Consciousness is Fundamental

Patterner

It seems most people think consciousness is emergent:

Emergence is a notorious philosophical term of art. A variety of theorists have appropriated it for their purposes ever since George Henry Lewes gave it a philosophical sense in his 1875 Problems of Life and Mind. We might roughly characterize the shared meaning thus: emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. (For example, it is sometimes said that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.) — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

There are plenty of discussions from that stance. I would like to try to explore the idea that consciousness is fundamental.

Yes, there is overlap between this and my Proto-Consciousness thread. But that's only one possible explanation for consciousness being fundamental. (Maybe consciousness is a ubiquitous field.) I would like to discuss the overall idea, rather than a particular explanation for it.

The idea is that consciousness is always present. In everything, everywhere, at all times. The definition of consciousness is very important here. Of course, it is usually important. But I think moreso here. I know many will always think this is nonsense. But the definition needs to be clear for those willing to consider the idea.

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. I have heard that wording more than any other, but I prefer Annaka Harris' "felt experience". I think feeling is what it all means. When Nagel asks "What is it like to be a bat?", the question is really: "What does it feel like to be a bat?" Not how does it feel physically, although that may be a part of it. Not how does it feel emotionally, although that may be a part of it. It's the overall feeling of being.

Really, that's it. If you want detail, then you don't understand this idea. There is no detail to consciousness. The consciousness of different things is not different. Not different kinds of consciousness, and not different degrees of consciousness. There's no such thing as higher consciousness.

The differences and details are in the nature of the things experiencing their own existence. Let me try an analogy. Think of consciousness like vision. I can look at a blank sheet of paper. I can look at the Grand Canyon. I can look at my wife. I can look at a Monet painting. I can look at a bolt of lightning racing across the sky. I can look at a blade of grass. My vision does not change depending on what I'm looking at. The things being looked at are what's different. Let's compare rocks and humans.

A rock experiences being a rock. What does that entail? Well, not much, from my point of view. A rock doesn't have any mental characteristics or processes. It doesn't think about being a rock. It doesn't have memories of being a rock. It doesn't have preferences of any sort, to any degree, in regards to anything. It doesn't have perceptions, of itself or anything other than itself. It doesn't even have any activity that's what we think of as purely physical. No part of a rock is moving relative to any other part of the rock. If a rock is scratched, the discussion of its experience of the scratch begins and ends with the simple fact that it was scratched. The rock's experience of its existence is different after the scratch, because some of it was scraped away. But there is no discussion of the rock being scratched, because it has no memory, thought, or feeling of the event.

A human experiences being a human. Being human entails very different things than being a rock. A rock is an object. Of course, we are as much physical objects as rocks are. But our consciousness is about far more than just our physical bodies. A human is processes. If a human is scratched, the discussion of their experience is far more than the simple fact that they were scratched. We have all kinds of sensory input, of ourselves and of things not ourselves. We are information processing system upon information processing system, with feedback loop upon feedback loop. These things are not human consciousness. Rather, these things are what humans are conscious of.

I don't know what this line of thinking might lead to. I don't know if it makes any difference to think worms have lesser consciousness and we have greater, or worms have a felt experience of a smaller number of information processing systems and feedback loops and we have felt experience of a larger number of information processing systems and feedback loops. As the saying goes, if you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make? But maybe one of you can take this somewhere significant, or at least interesting.

For those who want to argue the premise, I won't be participating. Most threads dealing with consciousness, regardless of their intent, soon turn into debates about Physicalism vs Idealism vs Panosychism vs... I obviously can't keep the thread on the track, or system of tracks, I want. But I won't be taking part in derailing it. Maybe there really isn't anything to say aside from the debate, and my lack of participation in it will doom it to a very small thread. But I can hope.

Tom Storm

My vision does not change depending on what I'm looking at. The things being looked at are what's different. — Patterner

More importantly, from my perspective, you (the one doing the looking) are different too. The expectations, beliefs, aesthetic impulses, and preferences that are awakened or activated by different phenomena and contexts shape what you see. And what you think you see. It’s not just the object that changes, but the subject who encounters it. 'The looking' is nothing without the rest of our experince. Or something like that.

