Define (non-sapient, non-sentient, non-mental) "consciousness" with an example that contrasts "consciousness" with non-consciousness. — 180 Proof

The idea is that there is no non-consciousness. Everything is experiencing. Some things experience sapience, sentience, mental. I don't know what percentage of living things experience each of those things. I don't suspect many non-living things experience any of them.

However, all things, living and non, experience.

I think the mistake we have made is equating consciousness with things like sapience, sentience, and mental. Which is understandable, because those are things we experience. I would say those are the defining characteristics of the species; the things that are unique, sometimes in degree and sometimes in kind, to humans.

But it lead us wrong. It made us think this is what consciousness is, yet has not even lead to a definition that all can agree on. What is consciousness. What is human consciousness? My position is that there is no such thing as "human consciousness". There is only the consciousness of each human. Human X experiences being biologically male, 6 feet tall, having perfect pitch, having sickle cell anemia, being great with the ladies, on and on. Human Y experiences being biologically female, having an eidetic memory, having arachnophobia, and loving pecan pie. Human Z experiences being biologically female, has no measurable IQ, has been wheelchair bound since birth, and has the brightest smile when you talk to her.

OK, sorry I missed your response to sushi. — J

No worries. I'm hoping to see half the posts here. :grin:

How could we tell the difference between being causal, and simply identifying with something causal? — frank

Sorry. I'm not sure I understand your question, so my response might be a non sequitur. is this something along the lines of, as I said above, if you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?

in order to avoid the absurdity of referring to atoms as sapient or sentient. — Gnomon

I agree that that is absurd. But I do not equate consciousness with sapience or sentience. I can say atoms are conscious without meaning they are sapient or sentient.

The idea is that consciousness is always present. In everything, everywhere, at all times
— Patterner

You haven’t presented any reason for why you would think that. — Wayfarer

Not in this thread. I've given my reasons often, though. I don't take part in many other kinds of discussions here. But I am hoping to have discussions with the starting point, even if only for the sake of argument, that consciousness is fundamental. I don't want to present the reasons why I think it is, have someone say why those reasons are wrong, back-and-forth back-and-forth. That's what the discussions are usually about.

Also, some would argue that when one is in general anesthesia consciousness temporarily ceases (I believe that those who experienced general anesthesia report a different 'feeling' when they 'wake up' than the feeling they have when they wake up from sleep. Also, even in deep sleep it seems to be that there is a level of attentiveness which is absent in that state). So, if consciousness can temporarily cease, when it 'restarts' is it the same consciousness or not? — boundless

I am saying consciousness does not cease when one is in general anesthesia. The experience is of an anesthetized person. Which is very different from the experience of a person whose brain is working normally, sensory input going where it normally goes, stored input from the past being triggered, information processing systems and feedback loops working, etc. It is not the consciousness that is different between the anesthetized and awake person. it is the level of functioning of the person's brain that is different. The key is is that the functioning of the person's brain does not create consciousness.

If matter is fundamental and moves according to the laws of nature, and consciousness is an emergent property from matter. Consciousness, therefore, cannot be caus — MoK

I do not believe consciousness is an emergent property of matter. That is the very point of this thread. Consciousness is fundamental, not emergent.

Does a dead human experience being a dead human? Can you sketch what that would mean? — J

I did, in my response to sushi:

When I die, there will still be consciousness. But there will no longer be any mental activity to experience. Just the physical body. No more interesting than a rock's consciousness. At least in my opinion. Others may think the consciousness of a dead body is more interesting than a rock's. In there timeframes of human life, there is certainly nore going on in a dead body than there is in a rock. A typical body will decompose much faster than a typical rock will erode. Both will experience their deconstruction, but neither will have any thoughts or feelings about, or awareness of, it. — Patterner

To which I will add that, while others may think the consciousness of a dead body is more interesting than a rock's, neither the dead body nor the rock do.

I don’t know if you’ve paid much attention to any of my posts. If you had you would find I am obsessed with metaphysics and the difference between metaphysics and everyday knowledge of the world, including science. As I understand it, what you are talking about is exactly that - metaphysics. And for me, metaphysics is not about what’s true or false, it’s about what is a useful way to think about things.

It doesn’t seem to me that kind of a discussion is really what you’re looking for in this thread. — T Clark

I've read many of your posts. I often don't know what you're talking about. I'm not well versed in most of the stuff discussed here. I sometimes join in, commenting when I think I sufficiently understand the gist of the conversation. I don't know how what I am talking about is metaphysics.

