in a far more complex manner than a tree or a rock. Humans interact with the environment in a number of ways…light, sound, touch, taste, smell, etc… A rock interacts with its environment also, but on a much more basic level. Consciousness therefore is no more than a complex form of interaction, or a combination of several complex interactions working together, which evolved over millions of years from much simpler forms of interaction. Of course this is an extremely simplified explanation, but it really doesn't take a novel to explain what consciousness is.

Hello Runewolf......we have talked before and agree on some things and not on others. Here we disagree. I think consciousness does not come from matter and energy. To quote a great physicist; we can't get behind what consciousness is.

'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.' Max Planck, physicist (1858-1941) The Observer (January 25th, 1931)

 

[idav]

Hello Runewolf......we have talked before and agree on some things and not on others. Here we disagree. I think consciousness does not come from matter and energy. To quote a great physicist; we can't get behind what consciousness is.

'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.' Max Planck, physicist (1858-1941) The Observer (January 25th, 1931)

Planck did some of rhe foundational work showing a singularity from the big bang. That oneness is the reason consciousness is possible, science seems to show that oneness really never ceased.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LegionOnomaMoi, are you saying that it is possible to have non-physical phenomena emerge from a purely physical system?

Possible? Sure. In fact, non-physical phenomena occur all the time (they're the rule, not the exception). But this is merely how we use the word phenomena and the nature of models, language, etc. This part of the issue is ein Scheinproblem. The more real issue is what we mean by "physical." Often in physics a physical system is solely a mathematical entity with no physical basis. It is unclear how any system which requires quantum mechanics or particle physics is "physical". But for simplicity, let's assume that there is a relationship between the systems of modern physics and the physical processes they are meant to describe. The question then becomes: what is the ontological state of emergent functional processes like metabolism or consciousness?
Consider a model, simulation, or similar "realization" of a cell and the process of metabolic-repair, and let f: A→B be a function
"where f is the process that takes input A and output B...The system Rosen uses for an example is the Metabolism-Repair or [M,R] system. The process, f, in this case stands for the entire metabolism goin on in an organism...The transition, f, which is being called metabolism, is a mapping taking some set of metabolites, A, into some set of products, B. What are the members of A? Really everything in the organism has to be included in A, and there has to be an implicit agreement that at least some of the members of A can enter the organism from its environment. What are the members of B? Many, if not all, of the memebers of A since the transitions in the reduced system are all strung together in the many intricate patterns or networks that make up the organism's metabolism. It also must be true that some members of B leave the organism as products of metabolism...In the context developed so far, the mapping, f, has a very special nature. It is a functional component of the system we are developing. A functional component has many interesting attributes. First of all, it exists independent of the material parts that make it possible. Reductionism has taught us that every thing in a real system can be expressed as a collection of material parts. This is not so in the case of functional components...Fragmentability is the aspect of systems that can be reduced to their material parts leaving recognizable material entities as the result. A system is not fragmentable is reducing it to its parts destroys something essential about that system. Since the crux of understanding a complex system had to do with identifying the context dependent functional components, they are by definition, not fragmentable". (pp.103-108; emphasis added; italics in original)
Mikulecky, D. C. (2005). The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity be Made Simple? In D. Bonchev & D. H. Rouvray (Eds.). Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and Ecology (Mathematical and Computational Chemistry). Springer.

 

[Runewolf1973]

LegionOnomaMoi, so then it can be said that though not proven scientifically, it is a reasonable possibility for non-physical phenomena such as ghosts, apparitions, etc...to emerge from physical forms? If other non-physical phenomena can emerge, then why not spirits of the deceased?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LegionOnomaMoi, so then it can be said that though not proven scientifically, it is a reasonable possibility for non-physical phenomena such as ghosts, apparitions, etc...to emerge from physical forms? If other non-physical phenomena can emerge, then why not spirits of the deceased?

Because of the relationship between the physical and non-physical. Functional emergent processes are functions of physical systems which emerge from the interactions between these systems and their (causally effective) environments and internal dynamics, but can't be reduced to these. A cell dies, and the functionally emergent metabolic processes are no more. A brain stops all function, and there is no functionally emergent process we can call consciousness or anything else. The ontological status of immaterial "things" like consciousness differs from things like spirits or ghosts in two important ways:
1) A ghost doesn't emerge from and cause the interactions of a physical system
2) A ghost isn't simply a violation of classical reductionism (which is dead in the water from research in particle physics anyway). Classical reductionism fails to distinguish the difference between the causal reducibility of a "level" of dynamics to a lower (or upper) "level" and the consistent reducibility.

 

[psychoslice]

I respect your beliefs, but I do not share them.

That's Ok, its a topic no one really can know, well at least through the mind.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Because of the relationship between the physical and non-physical. Functional emergent processes are functions of physical systems which emerge from the interactions between these systems and their (causally effective) environments and internal dynamics, but can't be reduced to these. A cell dies, and the functionally emergent metabolic processes are no more. A brain stops all function, and there is no functionally emergent process we can call consciousness or anything else. The ontological status of immaterial "things" like consciousness differs from things like spirits or ghosts in two important ways:
1) A ghost doesn't emerge from and cause the interactions of a physical system
2) A ghost isn't simply a violation of classical reductionism (which is dead in the water from research in particle physics anyway). Classical reductionism fails to distinguish the difference between the causal reducibility of a "level" of dynamics to a lower (or upper) "level" and the consistent reducibility.

Fair enough. So just out of curiosity, is there anything my original post we can agree upon?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So just out of curiosity, is there anything my original post we can agree upon?

The importance/relevance of complexity, I suppose.