So either energy carries an inherent conscious currency/property, or matter does. Or they do when they interact in complex or specific ways. — Benj96

I'm trying to imagine energy (the ability to do work) in the complete absence of matter, which I'm not sure makes much sense. This would imply a completely non-material world where whatever constitutes a form of energy is sufficient in-itself for a kind of existence. Though if matter is really just a form of energy, it's all energy dude (and this is not profound). Our ability to understand energy requires everything that informs the understanding (energy as properties of organized matter).

The kinetic energy of a water wheel requires a lot of organized material in action. It is an example of just transferring motion of materials to do work, which is relative to an intentional observer's frame of reference. In such a scenario, how could your ever have whatever constitutes the forms of energy apart from the forms of matter?

Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest? — Benj96

What happens to the consciousness when energy is transformed into matter?

Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest? — Benj96

I don't see how, because energy operates according to physical laws, it has no capacity for self-determination or any innate direction. As soon as living organisms appear, they act intentionally, in that they seek to maintain themselves, maintain homeostasis, grow, heal and reproduce. And they remember. Energy, as such, displays none of these attributes or capacities, and there's no reason to believe that it 'feels like' anything to be it.

So either energy carries an inherent conscious currency/property, or matter does. Or they do when they interact in complex or specific ways. — Benj96

The mechanical brain does not secrete thought "as the liver does bile," as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. — Norbert Wiener, Computing Machines and the Nervous System. p. 132

(Bolds added.)

Pure energy is pure force with no direction (or all directions canceling), no aim, no purpose. When energy is combined or infused with information which is a product of spacial differentiation, suddenly energy acquires a direction, an aim, and a purpose. The direction or vector that energy takes when shaped by information is what i call an "arrow of energy" or an "energy vector" expressed in the fundamental forces of nature in space as a directed force (gravity, strong, weak, and EM). That is where we get our emergent concept of time as we perceive it, which is really just an "arrow of energy". The universe in its current state can be conceived of as being in a broken state of symmetry imbalance, and the job or 'work' of energy in space is to bring this symmetry back into balance (back to 0), thus the universe has a sense of teleology and purpose in this respect.

It appears to me that the unintended consequence of energy's activity in space is complexification of matter, giving rise to evolution and consequently more complex emergent forms of consciousness and intelligence. On the other hand, perhaps the emergence of complex intelligence through evolution is part of how the universe is trying to figure out how to detangle its symmetry imbalance problem.

Because more than one symmetry seems to be out of balance (at least 2 maybe 3) simply bringing particles together with gravity is not sufficient, which calls for a more complex form of energy to sort out the correct symmetries and bring those opposites together. An example would be two particles that have opposite charges, but the same quantum spin will not balance and annihilate. These particles then need to find a way around this and thus more complex forms of force emerge to handle it (EM for example).

I tend to think of these things more like universal reflexes than full blown consciousness like we or maybe a God might have. An analogy for this kind of reflex could be seen in how a gyroscope resists disalignment, and attempts to regain alignment without any apparent conscious intention.

I don't see how, because energy operates according to physical laws, it has no capacity for self-determination or any innate direction. As soon as living organisms appear, they act intentionally, in that they seek to maintain themselves, maintain homeostasis, grow, heal and reproduce. And they remember. Energy, as such, displays none of these attributes or capacities, and there's no reason to believe that it 'feels like' anything to be it. — Wayfarer

:up: :100:

What does it feel like to be energy?

Running the hundred meter dash.

Which a beam of light will complete in 333 nanoseconds, I'm told.

Top that, Usain Bolt :brow:

Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest? — Benj96

No. We can't harvest or store consciousness like the energy. There is no storage for consciousness. Consciousness is a live streaming.

Energy and matter are different forms of the same thing. E=mc^2

@Benj96

Do you have the idea of energy as a substance which would constitute one half of a dualism (the old classic of spirit/energy and matter)?

Consciousness certainly directs energy in a meaningful way, which is the basis of the phenomenon of teleology. So if consciousness directs energy, it interacts with energy. Basically, you can see matter as just that, viz. a mechanism for energy interaction. It appears to have more in common with energy than "inert" matter (dynamism, direction). But then no matter is really inert, since it all exists in systems of one form or another, which are temporally dynamic, i.e. contain energy.

