Is Matter Conscious? - Can All Matter Be Conscious?

[BBruch]

If everything in the universe is for the most part made of matter, (to keep the idea simple we'll just say it's all protons neutrons and electrons although I understand you can get smaller with the protons and neutrons)stars, people, cars, oceans, planets.. EVERYTHING is made of the same small units of matter, how is it that some matter is conscious? For example people. We are made from the same matter as a wall of iron (on a subatomic level), so theoretically couldn't all matter could be conscious??

Also, I know there is "anti matter" so not everything is trully matter but for the most part anti matter is matter, just a different charge than we are used to.

I understand there isn't much proof a forum could provide to such a vague idea. But I hope you all can atleast see what I'm thinking. And please refrain from talking about god. For all intents and purposes this is a "godless" world.

 

[FlexGunship]

Is matter conscious?

No. There's no evidence that matter (in general) has consciousness.

<opinion>
At a certain level of complexity, some stimulus/response systems can create the illusion (humans do this for example) of self-generating desires and actions. For all intents and purposes we call this illusion consciousness.

So, to close out this idea: consciousness is an illusion created by complexity, and it seems that an iron atom is not complex enough to create this illusion.
</opinion>

 

[stevenstritt]

Read "Shadows of the Mind" by Roger Penrose. He proposed that consciousness is a non-computable phenomenon that arises from an as yet unknown quantum process. Great read from a brilliant mind!

 

[LennoxLewis]

No. There's no evidence that matter (in general) has consciousness.

<opinion>
At a certain level of complexity, some stimulus/response systems can create the illusion (humans do this for example) of self-generating desires and actions. For all intents and purposes we call this illusion consciousness.

So, to close out this idea: consciousness is an illusion created by complexity, and it seems that an iron atom is not complex enough to create this illusion.
</opinion>

What makes you say it's an illusion?

The topic starter's reasoning is sound: if "flesh" can have consciousness, then certainly iron can too. In theory.

 

[hl_world]

Consciousness is just an emergent process that has to be programmed, not an inherent property. Matter can be programmed because of inherent properties (electrons for atomic bonding, chemistry, electrical induction) but it requires these things to work in complexly specific ways. Think about it with other emergent processes like calculations and problem solving; computers can do these things but can the silicon just found in sand?

 

[Gokul43201]

If everything in the universe is for the most part ... of the same small units of matter, how is it that some matter is conscious? For example people. We are made from the same matter as a wall of iron (on a subatomic level), so theoretically couldn't all matter could be conscious??

If everything is made of the same small units of matter, how is it that some matter is ...

1)...liquid? For Example, water. Water is made from the same matter as a wall of iron (on a subatomic level), so theoretically couldn't all matter be liquid?

2)...orange? For example, an orange. An orange is made from the same matter as a wall of iron (on a subatomic level), so theoretically couldn't all matter be orange?

3)...etc - you get the idea.

The answer: Macroscopic properties (such as liquidity, orangeness or consciousness) emerge due to not only the properties of the constituents, but also due to the nature of interactions between those constituents. For instance, by tweaking the strength of interactions between a collection of water molecules, one can make them be solid, liquid or gas. While there may not yet be a good first principles understanding of the origin of consciousness (assuming, for now, that this is a well-defined property), there is no reason to expect all forms of matter to possesses it, any more than there is reason to expect all forms of matter to be orange.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

At a certain level of complexity, some stimulus/response systems can create the illusion (humans do this for example) of self-generating desires and actions. For all intents and purposes we call this illusion consciousness.

Who is being fooled by the illusion?

It seems to me that Descartes addressed this issue.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The answer: Macroscopic properties (such as liquidity, orangeness or consciousness) emerge due to not only the properties of the constituents, but also due to the nature of interactions between those constituents. For instance, by tweaking the strength of interactions between a collection of water molecules, one can make them be solid, liquid or gas. While there may not yet be a good first principles understanding of the origin of consciousness (assuming, for now, that this is a well-defined property), there is no reason to expect all forms of matter to possesses it, any more than there is reason to expect all forms of matter to be orange.

However, given that have no good first principles for understanding consciousness, we can't know the minimum requirements for a physical system to become conscious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, it doesn't seem that we can we assume that size matters - that is to say that we have no way to know the maximum size of a conscious system.

 

[waht]

The consciousness is emergent from a vast interconnected network of neurons in the brain.

A clump of clay is just a homogeneous collection of atoms. A clump of brain is also a collection of atoms, but they are arranged to form higher order structures, the neurons, in a such a way as to allow the vast networking between them to take place.

 

[epenguin]

Yes it requires an organisation of matter such as just mentioned by waht though not necessarily would it have to be so vast, that is capable of receiving signals from surroundings and receiving signal of what it is doing itself and the response of the environment to its own actions and being able to process the information received so that it is information that enables it to construct models of itself and its environment giving it predictive power functional to its survival and reproduction. That really is 'intelligence', even bacteria do that, it is not obvious at what level consciousness comes in. (I suspect it is farther down in the animal kingdom than we think). I think of consciousness as something that is needed for proper flexibility in overriding automatisms or enabling the best choice of model of environment and itself. Now I have written this it occurs to me that the need for modelling itself, not just environment, must have key importance in creating consciousness.

 

[Q_Goest]

If everything in the universe is for the most part made of matter, (to keep the idea simple we'll just say it's all protons neutrons and electrons although I understand you can get smaller with the protons and neutrons)stars, people, cars, oceans, planets.. EVERYTHING is made of the same small units of matter, how is it that some matter is conscious? For example people. We are made from the same matter as a wall of iron (on a subatomic level), so theoretically couldn't all matter could be conscious??

To some degree this sounds like panpsychism.

Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality. ... This definition is quite general, and raises two immediate questions: (1) What does one mean by “all things”? (2) What does one mean by “mind”? On the first question, some philosophers have argued that literally every object in the universe, every part of every object, and every system of objects possesses some mind-like quality. Other philosophers have been more restrictive, arguing that only certain broad classes of things possesses mind (in which case one is perhaps not a true panpsychist), or that, at least, the smallest parts of things—such as atoms—possess mind. The second question—what is mind?—is more difficult and contentious. Here panpsychism is on neither better nor worse footing than any other approach to mind; it argues only that one’s notion of mind, however conceived, must apply in some degree to all things.

Ref: http://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/

 

[brainstorm]

The following is an idea I ponder from time to time regarding the relationship between consciousness and its material infrastructure. Take it as food for though or an amusement:

Consider a human or animal body as a biological machine that is the most effective means for consciousness to manipulate other physicalities while experiencing cognitive-emotional thought-feelings (I hyphenate "thought-feelings" to indicate that thoughts are more than pure informatic events within human experience - they stimulate emotional feelings in one way or another too). As such, a human or animal body may be the most attractive "vessel" for a consciousness to inhabit.

Now, what if consciousness is nothing more than an electromagnetic pattern that forms in brain/nerve tissue due to the conductive connectivity of those cells? And what if such electromagnetic patterns can reproduce themselves into other materials? In that case, could it be possible that consciousness clings to a human body as long as it can, but that it may reproduce itself into other materials when that body becomes hostile due to tissue-death, unbearable suffering, etc.? At that point, could the consciousness seek to transplant itself through various material media in search of a new body?

Yes, I know this is all very spiritual/religious-sounding. My point is that the medium of brain/nerve tissue may be particularly well-suited to consciousness but that other media may also work, at least as a temporary conduit to transfer on to more favorable hosts. So, for example, if consciousness would situate itself within an electronic appliance (such as a radio), it could perceive signals it would receive through the appliance but it would not have access to musculature that would let it manipulate its surroundings, so it would seek to transplant itself into a pregnant woman or animal (although it would probably prefer a human).

This is basically a logic for reincarnation, but it would also explain all the traditional superstitions about spirits living in material artifacts, houses, etc.

 

[apeiron]

...process the information received so that it is information that enables it to construct models of itself and its environment giving it predictive power functional to its survival and reproduction. That really is 'intelligence', even bacteria do that, it is not obvious at what level consciousness comes in...

When talking of levels, people are normally thinking of spatial scale - big brains vs small ones. But there is also a temporal scale that helps make sense of the degrees of "conscious experience".

The kind of awareness we think of as conscious is the direct, immediate modelling of the world "right now". In fact even our big brains can only change state significantly (shift from one point of view, on attentional state, to the next) in about a third to half a second. So if awareness is modelling and predicting, then it has a rate of adaptation which is circa 300-500 milliseconds.

But there are slower modes of adaptation. Learning habits or automaticisms can take days, months, years. The learning of reflexes takes generations of evolution.

You would not call these conscious responses (although we can be conscious of them). But they are a kind of slow-mo adaptation to the world. They are definitely intelligence.

So the debate about when consciousness kicks in has possibly even more to do with the rate of model change as the size of the model - its neural complexity or some other spatial measure.

Imagine an alien that could only refocus attention every two seconds, or ten minutes. Would the alien be conscious? (Or just stoned?). They would move about more slowly and cautiously. They would take longer to register changes in the world. They would be conscious, although clearly not enjoying the same zippy speed we seem to have.

Alternately, why not an alien with a higher rate of update? Then we might seem semi-conscious.

 

[Gokul43201]

However, given that have no good first principles for understanding consciousness, we can't know the minimum requirements for a physical system to become conscious.

This doesn't contradict anything I said, does it?

 

[pftest]

If everything is made of the same small units of matter, how is it that some matter is ...

1)...liquid? For Example, water. Water is made from the same matter as a wall of iron (on a subatomic level), so theoretically couldn't all matter be liquid?

2)...orange? For example, an orange. An orange is made from the same matter as a wall of iron (on a subatomic level), so theoretically couldn't all matter be orange?

3)...etc - you get the idea.

Arent those words (liquid, orange) just higher level descriptions (and arbitrary ones at that), as opposed to actual new macroscopic properties beyond the existing microscopic ones?

 

[pftest]

No. There's no evidence that matter (in general) has consciousness.

<opinion>
At a certain level of complexity, some stimulus/response systems can create the illusion (humans do this for example) of self-generating desires and actions. For all intents and purposes we call this illusion consciousness.

So, to close out this idea: consciousness is an illusion created by complexity, and it seems that an iron atom is not complex enough to create this illusion.
</opinion>

Illusions are by definition conscious activities. So when you say that consciousness is an illusion, you say nothing more than that consciousness is consciousness.

But suppose consciousness is a complexity of matter, why would consciousness not have a simpler version, just like that complexity has a simpler version? According to evolution, the brain has simpler ancestors, and it eventually traces back to simpler biological structures such as microbes, which in turn have simpler forms all the way back to inanimate matter.

 

[epenguin]

Now, what if consciousness is nothing more than an electromagnetic pattern that forms in brain/nerve tissue due to the conductive connectivity of those cells? And what if such electromagnetic patterns can reproduce themselves into other materials? In that case, could it be possible that consciousness clings to a human body as long as it can, but that it may reproduce itself into other materials when that body becomes hostile due to tissue-death, unbearable suffering, etc.? At that point, could the consciousness seek to transplant itself through various material media in search of a new body?

Yes, I know this is all very spiritual/religious-sounding. My point is that the medium of brain/nerve tissue may be particularly well-suited to consciousness but that other media may also work, at least as a temporary conduit to transfer on to more favorable hosts. So, for example, if consciousness would situate itself within an electronic appliance (such as a radio), it could perceive signals it would receive through the appliance but it would not have access to musculature that would let it manipulate its surroundings, so it would seek to transplant itself into a pregnant woman or animal (although it would probably prefer a human).

This is basically a logic for reincarnation, but it would also explain all the traditional superstitions about spirits living in material artifacts, houses, etc.

It does not sound unscientific to me. It sounds a perfectly materialistic idea that the circuitry of the human brain and hence an individual's consciousness might be reproduced in another material, silicon or whatever.

And not just one single consciousness. J.D.Bernal, certainly a materialist, speculated many years ago that different individual consciousnesses might one day be fused together in some such way. Though it sounds like the fullest possible consciousness - the idea of heaven, or perhaps hell.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What experimental evidence do you have for or against atoms of iron having consciousness?

 

[zomgwtf]

What experimental evidence do you have for or against atoms of iron having consciousness?

Galen Stawson?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Galen Stawson?

That's a person's name. I was looking for an experiment.

 

[zomgwtf]

That's a person's name. I was looking for an experiment.

Why so serious?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why so serious?

You got me with an atom of irony.

 

[Maui]

So, hmm if... you know, excuse me but say somebody goes to the toilet... would you say that'd be conscious too?

If yes, what kind of definition of 'conscious' are you using?

 

[Maui]

But suppose consciousness is a complexity of matter, why would consciousness not have a simpler version, just like that complexity has a simpler version?

It has. Some animals look completely unconscious to me(in the sense of complete deterministic, instict-driven machines, e.g. flies, butterflies, worms). Some look slightly conscious - cats, dogs, chimps.

About 40 000 years ago we, homosapiens, became more conscious of ourselves and the testament for this is the beginning of art(the first cave writings).

We've become more conscious of ourselves and reality in the last 3-4 centuries, so one has to wonder if it will ever stop.

 

[Maui]

What experimental evidence do you have for or against atoms of iron having consciousness?

Did you mean some kind of cosmic consciousness that pervades spacetime and hypothetically guides the physical laws and constants towards the 'emergence' of life and self-awareness?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Did you mean some kind of cosmic consciousness that pervades spacetime and hypothetically guides the physical laws and constants towards the 'emergence' of life and self-awareness?

I mean an experiment. You know, test tubes, electrodes, van de Graff generators.

 

[Evo]

Maui, do you know how to use the *mulitquote* button? It's to prevent multiple small posts in response to more than one member.

 

[brainstorm]

It does not sound unscientific to me. It sounds a perfectly materialistic idea that the circuitry of the human brain and hence an individual's consciousness might be reproduced in another material, silicon or whatever.

