Then that explains nothing. The whole universe is cause and effect, but consciousness happens in individuated pockets. — Daemon

The entire universe is a process of self organization - cause and effect, not individuated pockets, and every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization.

Was he saying that the sand on the beach (for example) was capable of cognition? — Daemon

That would be the fundamental unit of cognition - basic cause and effect. The sand acknowledges the pressure of the footprint and gives way accordingly. Its a long way from the complicated cognition we enjoy, but it is the start of it.

To suppose that a universe devoid of consciousness can be molded so as to make consciousness arise, is to inject consciousness from outside the universe. — leo

If self organization is the fundamental law of the universe, then it is entirely open ended as to what can arise. Consciousness is not a fixed state - it evolves over a day, a year, and over a lifetime. It is an evolving process. Where this process will ultimately end is any bodies guess, but that the process of consciousness in the form of self organization was present from the beginning of the universe seems without doubt.

And when you walk across the beach, the sand perceives the meaning of your footsteps and makes the correct footprints for you to look at? — Daemon

According to Fritjof Capra, the fundamental unit of cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state.

Are you equating sentience and emotion? I equate sentience with heightened awareness — Whickwithy

Yes I was. It is a wider concept, but one enabled by feelings / emotions.

We've got so much nonsense stuffed in our heads from childhood that we can't see a true vista yet. — Whickwithy

Yes, it takes a long time to sift through all that baggage to arrive at an understanding one can have some confidence in, but the process never ends. Understanding is never complete. It seems whatever one focuses on, more information can be extracted and understanding can be improved.

The sad thing is a lot of people out there would concur with that interpretation. — Whickwithy

Yes, its rusted in to the psychie. Its interesting that Descartes was one of the first people to consider self organization. I appropriated it from abiogenesis theory, and a few insights of my own. It works as a panpsychic definition of consciousness, but could stand a little more honing in regards to why it should occur. I have a theory of consciousness here, It is just a sketch, and incomplete, and even a few months after completion I can see blunders.

As I ponder, I sometimes wonder about our wonder. I would go a step further on panpsychism. It is almost as if the universe desires to be sensed in all its wonder. — Whickwithy

I have a similar feeling. As an element of the universe I can guarantee it. :smile:

Humanity's sentience has changed the game. It is no longer just a genetic improvement in self-organization. It is a conscious improvement on self-organization. — Whickwithy

From the Philosophical Zombie argument it is sentience / emotion, that creates consciousness, not computation. If consciousness = self organization, then self organization might be sentient ( emotional ) in some way.

You can direct your reply, by hovering the cursor next to the time indicator at the bottom of a thread, and clicking the reply arrow that pops up.

My apologies for not studying this board further before opening my mouth but, damn, intelligent conversation on the web? Will wonders never cease? — Whickwithy

I'm glad you approve. Welcome to the forum. :smile:

I wonder what this would mean: cosmic recycling? — Jack Cummins

What else? :smile:

The thread really needs a definition of consciousness.

In my understanding, consciousness = an evolving process of self organization, and everything in the universe belongs to a process of self organization. So when you die, your component parts are appropriated to something else's self organization. That this should result in a worse experience then the present is entirely an assumption, in my opinion.

And the appearance is itself part of the body — Harry Hindu

Yes I agree. The self organization of the body creates consciousness, which can then reflect back upon itself, to reflect upon the process that created it.

immortal soul — Rafaella Leon

So there is an element underlying the process of self awareness - this being the soul. So it is the body that appears to the soul?

Or, of course, if one of them is a chicken and the other an egg. — Ciceronianus the White

So which one is it?

From a developmental point of view, I'd say we appear to our bodies — Daniel

Initially I thought the same, but then I thought about Descartes I think therefore I am, and considered whether thinking has to come first?

Does I appear to my mind or my mind to my body. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective — Jack Cummins

I think you are right. From the first person perspective thinking would seem to come first, and so my body would appear to me. From a third person perspective though, the body has to evolve to a stage where it becomes self aware, and so I would appear to my body.

What I find interesting is how the philosophical paradigm changes the logic of the answer. From an idealist's first person perspective we must start with consciousness -

is it your body or a mental image of your body? — Marchesk

but from a materialist / realist third person perspective we step outside consciousness and create a logical story :

Your body appears to itself, which you are — StreetlightX

That is an interesting question, and I will tell you how I understand it.

Art is an expression of human consciousness, the definition can be found here.
Art work is information about the artists consciousness. But what is consciousness? Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. I think you will find that every moment of consciousness, is a moment of self organization. So art work is information about the artists evolving process of self organization. If you are an artist, I think you will relate to this.

The universe is an evolving process of self organization, so all of it's component parts are also an evolving process of self organization. As a galaxy falls in on itself, it must self organize, and hence so too must all of its component parts. The Milky Way, the solar system, Earth, life on earth, humanity are all a process of self organization. This being the case, what else can art possibly express but self organization?

That art expresses self organization is nothing special, all human activity is an expression of self organization.

Self organization is the fundamental process everything is involved in. Is it a God process? It is the process responsible for all creation. It would fit the idea that

God created man in his own image — samja

.

Thanks for the referral. Lots of excellent insights that support how I've come to understand things. That the basic unit of cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state is a gem. And the Santiago theory of cognition : " Living systems are cognitive systems, and living as a process is a process of cognition. This statement is valid for all organisms, with or without a nervous system ", is wonderful validation for a panpsychist / monist like myself.

I found it odd however that he himself is a dualist. I was not impressed by his understanding of consciousness. I think his understanding of consciousness relies on Tomasso's theory which leads him astray. He states that life is a process of self organization, and he also states that consciousness is self organization, but then states that consciousness arises upon self awareness, which is logically flawed in my opinion.

The way I see it, the process of self organization is innately self aware. It possesses a process-centric self awareness: the organization of information relative to the self is all that it is concerned with, nothing can be more self aware, if you can accept that a process can have a mission or agenda, its agenda is entirely the self. It is the fundamental element that enables everything and the singular process that everything is involved in. It is both fundamental, and ultimate, so in my understanding it is a god process.
At any given time the state of something is symbolic of the current state of its underlying process of self organization, whether it be a rock, or life, and in regard to human consciousness, well this is symbolic of our current state of self organization. It is not a fixed or maxed out state - who knows what it will develop into in years to come?

Thanks again for the referral, whilst i have issues with Capra's understanding of consciousness, most of the other stuff I found absolutely top notch. So thank you.

Matter can be seen as a material process or flow. So it is a succession of events organised within a context. Something is material for us as it can be recorded as an event happening and history being rewritten by a possibility being eliminated. — apokrisis

A thought can be described in a similar way. As the current result of a process.

It would seem there is a process of self organization at play at the fundamental level, and this would suggest panpsychism. It is difficult to relate this to human mind except to point out that our thoughts are the result of our biological state of self organization. We can focus attention, but each thought contains a subconscious element. We don't actually design the algorithm, or pathway that processes them. This is done by our biological process of self organization. In a similar manner matter is created through self organisation - the self organisation ( mind ) of the universe, if you will.

Yep. He was talking about autopoiesis there most probably — apokrisis

Yes he was. I don't agree with all he says, but systems, process, and information, is the way forward , in my opinion. Holism it is, and cause and effect are one of its elements. In this regard, you didn't address my main query, that matter is a symbol of an ongoing process of self organization. It is not the end point, as all is in motion / evolution, but at any given time matter symbolizes the state of a process. I believe, in the same way that a thought dose. It would cast doubt on symbol vs matter, it would suggest symbol = matter. So, panpsychism?

symbols vs matter — apokrisis

Matter is a symbol. It is symbolic of the process that created it. Therefore panpsychism, through the process of self organization. According to Fritjof Capra, the basic unit of cognition is a reaction to a disturbance of a state – I cant remember the exact words. So basic cause and effect at the most fundamental level is cognition. Hence panpsychism. No?

Could it be simplified even further to I am — Thinking

I think you would need to provide some proof / reason of what causes "I am".

I would say consciousness is a process rather then a property. A process of self organization, in my opinion. Pantagruel has put me onto Fritjof Capra, and his systems paradigm sounds very promising :

" the process perspective, which refers to the cognitive dimension of living systems. Capra explains that the physical structure can be understood as the embodiment of it’s patterns of organization. Moreover, this embodiment doesn’t just happen once, but is a continual process of embodiment, and this process of self-organization and self-generation, which can be found in all living systems, is a cognitive process."

I think this really gets at the difficulty of defining consciousness, as a process dose not really possess fixed or concrete properties. Particularly not an evolving process. And if an evolving process is what is relied on for inferring I am, then what I am is also something evolving, it seems. That thinking enables the inference I am is without doubt, in my opinion, but this only works for a moment of consciousness, as in the long run thinking and thus what I am constantly change.

If we apply Capra's interpratation to I think therefore I am, we get I am the embodiment of my thought processes. :grin:

We happen to ourselves. — Valentinus

:up:

Abiogenesis theory, from the perspectives of biology, chemistry, geophysics,, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology agree that self organization led to life. The only alternative is God, but God the creator comes up against the problem of who / what created God? If we are to avoid an infinite regress of god creators, then we must conclude that god created him / her / itself. So we come back to self creation / organization as the origin of life.

Logically, there is no alternative to self organization as the origin of life, but dose this exclude a god?
I think it depends on what you conceive god to be. In my understanding, self organization is equivalent to consciousness , within a monistic / panpsychic conception of the universe. Consciousness can be shown to have infinite potential, by applying Gödel's incompleteness theorem to an axiomatic consciousness. An infinite consciousness is not limited to anything, it can perhaps create a universe, and possibly live beyond the universe. If this was god - infinite self organization / consciousness, then this is a god I could believe in, and one that will always be light years ahead of science and philosophy, logic, etc. :smile:

Back on earth however, consciousness must decide whether a god exists or not, regardless of the science, or philosophy, or whatever. The person must decide this in regard to what best suits their self organization.

Why yes. It's where the idea comes from, in fact. — Olivier5

Yes, the idea comes from abiogenesis theory, and the phrase life is an expression of consciousness, which I take to be logically impeccable. Considered together I came to the conclusion that self organization leads to life, and in turn life expresses self organization. I then connected that self organization is consciousness. It works as a definition of consciousness within monism / panpsychism. Hence my objection to your stupid universe comment. I don't believe the universe is self aware, but it is involved in the same process of self organization as we are, to the best of my understanding.

The only alternative to self organization in abiogenesis theory is god. But god the creator, comes up against the question of who created god? If we are to avoid an infinite regress, we would have to say god created itself. So we are back at self organization. That consciousness is an evolving process of self organization will stick, I believe. I am not aware of it being described this way before, but @Pantagruel
has given me some related leads, so I will check them out.

Thanks again, I'll let you know how I find it.

No problems, my interpretation of it is atypical anyway :smile:
Thanks for the interest.

But if we use the every day understanding of consciousness, i.e. as first-person awareness or internal experience, then I can find many examples of unconscious self-organization. The most obvious examples are cells. Cells presumably don't have conscious experience, and yet they undergo self-organization. — Alvin Capello

As I've previously stated, in Panpsychism, consciousness ( self organization ) is a property everything possesses. Including cells.

This is completely irrelevant for understanding Descartes' claim, since he is only using "I am" in the existential sense. Bringing in other senses of the term can only lead to confusion, as your remarks on Descartes' claim above demonstrate. — Alvin Capello

I think it is entirely relevant to consider the phrase in its entirety, for the purpose of reducing it.

To put it more simply, all instances of consciousness might be instances of self-organization, but this does not imply that all instances of self-organization are instances of consciousness. — Alvin Capello

I'm afraid they are, unless you can self organize unconsciously.

Indeed, there might not be a single instance of consciousness which is not in some way self-organization, — Alvin Capello

That is right. The role of consciousness is primarily to self organize.

You are confusing 2 uses of the phrase "I am" here. You are taking Descartes to be using it in the predicative sense (i.e. when we say things like "I am green", "I am a man", etc.) But he is actually using it in the existential sense. More specifically, by saying "I am", he is just saying "I exist." Or in full form, "I think, therefore I exist." — Alvin Capello

I am exploring the phrase as completely as possible.

Consciousness is a property that certain objects have — Alvin Capello

In Panpsychism, consciousness ( self organization ) is a property everything possesses. The universe is in a process of self organization, and so all of its component parts are also in a process of self organization. Self organization creates life, and continues to evolve, eventually becoming self aware,
to some extent, in humanity. It is an evolving process which is endlessly variable and open ended. To what extent anybody is self aware is endlessly variable, and open ended, however every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. My claim can be disproven by providing an instance of consciousness which is not in some way self organization.

The statement relates to Descartes I think therefore I am - I am what?
I am saying I am consciousness ( self organization ), in my entirety - the self organization of information, energy, and matter.

Autopoiesis - systems theory as metaphysics — Pantagruel

Thanks for that - I wasn't aware, I'll check it out.

Affect is the necessary ingredient that enables consciousness — Possibility

I find this illogical - you are placing the cart before the horse. I have provided you with an alternative explanation, which you agree is logical, so I take it you agree that the cascade is inseparable - that to incur one element, is to also incur all the others. This puts in doubt your own theory, in this regard, as you have conveyed it. But instead of altering your own theory, you instead argue the fallibility of logic. I find that illogical.

”Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence” - Joseph Wood Krutch

”Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice” - Elbert Hubbard — Possibility

As I have said before, consciousness must decide what consciousness is, and it wont let mere facts, such as a causal chain, stand in its way. I am surprised you have gone this far, as I would have thought arguing the fallibility of logic was suicide for a philosopher. What can we possibly agree on now?

I will not debate this with you any further. Instead I will thank you for your input, and insight. This exchange has helped me a lot in many different ways, and I thank you for that.

Seeing biology as infused with meaning is a better way to solve the hard problem and explain how consciousness emerged. — Olivier5

Biology agrees with self organization.

If you change the definition of words, it's going to be hard to communicate... It takes a lot of time and chance to get to true consciousness. It doesn't come with just a few Lego bricks... For me, the early universe was not conscious in any way, and consciousness emerged progressively from it, through life. — Olivier5

I think, ultimately a philosopher has to answer how inanimate matter becomes animate, and there is no solution from the paradigm that you pose. Not even a hint of a solution, even after several hundred years of effort. However, a panpsychist solution exists.

If you accept that the universe is in a process of self organization, then you will accept that all of it's component parts are as a result in a process of self organization. That life arose from self organization is overwhelmingly supported by abiogenesis theory. What is the purpose of the Euclidian space that you see, other then self organization? Every instance of consciousness is an instance of self organization.
My claim goes beyond normal philosophical conjecture, in that it can be easily disproven by providing an instance of consciousness that is not in some way self organization, which I believe is logically impossible.

Consciousness = an evolving process of self organization.

I'm not familiar with those. I read Nietzsche at 14, and haven't found the need to read him again. I'm mostly interested in eastern philosophy.

So... you do not arrive where you started? Then it was a step forward! — Heiko

In the context of the times, I think it was a step forward, though ultimately it was the wrong step.
In the east they landed on consciousness, and I think this resulted in a much better understanding.

He lands at "being", not at thinking — Heiko

I think its a matter of interpretation. I believe he could have gone further, and landed on consciousness, but then he would have challenged the soul and the clergy, so we have what we have.

Okay, and... do you make the conclusion? — Heiko

I think its fairly obvious that all is ineffable without consciousness, beyond this I'm not really sure what you are asking?

B may apply while A does not. — Heiko

It would be impossible to reach such a conclusion without consciousness, hence we start with consciousness.

I am arguing that from
1. A=>B and
2. A
B can be concluded. — Heiko

I have not disagreed with this. I have simply stated that B will continue to vary with A. B is not a fixed quantity, it varies with A.

And I told you how I think that sentence is to be interpreted. "therefor" is a formal conclusion. — Heiko

Are you arguing that being is a fixed quantity? Being evolves with consciousness, in my view. It has changed throughout history, and will continue to evolve, as we aquire new information.

You have not said anything about what "being" shall mean in this context either. — Heiko

It implies that being is a function of consciousness. Consciousness must decide what consciousness is, and being is a function of that. Being is not a fixed quantity, it evolves with consciousness. It is endlessly variable and open ended.

In my theory consciousness = self organization, so being will always entail self organization, but what form this self organization takes is variable.

But that is an implication that does not bear any information about the nature of being — Heiko

It suggests that consciousness is the fundamental element of being from which everything else must be interpreted.

Not really. It's more that everything that can happen does happen, given enough time. — Olivier5

I think you dismiss this too easily. In my theory, consciousness = self organization. That everything that can happen dose happen, given enough time, is due entirely to self organization.

I've seen no evidence that the world cannot exist without consciousness in it. In fact, it must have started as a totally stupid universe. — Olivier5

I appreciate the paradigm you are coming from, but to what extent can something exist independent of a viewer / interpreter? And that the world develops such that inanimate matter becomes animated, and conscious, brings into question the stupidity of the universe, I believe.

I think, we have to start, as Descartes did, with; I think, therefore I am, and so the world is, and so on.
Today we can start with I am consciousness, and explore the world from its most fundamental perspective, in my opinion.

I wouldn't say mere cells. My understanding borrows heavily from eastern philosophy, but there is nothing mystical about it. I think it is entirely logical, If I am consciousness, and consciousness is infinite, then what is my identity?

Identity is normally something anthropocentric, and in reality I have one of those. :smile: But it is logically unsustainable, if the OP logic is correct, in my opinion.