Energy and matter are different forms of the same thing. E=mc^2 — petrichor

Yes. Agreed. "different forms" of the "same thing". Ironic and seemingly contradictory but not.

I would go further to say that the c2 component is the factor by which the two entities interact by virtue of distinction into "does" (energy/time) and "is" (substance/matter and the dimension or space it assumes in being so).

My bets are that "consciousness" is contingent on/impressed within this c^2 component. As would be all information tbh. Because it is this factor that allows energy and matter (which are equivalent) to not be "equal" and thus have "different" or maybe even contrasting properties.

If matter and energy were "equal" in the strict sense than E=M would suffice. But they can be equivalent by a factorial (c2).

They're not equal in the strict sense E=M, because in order to be perfectly equal or perfectly the same identical thing in all regards of space, time,behaviour/property and form, they would thus in fact not be able to interact with itself at all.

Light cannot interact with itself at the speed limit. Because how does one impart action when velocity is unanimously equal? It's like the dog chasing it's tail but never quite reaching it.

In order to make distinction between entities. In order to make "separateness", or unique inidividual "things", there must be a dynamic between their individual spaces, times, energetic states and masses.

Do you have the idea of energy as a substance which would constitute one half of a dualism (the old classic of spirit/energy and matter)? — Nils Loc

Even more so Nils. I think it's a quadralism? Quadratism? Or "dualism squared"? Not sure what to call it.

But basically it is a 4 way conversation between energy and time as one couple, and matter and space as the second couple. 1 dualism interacting with another dualism but both of them mutually dependent (Squared). If that makes sense. Because you cannot have any individual one component of the 4 (energy, time, matter or space) without the other 3.

I believe this is what E=mc2 refers to. Energy is in a dualism with matter by a factor of the dualism between space (distance) over time, or in other words speed. That is, the speed of light. C.

The implications of this quadratic? Let's take an example.
For every action in one dualism, there's an equal and opposite (inverse) action in the other dualism.

So let's take state A: All energy, no matter, all time (eternity) , no space. A singularity.
In order for energy to "decelerate" from the "speed of light" and form matter, then endless time must contract into finite time by simultaneously converting into a now new and expanding space dimension.

Does this sound familiar? A singularity exploding out into space and condensing into matter? Time becoming finite an measurable by virtue of the existence of objects that are subject to it and thus have rates of interaction. And energy decreasing and spreading out as it converts to mass (entropy).

The big bang.

. So if consciousness directs energy, it interacts with energy. Basically, you can see matter as just that, viz. a mechanism for energy interaction. — Pantagruel

Exactly Pantagruel, all matter must possess/carry internal kinetic energy in the form of the bonds that bind and stabilise it's substance/ makeup.

If a physical object were to reach absolute zero it would cease to exist because the energetic field making up its forces and bonds would no longer have any actionable consequence and wouldn't function to form matter. Time would also lose it's relative reference frame as their is no content (space and the matter contained within it) for which to be subjected to an arrow of time, and thus any duration of Existance.

So I see matter as a stable or "pent up/locked up" form of energy. As a rough analogy, if energy is the ethereal "fluid" or "gas" phase so to speak that pushes and pulls things (exerts force/does work) , matter is like the solid or crystalline phase that gets acted upon. More stable/less changeable, durable, but less potent. Neither can exist without the other if we take "Existance" to simply be the ability to interact/ impart information.

As for consciousness, if energy, matter, space and time can be adequately explained in relation to one another, the only remaining component of the universe to be explained is consciousness.
If E=mc2 pertains to all four elements - energy, mass, time and space, then either the formula is incomplete or consciousness as a property is hidden within it as a poorly understood or under appreciated component in the relationship. Therefore there ought to be 5 components to the equation to explain all 5 fundamentals.

And as it happens there is.
Energy (E), matter (M), time and space or "speed" (C) and lastly consciousness (^2)- the factor by which all the others relate. The relativism of the equation.

In that sense, consciousness requires the other 4 components to exist. But equally and oppositely, the other 4 components require consciousness to give them context. Ie. Observation of time, space, energy and matter as they are/interact.

The universe/existence needs to be "seen to be believed". And with 5 fundamental components all equally important, it can.

So I see matter as a stable or "pent up/locked up" form of energy — Benj96

Precisely. And you can also view complex systems as being more elaborate instances of this phenomenon. Systems can store energy in any of its variety of forms, chemical, mechanical, etc. etc.. Moreover, I would say that, when energy is stored in a more complex system, it cannot be directly quantified and compared to energy stored in less complex system. The energic footprint of organic matter is equivalent to the total footprint of all the various energies contained within its constitutive systems, ranging from the quantum to the chemical to the organic levels. I'm not sure we can even make a good estimate as to what is the true energic footprint of consciousness.

very apt indeed.

If consciousness is a pyramid of complexity, with quantum states at the base, then newtonian physics, then biology and finally complex brains like the human one, the "trophic levels" of energy usage, organisation and refinement are quite literally enormous.

The degree of negative entropy (order) required for one minute of human conscious experience is contingent not only on the millions of neuronal computations done in that time, but also the millions of years of trial and error through evolution that got to this point.

But if you make the playing field and variables of possibility large enough (the universe), then somewhere, somehow, the improbable becomes possible.

I'm inclined to believe that consciousness is the ability of the system to self organise. And by organise i mean become a stable, consistent, self sustaining, replicable/repetitious reiteration, that with each generation becomes more sensitive to it's surrounding environment. That is knowledge at the end of the day., an entity that has become so complex and refined that it can sense, think, predict/anticipate, imagine and question and understand its environment to such a degree that it can begin to manipulate it to further it's agenda - namely to be curious, explore and reveal, to prosper.

No. We can't harvest or store consciousness like the energy. There is no storage for consciousness. Consciousness is a live streaming. — L'éléphant

I disagree. Consciousness requires storage - namely memory. Without memory, our sense of self, of place, of time, of coherent chronology, breaks down. As one with dementia experiences as their brains architecture breaks down due to disease.

If we had no memory (storage), we would not be able to revisit mentally the past, and thus contextually would not be aware that the present moment is indeed the present because we cannot retrieve anything beyond it historically. And lastly we could not anticipate a future because we don't have a past, nor present. So why expect a future?

Consciousness for me is the constant and live comparison between the previous moment (short term memory) and the present moment. Elucidating the differences to establish a coherent progression of perceived time.

Therefore, like energy which relies on interactions between matter thay stores it, consciousness relies on interactions between memories which stores it. Both consciousness and energy can reformulate, recombine, cause novel interactions. In an energy-matter capacity we calm this chemistry, in a consciousness capacity we call this thinking, imagination or change in perception/perspective.

Given your stated assumptions, it seems to me you're tautologically asking 'What does it feels like to be feeling?' (Or existentially, but in thermodynamic terms: what does it feel like to be dissipating? à la Schopenhauer or Bergson, Whitehead or Deleuze-Guattari).

Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?

What then is 'unconsciousness' – non-energy? How then does it do work constitutive of consciousness? I don't think this "energy" analogy works, Benj.

I'm inclined to believe that consciousness is the ability of the system to self organise. — Benj96

So, for example, hurricanes and viruses, salt crystals and stars, evolution and ant colonies are "conscious" (à la panpsychism)? :eyes:

:100:

Very much in line with 'research program' I'm pursuing.

If you haven't already read Nagel's Mind and Cosmos I'd highly recommend it. It's a short book.

I don't see how, because energy operates according to physical laws, — Wayfarer

And consciousness doesn't?

no capacity for self-determination or any innate direction. — Wayfarer

And what might be said about the energy we use to live? That which does all the computations and organismal procedures used to sustain us for a minute of experience. Can we say that that specific quantity of energy is used for self determination and agency?

Secondly, what might we say about the autoorganisation or self-ordering of life processes from abiogenesis onward. All Negentropic processes still require energy to occur. So the birth and evolution of the first life forms all the way up to humans used X amount of energy which qualitatively acted out its ability to do work in a very much pro-agency, pro-life, pro-conscious awareness and experience type determination.

Im not speaking about all universal energy here, but rather the "force vitale"- that subsect or portion of energy that grants life through its particular action on inanimate matter.

Energy is required for life. But only when it operates in a a cohesive cooperative way against other energy - the chaotic, destructive entropic kind. But we cannot deny that the positioning of molecules in a specific way that confers sentient life is not a process carried out by energy.