Manuel

If you don't want to engage with arguments, why participate in a philosophy forum? There surely are other forums in which you can discuss this issue with people who would agree with you.

But being that you don't want that, then perhaps I can say that consciousness may be epistemically fundamental but not ontologically so. Unless you want to say something like the world is at bottom a kind of sensation, then maybe this distinction may be of some use.

It's your thread after all. :)

Punshhh

↪Manuel

He doesn’t want it to become a discussion about materialism versus idealism. That’s all. Although that may not be possible on. This forum.

Punshhh

↪Patterner

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.

I like sushi

Of course, we are as much physical objects as rocks are. — Patterner

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.

These things are not human consciousness. Rather, these things are what humans are conscious of. — Patterner

The feelings-of are consciousness-of.

I would like to try to explore the idea that consciousness is fundamental. — Patterner

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. — Patterner

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

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

Patterner

↪Tom Storm

That's sounds right.

Patterner

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

↪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.

Patterner

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.

Patterner

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.

Danileo

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

Punshhh

↪Patterner

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

Agreed, I like the idea you’re proposing. 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. 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.

I like sushi

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. — Patterner

Understood.

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. I have heard that wording more than any other, but I prefer Annaka Harris' "felt experience". I think feeling is what it all means. When Nagel asks "What is it like to be a bat?", the question is really: "What does it feel like to be a bat?" Not how does it feel physically, although that may be a part of it. Not how does it feel emotionally, although that may be a part of it. It's the overall feeling of being.

Really, that's it. If you want detail, then you don't understand this idea. There is no detail to consciousness. The consciousness of different things is not different. Not different kinds of consciousness, and not different degrees of consciousness. There's no such thing as higher consciousness. — Patterner

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

T Clark

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. I have heard that wording more than any other, but I prefer Annaka Harris' "felt experience". I think feeling is what it all means. When Nagel asks "What is it like to be a bat?", the question is really: "What does it feel like to be a bat?" Not how does it feel physically, although that may be a part of it. Not how does it feel emotionally, although that may be a part of it. It's the overall feeling of being. — Patterner

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.

A rock experiences being a rock. What does that entail? Well, not much, from my point of view. A rock doesn't have any mental characteristics or processes. It doesn't think about being a rock. It doesn't have memories of being a rock. It doesn't have preferences of any sort, to any degree, in regards to anything. It doesn't have perceptions, of itself or anything other than itself. It doesn't even have any activity that's what we think of as purely physical. No part of a rock is moving relative to any other part of the rock. If a rock is scratched, the discussion of its experience of the scratch begins and ends with the simple fact that it was scratched. The rock's experience of its existence is different after the scratch, because some of it was scraped away. But there is no discussion of the rock being scratched, because it has no memory, thought, or feeling of the event. — Patterner

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.

For those who want to argue the premise, I won't be participating. — Patterner

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.

MoK

↪Patterner

I have a thread on "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change" here. So, the mind is fundamental; the mind is a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide when needed, and cause. It is the mind that causes change.

SophistiCat

For those who want to argue the premise, I won't be participating. Most threads dealing with consciousness, regardless of their intent, soon turn into debates about Physicalism vs Idealism vs Panosychism vs... I obviously can't keep the thread on the track, or system of tracks, I want. But I won't be taking part in derailing it. Maybe there really isn't anything to say aside from the debate, and my lack of participation in it will doom it to a very small thread. But I can hope. — Patterner

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)."

boundless

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. — Patterner

Interestingly, I have usually read that 'consciousness' is a specific kind of 'mind'. So, for instance, a bacterium has a very rudimentary 'mind' but it isn't 'conscious'. I'll try to use 'consciousness' in the way you are using it, in what follows (i.e. that 'mind' is a particular type of 'consciousness').

Let's call 'instance of consciousness' any kind of experience. So, any moment in which I am 'conscious of' something is an instance of consciousness.

