Thus a rock would be conscious
— Pop
I would bet all my money that rocks are not conscious. — Wheatley

Not conscious in the way humans are - but note humanity is conscious in different ways - on a spectrum.
Animals are also conscious, but to a lesser extent. Ecologists are describing plant consciousness.

integrated and entangled information!
— Pop
I bet no one here (including me) knows what "integrated and entangled information" is. :lol: — Wheatley

IIT theory and GW theory are new theories of consciousness. They posit that consciousness is a state of unified information.From an idealist's perspective - everything outside of consciousness is information. When this various information is compressed into a unit it becomes a concept - this process describes consciousness. The question is dose consciousness do this? or dose consciousness arise because of this?

If consciousness is entangled, integrated and unified information, then it has a spectrum:

2 bits of info.......................to................................gazillions of bits of info.

Thus consciousness could be attributed throughout the universe.

Thus a rock would be conscious - a very simple form of conscious at the bottom end of the spectrum, whilst humanity would be at the higher end of the spectrum.

By definition consciousness is a state of integrated information as it is not possible to have a state of consciousness without integrated and entangled information!

Entangled and integrated information gives rise to consciousness.

A cognitive state where information is not entangled, integrated, and unified is ineffable.

There is much more to consciousness, but that it is a state of entangled, integrated, and unified information is certain, and on top of this much can be built - unlike the dead end old conception of mind with perception and consciousness as subsets - so silly! Integrated information is fundamental to all thought, and subsequent action. Entangled, integrated, and unified information describes consciousness - and it is present all over our Goldilocks universe.

Consciousness is a mental state of entangled, integrated, and unified information.
— Pop

And what is mental? — David Mo

Thank you for pointing this out. It seems I am still somewhat stuck in oldspeak!
I should have written:
" Consciousness is a cognitive state of entangled, integrated, and unified information "

There, no doubt you will now agree :)

From an idealists perspective, we do not really interact with a material world so much as the information about a material world – where consciousness entangles, integrates, and unifies information.

Consciousness is a mental state of entangled, integrated, and unified information.


But consider this:

Is the universe entangled, integrated, and unified?

Dose a black hole entangle, integrate, and unify ( compress )?

Is a rock entangled, integrated, and unified?

Are we entangled, integrated and unified?

Can we do anything other than express our consciousness ( our entanglement,integration, and unification) ? Either physically or mentally.?

It seems consciousness is everywhere under this definition.

What defines "thinking"? - consciousness

IMO: Consciousness is a state of entangled, integrated and unified information.
Thinking is a state of entangled, integrated and unified information.
Can you separate the two? I don't think so.

Am I thinking as long as my brain shows electrical waves on an EEG? — Benj96

EEG data dose not cease under anesthesia, but there are two patterns which strongly correlate with unconsciousness, whilst the other patterns are largely normal / inconclusive.

Thinking / consciousness is a state of putting together information in various ways. Once the thought is formed, then we consider how best to implement it, or how best to articulate it. These are all activities of entangling, integrating and unifying information. Often we change our mind, as more information comes to hand.

I think therefore I am - is an expression of Descartes consciousness.
It is information about his mind activity / thinking.
He concludes that thought gives rise to his Identity ( I am ).
Spot on, I would say, and i would add consciousness gives rise to his thinking, such that the two are indistinguishable.

A physical prison, because then you are imprisoned both mentally and physically.

Midazolam serves this purpose and is commonly used in conjunction with anaesthesia.

Would you consider it possible for the emotional state to disappear completely as a result of believing in nihilism? — Pinprick

I don't think your emotional state can disappear regardless of the philosophy you follow, for the reasons we agree on, but it can be improved by it. Every consciousness is unique in the absolute sense, so must devise a unique solution for itself. You state you are a nihilist, but I would bet you have a personal spin on what that means, and what is wrong with that provided it works for you?

I like Yogic Logic ( my personally spun version ) - There, happiness can be had for no reason at all. All it takes is the understanding that you always create your own personal reality, cannot escape it, and that being the case why not create a joyous one? Learning to control your mind / emotions can lead to better mental states. Switching your mind off has a joyous qualia to it - for me anyway:smile:

The future already exists, and the past exists in the future. The present obviously influences the future, but the past has a future as well. — neonspectraltoast

This sheds light on Einstein's " all time acts on all other time all of the time ". Thanks

Time is an illusion. It is a man made dimension to locate a point in an ever changing space.
We don't really have time we have change. The change only has one direction - the direction of change.
We say forward in time, but what we experience is really forward in change.

