How then, do you define Consciousness? Sentience*1 applies to most living creatures, but Consciousness*2, in the sense of self-awareness, seems limited only to humans and a few of the most highly evolved animals.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. — Patterner
How does "everything experiences" happen? A rock, a tree, a comatose person – what's the mechanism by which each of them "experiences" at all?Consciousness is subjective experience. That's all. Everything experiences it's own existence. — Patterner
The "distinction" is between the physical Brain and its meta-physical function : Minding is what a Brain does. When I refer to Mind as "Meta-Physical" --- note the hyphen --- I'm using the term in its literal sense of non-physical.↪Gnomon
when you say *6 is the cause of metaphysical mind, why distinction is metaphysical ? — Danileo
Unfortunately, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. Each hypothesis has its own camp. There's no way of proving anything. There are some widely diverse beliefs on what consciousness is just here at this site. Things look the same, no matter which possible solution we consider.I don't know what can be said about consciousness in regards to any hypothesis. They are either right or wrong. No?
— Patterner
Yes, but other hypotheses allow a basis for discussion about how you'd tell. — J
But we would no longer have to try to figure out exactly where - on the evolutionary ladder or in the development of a human from conception - consciousness enters the picture. It's always there. It's just a matter of what is being experienced. What sensory input? What information processing? What feedback loops?Moreover, if everything is consciousness, we can't talk about what it might be like if some thing(s) were not. — J
That's certainly a possibility. I'm suggesting something different.But what if consciousness is not something static, like a property or essence, but a dynamic process that manifests itself only in systems that can actively interact with the world? — Astorre
I am suggesting need had nothing to do with consciousness. It is present, in all things.If consciousness is a process associated with dynamics (for example, perception, feedback or choice), then a stone whose existence is static and determined by external physical laws may not need consciousness. — Astorre
I think the adaptive processes are what is being experienced. They would take place without any subjective experience, if reality did not have an experiential property.Even if we assume that he has some kind of "experience," it does not affect his being - unlike, say, a person or animal, where consciousness is associated with adaptive processes. — Astorre
Why is X constructed? If the equivalent of everything we know in X is already present in Y, then why do we need X?Let me suggest that physical material, the physical universe (that we know, I’ll call it X) is an artificial construct. That the real world Y is immaterial, there are things, beings, space, time, things happen, just like in X, but there is no physical material. In Y there is an equivalent to material, because there are forms and there is extension in time and space. But this material is composed of ideas, concepts, axioms, consciousness and experiences. Things that we typically (here in X) see as mental states and processes. — Punshhh
There is a vast difference between the experience of a human whose brain/body is functioning typically and the same human brain/body that is either dead or anesthetized. The dead and anesthetized do not have mental processes, thinking, information processing, feedback loops... The anesthetized does have some of these things to some degree, because the autonomic systems process information and give feedback, and I suppose other things. But there are no mental processes, no thinking.Let's concede that, indeed, in some sense there is consciousness in both cases. My question is: is the 'consciousness' of a 'dead person' the same entity of the 'consciousness' of the 'living person' before she died? Is the 'consciouesness' of the 'anesthetized person' the very same entity of the 'consciousness' of the person when she was in a normal, waking state? Do the 'dead person' and 'anesthetized person' have a unitary, private experience? — boundless
A human being is a unit. The leg is separate from the head, both are separate from the lungs, all are separate from the finger, etc. However, they are a unit. And that unit experiences as a unit. Various processes taking place in the brain are experienced as awareness and self-awareness. But stepping on a nail is also part of our consciousness.Notice that the 'privateness' of our experience, of our 'consciousness' is something to be addressed even in a panpsychist model. If all my constituents have their own 'consciousness', how does that explain the arising of 'my' consciousness, which seems separate from 'theirs'? — boundless
I'm not sure if you're asking two different questions, or if you are asking the same question in two different ways. My answer to the second, and possibly both, is that everything experiences. When I step on the nail, my foot experiences with the damage. But I, as a whole, also experience it. My foot takes the actual damage, but it is not what feels the pain. It is not what remembered a similar injury from years ago. It is not what worries about tetanus.You say that 'consciousness is fundamental'. In order to have a meaningful discussion it's also IMO important to clarify what we mean by 'consciousness' and provide a clear model for it. Do you think that, for instance, there is one fundamental consciousness or that there are many distinct consciousnesses? Do you think that any composite object has its own consciousness or only some composites have consciousness? — boundless
No problem! I would also like to understand my view more. :grin:Sorry for the many questions, but I'd like to understand more your view. — boundless
Yes. Typo. :grin: I literally never use anything but my cell phone, usually swiping. I do try to proofread, but don't always do the best job.But I'm not saying everything is consciousness. I'm saying everything is consciousness.
— Patterner
Typing mistake here, I assume? Or else you're getting super woo-woo. :smile: — J
No, that is not my view. A clockwork machine would not have made skyscrapers, computers, nuclear bombs, or the Hoover Dam. It would not have written Shakespeare's works, The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Bible, or Gilgamesh. It would not contain the works of Bach, The Beatles, or Steely Dan. I'm saying the universe is not a clockwork machine because consciousness is a part of it.So you are looking at the univserse as a clockwork machine without the input of consciousness? — I like sushi
I believe it is very basic. Nothing more than experience. I think many things usually thought of as consciousness are actually what is being experienced.I am mostly of the mind that the very term consciousness is far too nebulous for current purposes. — I like sushi
No, that is not my view. A clockwork machine would not have made skyscrapers, computers, nuclear bombs, or the Hoover Dam. It would not have written Shakespeare's works, The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Bible, or Gilgamesh. It would not contain the works of Bach, The Beatles, or Steely Dan. I'm saying the universe is not a clockwork machine because consciousness is a part of it. — Patterner
I believe it is very basic. Nothing more than experience. I think many things usually thought of as consciousness are actually what is being experienced. — Patterner
So by "non-physical" you mean abstract (i.e. non-causal, time-less & space-less)? For instance, walking is what legs do & digesting is what intestines do, ergo walking & digesting are merely abstract?! :eyes:The "distinction" is between the physical Brain and its meta-physical function: Minding is what a Brain does. When I refer to Mind as "Meta-Physical" --- note the hyphen --- I'm using the term in itsliteralsense of non-physical. — Gnomon
A typical cognitive confusion aka "transcendental illusion" – edify yourself, Gnomon, by at least reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason ...[T]he term "metaphysical" is often construed as religious or mystical or unscientific woo-woo. The study of Meta-physics is indeed un-scientific, in that the Philosophical exploration goes beyond the empirical limits of physical Science.
How do you – can we – know this is the case?... consciousness. It is present, in all things. — Patterner
It’s a thought experiment. It shows a way in which a world of rigid material, where consciousness is so inevident, could have originated from a reality which is not rigid, but ethereal and consciousness plays much more of a role.Why is X constructed? If the equivalent of everything we know in X is already present in Y, then why do we need X?
I am suggesting need had nothing to do with consciousness. It is present, in all things. — Patterner
There is a vast difference between the experience of a human whose brain/body is functioning typically and the same human brain/body that is either dead or anesthetized. The dead and anesthetized do not have mental processes, thinking, information processing, feedback loops... The anesthetized does have some of these things to some degree, because the autonomic systems process information and give feedback, and I suppose other things. But there are no mental processes, no thinking. — Patterner
A human being is a unit. The leg is separate from the head, both are separate from the lungs, all are separate from the finger, etc. However, they are a unit. And that unit experiences as a unit. Various processes taking place in the brain are experienced as awareness and self-awareness. But stepping on a nail is also part of our consciousness. — Patterner
I'm not sure if you're asking two different questions, or if you are asking the same question in two different ways. My answer to the second, and possibly both, is that everything experiences. When I step on the nail, my foot experiences with the damage. But I, as a whole, also experience it. My foot takes the actual damage, but it is not what feels the pain. It is not what remembered a similar injury from years ago. It is not what worries about tetanus. — Patterner
No problem! I would also like to understand my view more. :grin: — Patterner
Consciousness is subjective experience. That's all. Everything experiences it's own existence.How then, do you define Consciousness? — Gnomon
I certainly was not. I'll look at your link. Sounds like an amazing topic.Very few posters on this forum are aware that physicists can now transform data (information) into energy and vice-versa. — Gnomon
I don't know the answer to what I think you are asking. I don't know that it could ever be known. After all, Brian Greene wrote, "I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do." If we don't know what those things are, which are in the purview of our sciences, and are measured with incredible precision, how much harder would it be to find this answer?How does "everything experiences" happen? A rock, a tree, a comatose person – what's the mechanism by which each of them "experiences" at all? — 180 Proof
I don't know any detail about what is happening in the brain in these cases. I assume signals are being manufactured in the brain that mimic signals associated with pain that the brain received when the limb was there?Also, if "the brain" doesn't produce "consciousness", as you say, Patterner, then what accounts for (e.g.) every amputee's phenomenon of phanthom pain? — 180 Proof
I assume you are talking about the difference between a material Brain (noun) and its mental Functions (verb). Actions have consequences, but no physical properties. Objects have physical properties, but Ideas about*1 objects have qualia.↪Gnomon
I will like to know why logic distinctions are non-physical. If you don't want to go off-topic, you can direct message me. — Danileo
For my philosophical purposes, I further define Consciousness as human subjective experience. That's the only type of awareness we forum posters have experienced first hand. I am skeptical that "everything", including atoms, consciously experience their existence. In any case, I don't presume to know what it's like to be a bat. :wink:How then, do you define Consciousness? — Gnomon
Consciousness is subjective experience. That's all. Everything experiences it's own existence. — Patterner
The concept of Information originally referred to the contents of a human mind*1. Later, Einstein equated invisible intangible Energy with abstract mathematical Mass, which we experience concretely as Matter. Then, Shannon defined his Information in terms of Uncertainty, and blamed it on Entropy, which is the opposite of causal Energy. Now, physicists and information researchers are doing experiments that convert Information to Energy and vice-versa*2.Very few posters on this forum are aware that physicists can now transform data (information) into energy and vice-versa. — Gnomon
I certainly was not. I'll look at your link. Sounds like an amazing topic. — Patterner
A human being is a unit. — Patterner
Legitimate criticism. I don't claim to have every answer or to have thought of every aspect. And I might not always word things clearly. I started this thread because I wanted help examining the topic. So I thank you for this.I'm not sure "subjective experience" works as a definition, mostly because this uproots what "experience" means: you sometimes express sympathy for "felt experience", then you say that a rock "experiences being a rock," but also that rock has no feelings. There's a muddle here that's nearly impossible to deal with if your intuition is foreign to the concept. — Dawnstorm
Panpsychism is sometimes caricatured as the view that fundamental physical entities such as electrons have thoughts; that electrons are, say, driven by existential angst. However, panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts.
Of course in human beings consciousness is a sophisticated thing, involving subtle and complex emotions, thoughts and sensory experiences. But there seems nothing incoherent with the idea that consciousness might exist in some extremely basic forms. We have good reason to think that the conscious experiences a horse has are much less complex than those of a human being, and the experiences a chicken has are much less complex than those of a horse. As organisms become simpler perhaps at some point the light of consciousness suddenly switches off, with simpler organisms having no subjective experience at all. But it is also possible that the light of consciousness never switches off entirely, but rather fades as organic complexity reduces, through flies, insects, plants, amoeba, and bacteria. For the panpsychist, this fading-whilst-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter, with fundamental physical entities – perhaps electrons and quarks – possessing extremely rudimentary forms of consciousness, which reflects their extremely simple nature.
Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness.
Minds of atoms may conceivably be, for example, a stream of instantaneous memory-less moments of experience.
A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.
Accordingly, every mind requires a minimum of two thinking elements:
•A sensor that responds to its environment
•A doer that acts upon its environmen — Ogas and Gaddam
I can see why you might think that. But Properties*1 are not Laws. Laws are limitations on change. And they are known only by rational inference from observation of Processes. But Properties are qualities of material objects that are known by our physical senses. You can't see Newton's first law of Motion, but you can see the color of the object that is moving. And, yes, "mental creativity can follow the laws", by imagination, not observation. :cool:↪Gnomon
but why ideas can not have physical properties. Are not physical properties just laws, I think mental creativity can follow those laws. — Danileo
You seem to be influenced by the outdated belief system of Materialism, in which there is nothing non-physical. That common-sense worldview was a reaction to the Spiritualism of the Catholic Church, back in the 17th century. And it guided the explorations of Science, until the 20th century, when some basic assumptions of science were challenged by Quantum Physics. I won't go into that paradigm shift*3 here. But you can follow-up on that new worldview if you are interested in the philosophy of science. :nerd:You mentioned that logic inference*2 was non-physical and I am unsure about that claim. I think that a pure inference is not achieved to know. — Danileo
I'm suggesting that nothing, not humans or anything else "has a consciousness". Said that way, consciousness is a thing. Rather, everything "is conscious". But yes, i'm saying everything is conscious. However, I've been very unclear shirt something. To get more into the unit idea, I don't really suspect a rock is a conscious unit. I know I've been using it as an example, but I guess to try to get the point across that consciousness isn't a mental thing. Rather, consciousness of people means consciousness of mental things. (And I could be wrong. I could be wrong about the entire thing, after all, so certainly about this. Maybe rocks are consciousness as a unity. But I doubt it.) To be a conscious unity, as opposed to just an object with trillions+ of individually conscious particles, Simple physical proximity isn't enough. A rock is only a unit to a human mind. It is not a unit to itself, or any of its particles. it's just a conglomerate of individual, individually conscious, particles.Basically, what would count as a rock's consciousness would be independent from human category-making. For example, a human breaks a rock. What now? Two consciousnesses where previously there was one? One consciousness as broken rock? Both? Is the world flow constantly splintering off and merging consciousnesses? Does really everything have a concsiousness (regardless of whether it's comprehensible as a unit to a human mind)? — Dawnstorm
Sorry, I just don't understand your idea.Quite long ago now, I've come up with a thought experience. Imagine you come across a butterfly sitting on a flower. To you there's a butterfly, a flower, stuff around that that's neiter... all that is intuitive and comprehensible. Now imagine an invisible globe, such that part of the butterfly and flower is in the globe, and part of it is outside of it. That is less intuitive, but due to maths we can imagine it. Now imagine the butterfly taking off and flying away. And now find some sort of mathmatics that allows to recalculate the entire universe such that whatever was within the imagined invisible globe stays a unit. I think that's impossible (from a human perspective), but if we imagine it possible, surely the result would be entirely incomprehensible. However, if the contents of the globe were conscious than there would be an experience that would make this cohere, however incomprehensible this would be to us. And yet it would be the very same world flow that contains our consciousnesses, too. — Dawnstorm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.