The only thing that can "feel" as we do is either our matter, our energy, or the interaction between them. I would say it's the latter. Because we know matter can be a rock, and energy can be a fire blazing, but in a particular interaction they confer collectively the state of being conscious. So it is at very least a property of how energy interacts with matter.

I don't see how, because energy operates according to physical laws,
— Wayfarer

And consciousness doesn't? — Benj96

:up:

What then is 'unconsciousness' – non-energy? How then does it do work constitutive of consciousness? I don't think this "energy" analogy works, Benj. — 180 Proof

Agreed. The original statement has since been considered again and I now don't agree with my original position. It's too vague and inaccurate. It is incorrect. Consciousness is not simply a "form of energy" like the physics definitions.

However, I've since mused upon/ elaborated the idea that consciousness is a specific subset of interactions between energy and matter in the same sense that active thought impulses and memory are both required for a coherent present tense perception.

Thoughts can be stored as memory in a material anatomical substance. And memories can be revisited/brought back into active thought/reflection and even reformulated/altered (change of perspective) .
In this way it seems consciousness is a combination of stored energy (matter organised in a specific way yet stable) and "active energy" - that which upholds the maintenance of memories, alteration of memories, processing of new stimuli and integration, imagination and creativity.

In thay way consciousness could be said to be energy indeed, but only in a restricted capacity as it relates to highly organised and refined material substrate - the brain.

This would imply a completely non-material world where whatever constitutes a form of energy is sufficient in-itself for a kind of existence. Though if matter is really just a form of energy, it's all energy dude (and this is not profound). — Nils Loc

Potential energy doesn't require matter, space or time. It's just potential. The moment that potential is converted to something "actionable" it requires time, space and matter to "act."

So the first act of pure potential is to convert into time, space and matter simultaneously

What happens to the consciousness when energy is transformed into matter? — RogueAI

The first memory is created/stored. Energy pent up in a stable and enduring state, holding information, to later be manipulated and reformulated.

What does it feel like to be energy?

Running the hundred meter dash. — jgill

Or maybe it feels like being something static and substantial (body) holding something flexible and every changing (perception).

Our whole body can be broken down into different forms of energy and also matter (equivalent to energy).

@Benj96

Sounds like a lot of BS, Ben. :monkey:

I don't see how, because energy operates according to physical laws,
— Wayfarer

And consciousness doesn't? — Benj96

No, it doesn't. Not unless you're a materialist :rage:

Light cannot interact with itself at the speed limit. Because how does one impart action when velocity is unanimously equal? It's like the dog chasing it's tail but never quite reaching it. — Benj96

And yet Interference happens.

There's a few folk hereabouts, including @Benj96, @ucarr, @Gnomon, who seem to think that philosophy consist in doing physics without the maths.

The result is poor physics, and poor philosophy.

Consciousness and energy are similar in these ways: unity, intentionality, selectivity, and transience.

Unity is a property that both consciousness and energy share. In the case of consciousness, this refers to the idea that multiple conscious states of a person in any given situation are treated as a whole. Similarly, in the case of energy, multiple energy states of a system in any given situation are treated as a whole. An example of this is the conservation of energy.

Intentionality is another shared property between consciousness and energy. Consciousness is intentional, meaning that it is always directed towards something. It is the quality of being directed towards an object or state of affairs. Energy is also intentional, meaning that it is always directed towards something. An example of this is entropy, the arrow of time, heat death, particle/antiparticle annihilation.

Selectivity is a property that consciousness possesses, referring to a person's ability to narrow their concentration. It is the capacity to include some objects but not others. Energy also has the property of selectivity, referring to a system's ability to narrow its effect. An example of this is electromagnetism, which ignores neutrally charged particles, while charged particles respond selectively depending on the relative charges involved.

Finally, both consciousness and energy are transient, meaning that they are constantly changing and fleeting. Consciousness is the quality of being temporary or short-lived and changing, and energy is also transient. An example of this is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

These similarities between energy and consciousness provide insight into the nature of both phenomena and how they relate to each other.

Is such work 'physics without maths', or is it speculative fiction based on Dunning-Kruger level physics?

I'm not thinking of anyone in particular, but I am often astonished by people's assumptions of competence or mastery of subjects they have no expertise in.