I would say that, regardless the precise ontological theory one has, it's quite interesting to ask oneself if consciousness persists as instances of consciousness change. So, when I was born clearly I experienced something different than what I am experiencing now but, maybe, consciousness itself remains the same in time.
On the other hand, it might be the case that, instead, consciousness changes at every moment. That is, at each instance of experience there is a related consciousness and when experiences change so also consciousness itself changes. All these 'felt experiences' can be called 'consciousness' not because they are the same 'thing' but actually because they are different things but of the same type*.
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?

And what about the 'privateness' of experience? I and you have, it would seem, different consciousness (or 'streams' of consciousness if the 'changing consciousness model' is right). Personally, I would believe that consciousness is, perhaps, precisely what establish an 'identity', i.e. the property of being 'an entity', which is truly distinct from other 'entities'. So, in a sense, I would say that perhaps 'consciousness' is really fundamental: it is what distinguish an entity from other entities.

*Interestingly, this problem has been discussed a lot among Indian philosophical schools. Buddhists generally take the view that consciousness is always changing like a stream (they use terms like the sanskrit 'citta-samtana' which means something like 'mental continuum'). Instead, their opponents argue that consciousness is something unchanging. The Advaita Vedanta school, in particular, argues that there is, ultimately, only one consciousness.

Patterner

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.

frank

I believe otherwise. I think consciousness is casual. — Patterner

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

MoK

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

If matter is fundamental and moves according to the laws of nature, and consciousness is an emergent property from matter. Consciousness, therefore, cannot be causally efficacious because the motion of matter is determined!

Patterner

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?

Manuel

↪Punshhh

I understand that. Need not turn out this way, in so far as that debate even makes any sense at all.

Yes. Thank you. — Patterner

Got you.

Patterner

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".

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 finis — Patterner

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.

180 Proof

I can say that consciousness may be epistemically fundamental but not ontologically so. — Manuel

:up: :up:

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

:cool:

For those who want to argue the premise, I won't be participating. — Patterner

I just want to understand it, before contributing anything. Mainly the use of "experience." You write:

A rock experiences being a rock . . . A human experiences being a human. — Patterner

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

Patterner

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.

Patterner

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?"

Patterner

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.

Gnomon

It seems most people think consciousness is emergent . . . . .
explore the idea that consciousness is fundamental.: — Patterner

I agree with the intent, but interpret the words differently. Based in part on scientific Quantum & Information theories, I have come to believe that Consciousness is indeed emergent from Evolutionary processes. So, I reserve that generally-applied term for specific instances of human self awareness & intelligence, in order to avoid the absurdity of referring to atoms as sapient or sentient. However, contrary to Materialism, the stuff we see & touch is also emergent.

Therefore, what is Fundamental is Causation*1 : the power to transform (e.g. hylemorph). The causal force is similar to Plato's universal Form, and Aristotle's instantiation as Morph, but in modern scientific terms is essentially Energy. Which Einstein claimed could transform from invisible Potential (photons) into mathematical Mass (inertia), and thence into the objects we experience as Matter (actual stuff).

If we extend that idea to the last few million years of evolutionary emergence, we will need to somehow explain how immaterial Mind emerged from dumb Matter. One possible explanation is that the Potential was in there from the Big Bang beginning as general universal Causation : First Cause. :smile:

*1. Emergence, Phase Transitions, and Quantum Leaps :
EnFormAction theory takes a leap of imagination, to envision a more holistic interpretation of the evidence, both empirical and philosophical. Contrary to the Neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution, EFA implies a distinct direction for causation, toward the top rung in the hierarchy of Emergence, as denoted by the arrow of Time. Pure Randomness would just go around in circles. But selection (Entention) works like the ratchet in a clock-work to hold the latest cycle at a useful, and ultimately meaningful, stable state : a Phase Transition, or a step on the ladder of Being. Aimless Darwinian Evolution is going nowhere, but EnFormAction (directional causation) is going out-there into the unexplored future. . . . . . .
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Patterner

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.

Consciousness is Fundamental

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions