I believe that consciousness arises whenever energy flows through matter or is in matter. — Amadeus

But in all electronic devices, energy is flowing through matter, yet your fridge, clock, and television aren't conscious. So, as you say, your model would entail that you would have to consider computers as being conscious, but there's no evidence that they are (although many of us act as if they are). But computers are essentially very large arrays of on/off switches that are programmed to generate output. As such, they're devices. If you bashed your computer to pieces with a hammer, it might be an act of vandalism, but not of cruelty.

So what your model is lacking is the distinction between beings and devices. Even the most simple organisms, such as microbes, are qualitatively different to devices, in ways that are not simply a matter of how complex they are. Organisms display fundamentally different attributes to devices, first and foremost that they spontaneously generate, grow, reproduce and evolve. Whereas devices are artefacts that do none of these things.

So, I think you're barking up the wrong tree, although it is an interesting and worthwhile question to ask.

I see what your saying but I don't think you are looking at things on a very fundamental level.

"But in all electronic devices, energy is flowing through matter, yet your fridge, clock, and television aren't conscious."

You are assuming they are not conscious.

"Organisms display fundamentally different attributes to devices, first and foremost that they spontaneously generate, grow, reproduce and evolve"

This is true but does any of this really matter? If my brain were somehow isolated from my body and be able to function would it not still be conscious even though it would not be able to reproduce etc..?

"But computers are essentially very large arrays of on/off switches that are programmed to generate output."

Aren't we the same thing? Input from our senses, output from our brain?

For example what makes our skin any different from a keyboard? When both are pressed they send some input to the processing center, which then results in some output on a screen or speaker.

This is a form of what's called "Panpsychism." There are many different versions of it. Usually a Panpsychist will respond to the, "are microchips conscious?" question with something like, "Yes, but at some sort of primitive level."

There's a bit of support for the idea from the fact that we experience gradations of consciousness - for example as we fall asleep, or when we wake up, consciousness is vague and diffuse. One can imagine that as being akin to the consciousness of one of the higher mammals perhaps, and one can extend that backwards to birth, and maybe life in the womb, and then maybe beyond (with ever more refined, less differentiated forms of consciousness).

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm fairly new to philosophy and I find these topics really interesting.
I honestly don't think we will ever get a solid answer but it's fun talking about it anyway.

Amadeus, your thoughts don't seem too far from Michio Kaku's idea that consciousness can be quantified by treating each dynamic as a unit of consciousness. So, for instance, a thermostat measures only one thing - heat - and thus has consciousness of one unit. He posited that a plant might have ten units - detecting and processing light, water etc.

In truth, all matter has numerous interactions on different scales and MK appeared to be painting with an exceptionally broad brush for the sake of message clarity. After all, one may think that a rock is fairly inert, but when observed in detail one will find communities, cities even, of microbes, engaged in numerous chemical and physical reactions and interactions with the rock's surface, and sometimes its interior.

Now consider the microbial mind. Even in deep sleep, you are vastly more aware than microbes, because even in that most inert of states there are numerous complex processes occurring in the body - by entire "universes" of microbes - not just one microbe or a community. Also note that you have been a microbe before - a zygote - and you became an ever more complex entity as time passed but infancy and before is a blank. It's a relatively blind existence, utterly in-the-moment.

The basic level of reactivity in simple organisms (or things) is referred to be some experts as "proto-consciousness" - the building blocks of consciousness which, when assembled in ways we don't yet understand, produce our mental theatre.

Still, I find it more helpful not to think of everything as conscious, but reactive. The degree and nature of the reactivity varies in scale and complexity. Thus, on such a scale, entities like neutrinos would score very low because they interact with very little and those responses have no flexibility or control. Gradually one could us this approach to consider the increasing complexity of non living things until the emergence of life, then the emergence of multicellular organisms, and now abstractly intelligent ones.

Thanks for the replies everyone. — Amadeus

You’re welcome. You might enjoy this.

Very well-written and argued post.

Still, I find it more helpful not to think of everything as conscious, but reactive. The degree and nature of the reactivity varies in scale and complexity. Thus, on such a scale, entities like neutrinos would score very low because they interact with very little and those responses have no flexibility or control. Gradually one could us this approach to consider the increasing complexity of non living things until the emergence of life, then the emergence of multicellular organisms, and now abstractly intelligent ones. — Greta

This coincides with my current conception of human consciousness (mass noun) as mind-body conditions which entail variations in awareness (a perceptive, sensitive, and cognisant condition) and responsiveness (a receptive and/or reactive condition).

Does a flexible and controlled response require a mind?

Which inanimate objects have the highest level of reactivity?

At what level of complexity do organisms have awareness?

Consciousness is connected to self awareness. If you unconsciously react to a stimulus without thinking, you are no different from an electronic device. An electronic device can be programmed to react to a stimulus without being called conscious. If you are aware, that you are unconsciously reacting to the stimulus, then you are conscious.

Say you were asleep and you were tossing and turning. If you are not aware you are doing this, you are not conscious, even though there appears to be conscious output occurring. If you saw yourself on a video the next day, you may look conscious, but you know you were not.

Self awareness occurs because we have two centers of consciousness. Self awareness or consciousness is connected to an awareness of a phase difference between the two centers. When we will to walk from here to there, the mechanics of walking is done unconsciously. Were are aware that we walk which is being done, at the nuts and bolts level, unconsciously.

When you are asleep tossing and turning, the unconscious center is aware of the discomfort of the body. However, its actions occur unconsciously to the ego, since the conscious mind is asleep and not aware. In the morning when you are starting to awaken, but not ready to get up; semi-sleep, you may now become aware that you are not comfortable, as you toss and turn. The phase difference appears allowing self awareness. When asleep, you are in phase with the unconscious.

Dreams are interesting in that they allow the conscious mind to be in various degrees of conscious awareness. It would take practice to be able to be conscious and remember dreams with the same clarity as when we are awake and looking at reality. Without this practice, the phase difference between the two centers is much tighter and only separates periodically, so we get bits and pieces of conscious awareness.

Humans have repressed natural instinct in favor of a modified version of human instinct. This is where the phase difference for consciousness is grounded. If you are interested in learning about the unconscious center there is a good primer book called, The undiscovered Self by Carl Jung.

Cheers Wayfarer. Kind of you to say so.

Does a flexible and controlled response require a mind?

Which inanimate objects have the highest level of reactivity?

At what level of complexity do organisms have awareness? — Galuchat

Heh, we could then end up asking whether sophisticated learning AI has a mind since advanced machines respond in somewhat flexible and controlled ways. Nonetheless, we assume that the machines are "black inside", just imitating consciousness.

Proponents of IIT (information Integration Theory) figure that there must be a certain complexity and configuration type that lies behind conscious awareness and that this is theoretically achievable in AI. Others insist that "wetware", biology, is needed for awareness, probably based on the fact that so far we only know of awareness in biological entities.

Re: inanimate objects or, rather, animated objects. It's generally thought that complex organic chemicals are a precursor to biology. Until the advent of intelligent technology and viruses, they would probably be the most complexly reactive nonliving "things" (not counting natural viruses and prions that are not technically alive but could also be said to just be a different kind of life). It's though that chemistry underwent its own kind of evolution leading up to biological evolution.

There's some interesting written material and videos online regarding Martin Hanczyc's experiments with various chemicals - proto-life - that engage in some surprisingly lifelike dynamics.

Of course we have each been through the transitional steps from zygote to embryo to foetus to infant to toddler to child to teen to adult awareness. We have made the transition from a kind of microbe to a conscious human adult, but we can't remember how it happened - it just happened :)

Thanks for answering my second question.

Thanks for answering my second question. — Galuchat

Answers to the other two are much less clear, although I think it would be fair to say that a mind, or at least qualia, is not essential for a flexible controlled response.

As for the last, we have all been unaware and then reaching a level of complexity (or whatever) that brings awareness. I think it happens fairly early on because I have two unusually early memories, one in a pram and another on a high chair, where I was definitely aware. In each case I had a sense of what it meant to be in trouble with my parents, either for myself on being discovered scribbling on a wall from my pram or when I tried to get a disliked babysitter in trouble for breaking by special bowl in anger because I was refusing her feeding (by screaming and refusing to stop - I noticed that she looked worried!).

At a very early age, and as can be seen in some pets, babies already engage in small quasi-Machiavellian dealings :) That requires both a sense of self and a theory of mind. Mentality would seem to be present in all chordates, and some level of mentality seems present in many invertebrates like cephalopods, colonial insects, mantids and the like.

That's great. Thanks very much.

Consciousness could be the temporal synchronization of several different and specialized brain areas (brain channels or "senses"). When this happen, the subject has a conscious experience. While more different areas are involved more vivid will be the mental state, and while more frequent are the synchronized fired more "slow" you will perceived the time (there will be more "frames" per physical time unity). And as all physical process, it must have associated some kind of energy cost or flow, as you comment, but the account ought be beyond.

Consciousness also has a connection to the way neurons are designed. A neuron will expend most of its metabolic energy, pumping and exchanging cations to establish a membrane potential. The net result are neurons are designed to exist at high surface potential, due to this pumping action.

Computer semi-conductor memory is designed to be at low potential, so the memory is stable and will only change when prompted by additional energy. The high potential of neurons, on the other hand, means that neurons have built chemical potential and therefore can spontaneously change or fire so they can move toward lowered free energy.