When a glass falls off the table it shatters into a hundred pieces - this change can not be reversed.
And so it is for all change. Yet you state the following:

The perception of past events has some component that reaches across time and space and can and does influence past events. The events themselves don't change, but you, in the present, always influenced them in the way that you did. — neonspectraltoast

I would be interested to know how you arrived at this?
Are you stating that all points in time / change are states of consciousness, and therefore remain malleable to consciousness?

Does that mean that every action happens out of your mental state? — Josh Lee

In the absolute sense yes, but there may be trivial actions where mental states don't count for much.
However for the important decisions, where purpose and freedom are in conflict we tend to choose that which brings the most net happiness. This is sensible and even crucial, as depression is the absence of enjoyment in life, and it is not conducive to survival.

Stoics conquer desire, monks have eternal happiness in the afterlife. We all put it together differently, but to much the same end.

Freedom and purpose are not mutually exclusive, but there can be conflict between each other.
Nihilism does not ensures freedom, but a nihilist can be free in some aspects and yet constrained in others. — Josh Lee

Sorry to complicate things, but IMO any mental state has an associated emotional state ( qualia ). This emotional state provides the impetus for action / inaction ( purpose ).

If the nihilist is emotionally comfortable in their mentality, then the mental state is resolved.
However, if the nihilist is emotionally uncomfortable in their mental predicament, then some sort of resolution is required. The emotional discomfort provides the impetus for change - towards a more integrated and emotionally comfortable mentality.

I haven’t seen the Joker, but I would be willing to bet he is trying to satisfy some sort of emotional need, or reach an emotionally comfortable state . Batman achieves this emotionally comfortable state through different means.

We need to be emotionally comfortable with and optimistic about our conceptions of reality, and self.
If you have something like this understanding as a basis, then you can explain freedom and purpose in terms of it.

I'll second that:clap:

Consciousness entangles, Integrates and unifies information.
It is the only mental faculty that dose so.

When it comes to creativity – it is consciousness that is creative, by entangling, integrating and unifying information in various ways. When it comes to imagination, it is consciousness that entangles, integrates and unifies the imagined information.

When it comes to deciding on a work of art ( painting ) it is consciousness that decides on the canvas. It is consciousness that decides on image.It is consciousness that decides composition. It is consciousness that decides on colour.It is consciousness that decides how to mix the colours and whether the hues are correct. It is consciousness that decides which brush you use and how you place the paint on the canvas. It is consciousness that decides how well you are going. . It is consciousness that decides when the painting is finished. And it is consciousness that decides if it is a success or not.

So in the end what is the painting an expression of?

When it comes to deciding what art is, it is consciousness that makes the call!

It is the fundamental mental function from which all thought arises, and this is what we express when making art –our consciousness!

If I've got all that right, then I think this conception of philosophy is in that tradition and is a very important and very powerful interpretation. — Xtrix

Thanks Xtrix, thats very kind and generous.

I arrived at this via a definition of art. Philosophy and art share the same problem in that the output is endlessly variable and open ended. The results of tomorrow can not be conceived of today. So a different approach was required.

Unfortunately the interpretation dose not send a warm shiver up my spine, but I think what the sentence says is that it is consciousness, not philosophy or art that is special. It is consciousness that gives rise to the work – not philosophy or art. Philosophy and art are in fact modes of expressing consciousness. Whilst consciousness is the special immaterial thing creating them. It is the thing that ought to be celebrated.

The whole area of mind, perception, consciousness, I feel, requires significant renovation. The way I understand consciousness is more in line with IIT theory and GW theory, where consciousness is an information entangling / creating / integrating mental facility. From this perspective Mind is pretty much obsolete. Whilst consciousness is pretty much everything.

I would like to think I found something new, but Yogic Logic arrived at something like this some 5000 years ago!

Thanks again.

I can respect that you do, and that is the general understanding. But generally we do not understand consciousness, so I question the understanding.
Good luck with it, and thanks for your input.

My own understanding of consciousness is, of course, still evolving and highly speculative.
Have you considered creatures that do not have brains?

I feel the brain is important, perhaps central. But there is enormous cellular complexity that has to be accounted for. What controls epigenetics? We can remove an organ and it continues to function, independant of brain input. It seems to have a type of consciousness related to its function.
Ie: Covid has been defeated millions of times by the body's immune system, yet humanity is still trying.
Which is the more conscious in relation to this narrow task?

Superposition cannot be described as material.
Quantum fields cannot be described as material.
— Pop

Why not?
What means "matter" for you? — David Mo

When superposition is collapsed it becomes matter.

Consciousness is an evolving concept.
— Pop

I think it's good that the meanings of a word evolve, as long as it's not in a confusing way.
If we equate "consciousness" with "mind", I do not see how we can distinguish the whole of thought activities with the subset of self-awareness thoughts. — David Mo

You seem not to understand very much, yet you make bold statements.
This is an expression of your consciousness.

Do not feel too bad , we are all in this boat to some extent.

According to American philosopher John Searle: '' By "consciousness" I mean those states of sentience or awareness that typically begin when we wake up in the morning from a dreamless sleep and continue throughout the day until we fall asleep again. ''

Perhaps take up your inquiry there, I am otherwise busy.

Please do not confuse consciousness with mind! They are two words with different meanings. — David Mo

Consciousness is an evolving concept. I may get a little ahead of myself but I find your views a little dated. I tend to agree with IIT theory and GW theoty. I particularly like Roger Penrose’s cellular microtubule proposition.. I personally believe qualia informs consciousness, rather then the traditional view. I believe the world is coming to the view that mind is a state of consciousness. Where, put very simply, consciousness is a state of unified and integrated information and mind is a prolonged state of this.
What is your understanding of how mind manifests itself?

Second, there are no immaterial quanta — David Mo

Superposition cannot be described as material.
Quantum fields cannot be described as material.
If this is so, then they are immaterial.

That the Ducks are in a row is something you attribute to them.
Before there were people there were no rows, nor 1 2 3, nor Ducks!
Are these concepts not an expression of consciousness?

I agree with you. Consciousness is not a thing so much as a phenomena. A whole body , immaterial phenomena. However cellular microtubules sound promising as a possible location where the main action takes place – on an immaterial quantum level.

Philosophy isn't a subject so much as an activity, in which muddled ways of saying things are exposed and analysed. — Banno

Spot on.

To be more precise it is a mind activity. An activity of expressing your mind. The output of philosophical thought is information about the mind activity of the philosopher.

So:

Philosophy is an expression of human consciousness ( mind activity ).
Philosophical work is information about the mind activity ( consciousness ) of the philosopher.

This I take to be self evident, but some people don't get it until they are asked to produce a philosophical work that is not an expression of the philosophers mind activity! - not logically possible.

The question becomes can philosophy produce more then an expression of mind activity?
In a related thread - what is certain in philosophy? - the outcome was - Cogito, ergo sum.

But: I think therefore I am is information about the mind activity of Descartes.
It is an expression of his consciousness!

To confound things a little.

Art is an expression of human consciousness.
Art work is information about the artist's consciousness.

I do not think we disagree on that much. I used to understand things as you do - almost word for word.
I see things through a slightly different paradigm now, and I think the view is clearer.

I'm trying to impress on you, but without much success, that consciousness is the root of creativity.
Consciousness unifies and integrates information.
Creativity unifies and integrates information
This bears thinking about.

It is a desire to create. It is a human need to feel that we create our own lives. — EnPassant

Nobody can take this away from you. But as times change and new information comes to hand we have to adjust.We create a slightly different joyous reality. I'm reminded of a Yogic saying. it goes something like this: Sacrifice everything for awareness, but never sacrifice awareness for anything. As it is people of high awareness who live on in the minds of the collective consciousness forever. People like Plato, Aristotle, Kant, etc and this is true also in the arts. Perhaps it is closer to the truth to say we live on - in the creations of their minds?

Thank you for your interest. I wish you all the best.

What is the mind activity that leads you to create art? Is it not your consciousness?
— Pop

Yes, you could say consciousness — EnPassant

The philosophy that aligns with my definition is a combination of idealism, monism, and IIT theory
( Tononi ). Theory is different to fact, however the outcome in this case is very easily tested.
To negate the definition, you need only to produce a work of art from the whole of time, from any culture, that is not information about the artists consciousness.

As you have agreed with the above statement, this would be a logical impossibility for you.

but 'create' is the motivation — EnPassant

If you familiarize yourself with IIT theory you will see how creativity is a function of consciousness. That is: consciousness unifies and integrates information, and I postulate - in a creative process. It seems consciousness is creativity.

I do not understand creativity that is not an expression of consciousness - please enlighten me.

Art certainly is not about 'expression' let alone 'self expression' (what a silly notion). — EnPassant

That you feel the need to create something - what dose that express?

What is the mind activity that leads you to create art? Is it not your consciousness?

Not define and control, but describe and understand.

The status quo is what is fucking the world. It needs to be challenged - I'm doing what I can to that end.

Perhaps a thread where each member selects a favourite post ( not their own )?

I was just thinking about a thread on beauty / aesthetics - can we ground it in anything concrete? - I suspect not

Ha Ha , my bad. Thanks for the link anyway - I think its a clever format so will look into it anyway.

Yes, it sure has its marvellous moments; here's to more of the same. I was wondering more about how anyone would acknowledge any quotes made by participants in any writing project. — Amity

I suppose you would have to approach each person you quote? It could get very messy.

What do you paint and how ? — Amity

http://iamdamir.com/

What kind of consciousness ? — Amity

My preference would be the first kind that you mentioned. But I feel any efforts towards a better understanding of self would be beneficial. The second tv show is a start - at some point they will start questioning what they do and why.

Consciousness is the foundation of all that we do, yet we hardly understand it - how it creates a self interested reality, and why, amongst a myriad of other things. It seems great constructions are created on non existent foundations, so an exploration of these issues would benefit everyone, I believe, particularly on a world leader level.

I think that so many helpful and experienced posters here would love to see their thoughts reproduced in a more permanent way, such as an Article. Even if they don't want to write one themselves. What would that be if not an Individual Collective Creative Consciousness ? :chin: — Amity

It sounds like a good idea. Perhaps you could create an amalgam of favourite quotes article ?

I've had a look at your website and i like it. The 1000 word format sounds good. Ill submit something in the near future.

I originally tried to steer the thread in various ways, including the development of a definition, but these threads have a life of their own, so in the end I've stuck to my original definition.
The forum and the contributors, have been a wonderful help, I've placed a link to the thread on my website.

As an artist my main interest is to push the boundaries of art, and If the definition is true then this would set a boundary beyond which art could not push. Hopefully diverting it towards an exploration of consciousness.

Academic acceptance / reinforcement would be helpful, but exposure is more important, as this definition will either sink or swim in the mind of an end user. So I thank you for the invite.

After 8 years or so from today not a single atom in my body will still be there. I will be materially new yet the exact same person. How is this? — Benj96

Consciousness seems to be immaterial? I have heard quantum phenomena described as immaterial.

“A philosopher's words are empty if they do not heal the suffering of mankind. For just as medicine is useless if it does not remove sickness from the body, so philosophy is useless if it does not remove suffering from the soul.” — Statilius

I love your definition of philosophy Statillus. It and the above quote highlight how truth is not enough. Truth must be accompanied by a pleasant emotional response / result.

For me this provides a glimpse into how consciousness works - a computation in consciousness is accompanied by either a positive or negative emotional response.

I wonder, what if we were able to define philosophy logically and irrefutably, but it yielded a negative emotional response. Would we accept it? I doubt it . I think we would deny and repress it whilst we searched for something we were emotionally comfortable with??

But is a reflection of ones conciousness necessarily philosophy? — Outlander

No, but expressing our consciousness seems to be something we fundamentally do. Either by philosophizing or raging, or however else.

what is your (or anyones) thoughts on saying it is the act of questioning the inherent views, conclusions, mechanisms, or observations of ones consciousness in a way that can be logically expressed? — Outlander

-This would be in the ballpark, I believe.

Philosophy is a reflection of our consciousness. It reveals how we construe reality.

Thanks Outlander, and welcome to the forum

to sum up what art is is how a person expresses what they see, feel, imagine, etc. — Julia

- expressing their consciousness

Welcome to the forum.

I agree that art can be all the things you suggest it should be, but at the same time believe that it need not be any of those things to be art. Indeed it could be the antithesis of all that you suggest, and still be art. So what is art?

To answer the question I have tried to identify elements that are always present in all art work- from the whole of time and across all cultures, even the future and arrived at the conclusion that those elements are 1:art work is information and 2: the information reflects the artists consciousness. These are the only two elements present in every art work ever made. Everything else is variable, but these two elements must be present. Wittgenstein could not find any constituent elements, he only saw variability, so concluded that art cannot be defined.

After forming the definition : art work is information about the artist's consciousness, I then asked myself is this all art can be? can it be more then this? I concluded that as art must always arise out of the artists consciousness it cannot be more then this. I use John Searle's definition of consciousness.

I don’t believe the definition diminishes art’s standing in any way. On the contrary I believe it raises it to new heights – If information is fundamental, then so must consciousness be. –so it is entirely fitting that we artists have been expressing something fundamental all along.

I’m trying to see if any philosophers have entertained this idea or developed it. Maybe some eastern thinkers? — trufflebasket

Yogic logic / Buddhism are theories of consciousness - there are many flavours however, so you have to do your own legwork. Panpsychism is the modern western scientific version : https://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/

Yes, pointing that out makes a huge difference.

This is an amateurs' forum, so one doesn't expect credentialed experts to spend time here — jgill

This is not very enlightened talk - I'm surprised to hear it from such an enlightened mathematical artist.

If you understand the underlying philosophy, you understand you create your own reality - always - you cant escape it. That being the case it makes no sense not to create a joyous reality for yourself and others.

Yes, I like that :rofl: well said - and i agree - as we get older we are better able to integrate and unify ideas, and deal with situations, and that is a form of enlightenment.

So you are saying there are many forms of enlightenment??