The kind of conversation I'm looking for is what I just said to Sophisticat. A long time ago, people might have had a conversation that began with, "Ok, fine, let's just say the earth and planets revolve around the sun. What does that imply? Where does that lead us?" Einstein came up with some entirely uniques ideas. When people began discussing them as if they were true, they produced some pretty amazing results. I didn't come up with the idea that consciousness is fundamental. I just want to see if it can be discussed for itself, rather than debating whether or not it is the answer.

What are you expecting from this discussion? The position that you outlined is pretty much orthodox contemporary panpsychism. You could have just written: "Panpsychism: discuss (but do not debate)." — SophistiCat

I don't want to debate whether or not panpsychism is fact. I want to discuss things from the starting point that it is fact. A long time ago, people might have had a conversation that began with, "Ok, fine, let's just say the earth and planets revolve around the sun. What does that imply? Where does that lead us?"

I have a sneaky feeling though, that you are describing something which is identical to what we understand as Matter(as in physics). While saying it is something quite different, like something that plays a role in human awareness. — Punshhh

I'm not sure how you mean this. Let me try to clarify.

I do not think the physical properties we are familiar with can explain consciousness. The explanation I'm proposing is that consciousness is fundamental.

One hypothetical explanation for consciousness in the "consciousness is fundamental" category is proto-consciousness. I wrote about about this in my Property Dualism thread. All particles, in addition to physical properties like mass and electrical charge, have an experiential property. So every particle experiences itself. And particles functioning as a unit experience as a unit.

Another hypothetical explanation is that consciousness is a field that exists everywhere. Kind of the way the cosmic microwave background radiation exists everywhere. Everything is, shall we say, steeped in consciousness. So everything experiences itself.

If either proto-consciousness or a field of consciousness is the explanation, then it's easy to imagine the universe without it. All the things we know of from our sciences would still be here. There would still be living organisms, with photons hitting retinas, signals going up the optic nerve to the brain, etc etc. But there would be no consciousness. Any living things would be empty automotons.

I can see how any living organism can be conscious, which I subscribe to. But as for matter, I don’t have a line of thought that takes me there. — Punshhh

It's important to disassociate consciousness with anything mental. I believe we have been confusing the two things all along.

I am having real trouble here in distinguishing what you are trying to say and exactly how it is different from panpsychism? I cannot seem to find a way to divide the two. — I like sushi

I think this is panpsychism. Just one idea that fits under the umbrella.

I believe how you are trying to define 'experience' and 'feeling' on different terms here might lead me to understand this better perhaps? — I like sushi

I believe there phrase "subjective experience" is more commonly used. I just think "felt experience" says it more clearly. I'm not sure "subjective" must mean "felt". But I might be wrong. Really, I'm good with either word. I just prefer "felt".

I like your thread a lot. My biggest gripe when it comes to discussions about consciousness is that people never get around to defining what they really mean. It pleases me that you’ve been so careful to do that. — T Clark

Thank you. I agree that it's often not defined well. I think the lack of clarity and consensus means the best we can do is this bare minimum. And this bare minimum also works for this overall idea of consciousness being fundamental.

I especially like this. It’s not that I agree with it. It’s just the clarity you’ve put into saying what you mean. You’ve made me feel a little bit of what it might feel like to be rock. — T Clark

Again, thank you. I do try very hard on these things. It takes me a long time, writing, rewriting, take a break for a couple days...

Since I can’t really buy into your premise, I won’t be participating anymore. But I did want you to know how much I appreciate what you’ve put into this. — T Clark

If you're ever bored :rofl: perhaps you would be interested in "playing along" with it. "For the sake of argument, let's say you're right..." I don't know how to finish that idea. What would it imply?

For what I can elucidate subjective experience does not break the chain of physical causality ( neither adds information) — Danileo

I believe otherwise. I think consciousness is casual. However, it seems to me what I'm talking about here would apply either way.

"I think that the cat is on the mat" — Michael

I might think the cat is on the mat. But I might speak that sentence, even though I don't actually think the cat is on the mat. I only thought of the words to say.

None of which has anything to do with whether or not the cat actually is on the mat, or whether there even is a cat or mat.

But I’m interested in the idea that the beginning of life is also the most basic form of intentional (or purposive) behaviour - not *consciously* intentional, of course, but different to what is found in the inorganic realm. — Wayfarer

Yes. All living things have DNA. DNA and it's cohorts may not be aware of what they're doing, but there is a goal, which is achieved. Information is processed, and, in this case, the processing is identical with the action of achieving the goal. (Unlike when I read a book. Information is processed, but nothing need happen in regards to it. I can learn how to build a log cabin, yet never build one.). Life is information processing, even though not all information processing is life.

How so? I find this analogy strange as a rock is not actually a rock to anything other than that which consciously adheres to it as an object. To an ant, assuming some minimal form of consciousness, the rock is likely nothing more than a surface. A rock cannot 'be' it is the 'beings' that frame a rock as a rock. — I like sushi

Sure. And I'm sure Donald Hoffman is in full agreement. I'm not defining "rock". I'm just talking about whatever it is that we call a rock.

To an ant, assuming some minimal form of consciousness... — I like sushi

I am, indeed.

I would like to know in more detail - where possible - what you mean by consciousness being "fundamental" please. — I like sushi

I mean it does not emerge from, isn't produced by, anything else. We don't think, for example, mass or electrical charge emerge from anything else. The idea is that it's always there, and everything is always experiencing itself.

Okay. But you then talk about a 'rock' as conscious? Or was that merely an analogy of an analogy. — I like sushi

No, I don't mean it as any kind of analogy. I mean it literally. It's important to disassociate any kind of mental activity from the definition of consciousness. A rock has no mental activity. So when I talk about a rock's consciousness, I'm not talking about anything mental. It cannot experience what it does not have.

Humans experience quite a bit more than rocks do. We have a lot of information processing going on within us, and a lot of feedback loops. That's in addition to all of our physical characteristics. Unlike rocks, which have no mental content, our physical characteristics are part of our mental content. We have senses that send signals from (as in the case of nerves in the skin) and about (as in the case of eyes perceiving an arm) all parts of our physical bodies to our brains, where are the information is processed in various ways.

Ehen I die, there will still be consciousness. But there will no longer be any mental activity to experience. Just the physical body. No more interesting than a rock's consciousness. At least in my opinion. Others may think the consciousness of a dead body is more interesting than a rock's. In there timeframes of human life, there is certainly nore going on in a dead body than there is in a rock. A typical body will decompose much faster than a typical rock will erode. Both will experience their deconstruction, but neither will have any thoughts or feelings about, or awareness of, it.

I once had a lucid dream where I inhabited a plant, briefly. It was like my consciousness, disembodied, was moving around a landscape. At one point, I moved into a plant and could feel being the shape of the plant and the energies coursing through the xylem tubes. There were intense colours across a spectrum, it was very thrilling. Then I moved out of the plant and across the landscape again and remember looking back at the plant and wanting to be that plant again. It was like I experienced what it was like to be a plant. — Punshhh

That's an interesting dream! :grin:

↪Manuel He doesn’t want it to become a discussion about materialism versus idealism. That’s all. — Punshhh

Yes. Thank you.

Although that may not be possible on. This forum. — Punshhh

indeed. Heh. I take part in those discussions often enough. But I'd like to have a different discussion at the moment.

That's sounds right.

fantastic post! I wish I had anything useful to add.

So we only need to ask whether your experience falls under the aesthetic, or something closer to the heart. — J

And we need to determine how different the two are.

Would the tutoring have had a bearing, do you think? — J

I don't know that it couldn't for others. I only know it didn't for me. My first exposure to Bach was like the proverbial piano falling on me. I didn't know anything about music theory or counterpoint. I didn't even know what those things meant, much less any detail of them.

Do you mean that the physical thing, the paper and crayon, just happened to be the vehicle chosen to deliver the "origin story" which is one of sentiment, innocence, and personal connection? (or something like that, pardon me if my words are clumsy) — J

Yes, that's the idea. It didn't have to be paper and crayons. I guess a 2 year old is limited in what she can work with. But if she had made a pile of pebbles, with the same patience and focus, complete unto herself, the resulting pile would be the vehicle, and I would feel the same looking at it as I do the crayon spots on paper.

This leads to a lot of questions, especially whether it's possible to properly appreciate a work without the origin story. — J

More important, imo, can we appreciate it without the material? I didn't tag anyone, but did you see my last post? The paper with crayon spots is entirely inconsequential.

When "stung" by a Derain, I feel an aesthetic, I don't learn how to feel the aesthetic. — RussellA

This is a key point. I'll use Bach as an example again, because he's Bach. But many people don't like his music, and think that's a silly sentence. I could teach you about his chord progressions, how he resolves nonharmonics, and whatever. Look here, that's Neapolitan sixth chord! You might come to understand it all, and be able to do the analysis on your own. But you might never come to like his music

I once watched a my children's 2 year old half sister with a piece of paper and crayons. She made dots. Many dots with one color, switched colors and made more dots. She used five or six different colors. No dots ever touched. She sat alone at the table, doing this calmly, and seemingly methodically, as the rest of us were in and out of there room, doing whatever. She knew we were there, of course, but you wouldn't have known that from looking at her. I frequently watched from the doorway, fairly mesmerized. I was very moved by the experience. I saved it, and gave it too her a couple years ago for her 18th birthday.

I'm calling it art. And it has nothing to do with the medium. Looking at the dots on paper might make some think of some modern artist. I don't know. But that's obviously not why I think it's art. For me, it represents the experience I had of watching this happen. It was breathtaking watching this 2yo go at it.


I don't have a video link to this. It's from the best tv show of all time: Northern Exposure. In an episode called "Fish Story", Holling is upset because Maurice made fun of his paint-by-numbers. Here's Chris explaining things to Holling.

Alright, you've got a very basic problem, Holling. You're confusing product with process. Most people, when they criticize, whether they like it or they hate it, they're talking about product. Now that's not art, that's the result of art. Alright? Art, to the degree of whatever we can get a handle on - and I'm not sure we really can - is a process. Alright? It begins in here, here (indicating his heart and his head) with these and these (indicating his hands and his eyes). Alright. Now, Picasso says the pure plastic act is only secondary. What really counts is the drama of the pure plastic act. That exact moment when the universe comes out of itself, and meets its own destruction.

:up:

everybody remember this scene from Dead Poets Society?
https://youtu.be/tpeLSMKNFO4

Art is a way of seeing; we declare what is art, we don't discover it. — J

The same is brought up in discussions of math and the laws of physics. Difficult to know sometimes. But this is definitely true of art.

There is no standard by which the judge these things.
— Patterner

Sure there is. Let's say that a composer which is lively is a composer which is good. We'll have some identifying criteria for what we mean by "lively", and thereby come to judge a composer as good. — Moliere

The criteria of "lively" is not objective. Some don't like lively. It doesn't seem right that somber music lovers would never get anything they love on the list of "good music".

One way to think on this with your examples -- perhaps there's a way of understanding why someone would say "Vivaldi wrote the most beautiful Baroque music" and why someone would say "Bach wrote the most beautiful Baroque music". I may have a preference for one or the other, — Moliere

Your preference is all it is. I can understand that you like music with certain characteristics, and possibly predict which compositions you will like. But that's not the same as saying those compositional are "good," or that I like them.

but there's an attitude I can adopt to both in seeing why they're the ones we are considering in the first place: they're both good! And what is this goodness? Why these people, and not the butchers of the same time period? — Moliere

I'm a baroque fan in general, and Bach in particular. Vivaldi was one of his influences, so we can compare them easily enough.

The question is, is there such a thing as aesthetic value over and above each tradition.
— RussellA

Yes, that's what I was trying to get to. If someone denies this, would you say they are a relativist about aesthetic value tout court? — J

Some people think classical music is the most beautiful kind of music. Some think baroque music is the most beautiful kind of classical music. Some people think Vivaldi wrote the most beautiful Baroque music, while others think it was Bach. There is no standard by which the judge these things.

I think Johnny Cash's best work was on Colombo. :grin:

bread and Russian novels boring. — Tom Storm

Well, of course, you have to do something with the bread. :grin: Make French toast. (Using only pure maple syrup.) Sandwiches of any sort. I just find it interesting that, regardless of what I do with it, I like breads of opposing qualities for those opposing qualities.

But asking why quickly drags us into an infinite regress, each reason presupposes another, and eventually we’re probably left circling back to temperament and taste. — Tom Storm

Yup. I can't even imagine what other kind of scenario there could be.

You're certainly right that we can give more detail about what we like and don't like. But it seems to me it just moves the question down a level. Why do we like or dislike the details?

It's strange sometimes. I like bread. But I like both a soft, fresh loaf, and a multi-grain like Arnold's or Killer Dave.

I love just a lone guy playing the guitar and singing, like James Taylor. The clarity, the simplicity. Odd that if that guy with a guitar a country singer, and I almost certainly won't be able to listen to the whole song. Also odd that I love Steely Dan, which is very far removed from JT in instrumentation and chord progressions, yet those are the things I love.

Two days ago I literally met the only other person I know who can't stand watermelon! Thought I was the only one. AND she ALSO can't stand cucumbers! Funny that she specifically said the texture of the cucumbers is her objection, while the flavor is mine

I'm asking for an aesthetic justification -- which would basically be a way of answering your question "Why doesn't it resonate in everyone else?" -- or at least a way to answer it. — Moliere

I don't believe any of the questions have answers that don't ultimately come down to "That's just the way it is.". And I suspect most of it is just the wiring of our brains.

But even the "why" doesn't help. Take Bach. I love counterpoint. I love how he weaved the voices in and around each other, yet the harmonies were always beautiful.

Why does that resonate so strongly in me? No idea. I didn't choose to like it. Piano teachers gave me Mozart all the time. As far as classical goes, I didn't know anything else. But then one day I heard Bach, and my world changed.

Why doesn't it resonate in everyone else? Lots of people don't want to hear Bach.

Does it have to do with how my neurons are set up?

But why these ideas and not those ideas?

Surely you see we gravitate towards different philosophers. — Moliere

Perhaps for the same reason I love Bach, but Mozart doesn't do much for me. Or why I love chocolate, but don't bother with strawberry. There is no "why". I just do. I assume it's the same for philosophers. What one talks about fascinates, and what another talks about is meh.

Richard Dawkins has claimed that reproduction is just a way for genes to replicate themselves. I think that’s a question of perspective and not definitive statement of fact. Dawkins might disagree with me on that. — T Clark

I haven't read Dawkins, but I know he has a book called The Selfish Gene. Is that where her days that?

What is your perspective?

But what about information? Do you think DNA is encoded information?
— Patterner

I think you have to be careful when you talk about information. It has a very specific technical meaning in information theory, which I don’t understand very well. — T Clark

Googling "information theory and DNA" gave me this:

Information theory, initially developed for communication systems, has found significant applications in understanding DNA and molecular biology. It provides tools to analyze the storage, transmission, and processing of information within biological systems, particularly regarding DNA sequences and gene expression. This framework helps analyze patterns in DNA, estimate information content, and understand how genetic information is encoded, stored, and utilized by cells. — AI Overview

And there are many links that discuss it.

I think they’re both exactly the same except that one is much more complex than the other. In addition, the DNA reaction ends up producing something that’s important to humans whereas the vinegar one does not. I think that is what gives the illusion of purpose. People like to tell stories and goals and purposes are stories that People are particularly good at. — T Clark

I think DNA produces the environment in which it can reproduce. Doesn't matter what species, it's what all life is. I'd say that's the definition of life - DNA builds the environment in which it reproduces.

Do you view all that in some other way?
— Patterner

Clearly, yes. And just as clearly, this is a difference of opinion we’re not going to be able to resolve. — T Clark

Likely not. :rofl: But if modify posted her about things they didn't agree on... But what about information? Do you think DNA is encoded information? Or is it just... I don't know how to word it. It just happens that the order of the bases happens to to lead to proteins being assembled.

My position throughout this discussion has been that teleology does not mean just that one event leads, through a chain of events, to another event. Here is the definition that matches my understanding of the meaning. It’s from Google‘s AI summary, so I’m not saying it’s definitive or correct necessarily, but it is my understanding.

“Teleology, in philosophy, is the study of purposiveness or goal-directedness. It examines how phenomena, whether natural or human-made, are explained by their ends, goals, or purposes rather than their causes. The concept suggests that things exist or occur for a specific reason, implying a design or intention behind their existence.”

I think intention is the right word to use here. Teleology implies that an event took place because it was intended. It’s my position that intention is a mental state. You need a mind for there to be a goal or purpose. — T Clark

I wonder if it's possible that ends, goals, or purposes can exist without intention. How can protein synthesis not be the goal of DNA and its cohorts? Protein isn't the result of a spontaneous chemical reaction. (I take this kind of thing to be what Barbieri means by "spontaneous molecules" and "spontaneous reactions".) It's not like vinegar and baking soda coming in contact, and there's a chemical reaction that releases carbon dioxide. I don't see how CO2 can be the goal of vinegar and baking soda, since they might never have come into contact. But protein is synthesized by an intricate process that has several molecules taking the information stored in DNA, and assembling the amino acids and proteins. DNA doesn't do anything other than this, and the order of its bases is obviously the recipe for amino acids and proteins, and nothing else.

Do you view all that in some other way?