As an analogy, computer memory is like a pool of water. While neural memory is like the same pool of water being pumped to the top of a fountain. In the case of the pool, nothing more happens unless we add energy. In the case of the neuron, the pumped water of the fountain acquires gravitational potential, causing the water to cascade downwards back into the pool; lowering potential. Consciousness occurs in this fountain.

As another analogy, computer memory is like a floor full of mouse traps, but with none of the mouse trap springs set. If you wish the change the design on the floor, you need to move the traps around. In the case of neurons, its floor is covered with mouse traps, but with all the springs set. If you touch one trap in that room, will jump and can create a spontaneous chain reaction in some or all the other mouse traps. When the springs have all sprung, there is a new design on the floor, with the traps immediately resetting themselves.

Free energy in the neurons is the sum of entropy and enthalpy. Entropy is connected toward change into higher levels of complexity. In the fountain or the floor of mouse traps, analogies, we have energy expression as well as movement toward complexity; consciousness. All this schema needs is some of the energy flow to go to the brain stem and trigger arousal; awareness. One becomes aware of the mouse traps in action; I think therefore I am.

What is consciousness? Three parts:
1. Self-awareness
2. Creativity
3. Logical thinking

3 is replicable. Computers do it.

2, if I understand correctly, seems to be about combing what you already know into something new. For instance a mobile phone is a combinatiom of radio and telephone. If you give it a second thought, it's about having random thoughts and being able to choose one of them to follow: I want to paint a rabbit, a house, a lake. Oh! I'll paint a rabbit next to a house beside a lake.

So, to generate creativity (in computers perhaps?), one must allow them to randomly sift through information and make useful connections. Is this possible? I don't know?

1 (self-awareness) is the difficult part. How does a computer come to the conclusion ''I exist.'' Anyway what does it mean to exist...

I've been doing a lot of thinking on what consciousness is and how it may arise, I'm going to share my ideas and you can feel free to try and disprove them or discuss it further.

So to make his brief, I believe that consciousness arises whenever energy flows through matter or is in matter. Energy flowing or being in different parts of the brain activates different forms of consciousness. No energy flow, similar to when we are asleep means no consciousness.

To further extend on this idea, this would mean that computers would also have to be conscious, since it is indeed energy flowing through matter (the circuits).

Energy flowing in different parts of the computer would give rise to different forms of consciousness (qualia?).

Perhaps I'm wrong but feel free to share your thoughts, thanks in advance. — Amadeus

As for defining consciousness in the physical-story:

It seems to me that you're defining it too broadly.

I sometimes define consciousness as the property of being a purposefully-responsive device that is sufficiently similar to the speaker that the speaker feels enough kinship with it to call it "conscious".

Circular?Sure, because the line is arbitrary.

You're a purposefully-responsive device, like a mousetrap, and not different from a mousetrap in a philosophically-significant qualitative way.

So what your model is lacking is the distinction between beings and devices. — Wayfarer

There's no meaningful qualitative distinction.

But that definition, in terms of the physical-story, is really a misleading distraction, and sounds like Eliminative Physicalism, which I don't subscribe to. I feel that my above-stated definition, though accurate in its own terms, starts from the wrong point of view.

So I'd rather answer that Consciousness is what's primary in each person's metaphysical world. As I discuss in "A few metaphysical replies", there are abstract if-then facts, and complex systems of them, such as your life-experience possibility-story, of which you're the protagonist. It's just a hypothetical story, but it's about and for you, because it's your experience-story.

It's only a hypothetical story, but what could be more central and primary than the Consciousness that is the protagonist and experiencer of that hypothetical story...a complementary component of it, but also its primary center, of your whole metaphysical world..

An "insubstantial" metaphysical world? ...whatever that would mean, when applied to the context of your life.

I don't claim to talk about the full answer, because I don't believe that there's such a thing in terms of words, discussion, description, concepts. Metaphysics can be precise, unambiguous and uncontroversial, within its own province, which is the limited province of words.

Michael Ossipoff



.

I've been doing a lot of thinking on what consciousness is and how it may arise, I'm going to share my ideas and you can feel free to try and disprove them or discuss it further.

So to make his brief, I believe that consciousness arises whenever energy flows through matter or is in matter. Energy flowing or being in different parts of the brain activates different forms of consciousness. No energy flow, similar to when we are asleep means no consciousness.

To further extend on this idea, this would mean that computers would also have to be conscious, since it is indeed energy flowing through matter (the circuits).

Energy flowing in different parts of the computer would give rise to different forms of consciousness (qualia?).

Perhaps I'm wrong but feel free to share your thoughts, thanks in advance. — Amadeus

My first question would be: What Energy Flow are you referring to? A normal Energy of Science or are you speculating on a new Energy not known to Science?