And not just one single consciousness. J.D.Bernal, certainly a materialist, speculated many years ago that different individual consciousnesses might one day be fused together in some such way. Though it sounds like the fullest possible consciousness - the idea of heaven, or perhaps hell.

Yes, it is materialistic but that is why I think it sounds silly. Typically modern materialism scoffs at "superstitious religious ideas" like reincarnation and poltergeists. Nevertheless, my thought was/is that consciousness could quite easily reproduce itself into other media than the nervous system of a given individual. I would still expect this process to be rather traumatic and involve loss of mind and memories, for example. Since consciousness tends to identify with the cognitive patterns of the particular brain where it is situated, I think it resists death and other reasons for transplantation. Nevertheless, when pushed to escape a given body/nervous-system, it may do so and begin instinctively searching for a more viable host medium/body. If this was observable in some way, it would be interesting to know exactly what would be left over in conciousness if thoughts and memories were left behind in the vacated body. Is it possible to imagine one's consciousness spontaneously transplanting into a nearby electrical circuit until a receptive fetal nervous system would get near enough to transplant into? Could "spirits" fly around as pure magnetic-field interference patterns? Could they fly to other galaxies as radiant emissions? All interesting as mystical spiritual speculation but is there any point to discussing the plausibility of such ideas? I.e. I can't imagine ever being able to identify patterns of electromagnetic activity to define them as extra-corporeal consciousness. Can you?

 

[DaveC426913]

Illusions are by definition conscious activities. So when you say that consciousness is an illusion, you say nothing more than that consciousness is consciousness.

No, this is just a play on words. It does not follow logic.

 

[Pythagorean]

No, this is just a play on words. It does not follow logic.

But how can something experience illusions without consciousness? I don't understand that. I mean, his post was kind of framed as word play, but I don't see how a rock can have illusions unless it's conscious.

 

[Maui]

I mean an experiment. You know, test tubes, electrodes, van de Graff generators.

Please define what you mean by 'conscious'. Do you mean that atoms and electrons have a personal experience? What about just one atom in isolation?

Is a dead and unconscious body still conscious in some sense, or is it just the consciousness of the atoms persisting?

Maui, do you know how to use the *mulitquote* button? It's to prevent multiple small posts in response to more than one member.

Point taken.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Please define what you mean by 'conscious'.

If you think that atoms are conscious, then I would prefer that you tell me what you mean by conscious and then give me your experimental evidence for it. If you think that atoms are not conscious, I would prefer that you tell me what you mean by conscious and then give me your experimental evidence against it. If you don't have an opinion either way, then what does it matter how I define it or whether I define it at all?

 

[Maui]

If you think that atoms are conscious, then I would prefer that you tell me what you mean by conscious and then give me your experimental evidence for it. If you think that atoms are not conscious, I would prefer that you tell me what you mean by conscious and then give me your experimental evidence against it. If you don't have an opinion either way, then what does it matter how I define it or whether I define it at all?

Experimental evidence deals with observable phenomena, i can't prove experimentally that an invisible elephant has not been following me for years. It's not the role of science to provide evidence against such a possibility. It doesn't however point to a conclusion that there could be an elephant. Observationally, atoms do not exhibit features that would qualify them as 'conscious'. Are you sure you didn't mean 'alive' instead of 'conscious'?

 

[pftest]

It has. Some animals look completely unconscious to me(in the sense of complete deterministic, instict-driven machines, e.g. flies, butterflies, worms). Some look slightly conscious - cats, dogs, chimps.

That could be just our flawed human interpretation of animal behaviour.

As for flies, look at this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516071806.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news177692594.html

Experimental evidence deals with observable phenomena, i can't prove experimentally that an invisible elephant has not been following me for years or that i am conscious.

Ive inserted the bold purple bit. Consciousness is just as invisible as the invisible elephant. There is no way we can directly observe it in others. We can only infer based on extrapolation of our own behaviour.

No, this is just a play on words. It does not follow logic.

Saying that consciousness is an illusion, falls in the same category as saying that consciousness is a dream, a hallucination, a vision, etc. Each of those are already conscious activities in the first place (they are experienced), so there is nothing materialistic about any of those statements.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Experimental evidence deals with observable phenomena, i can't prove experimentally that an invisible elephant has not been following me for years. It's not the role of science to provide evidence against such a possibility. It doesn't however point to a conclusion that there could be an elephant. Observationally, atoms do not exhibit features that would qualify them as 'conscious'. Are you sure you didn't mean 'alive' instead of 'conscious'?

The role of science is to match theory with fact. In the absence of fact, it is the duty of science to keep its big mouth shut.

 

[Maui]

That could be just our flawed human interpretation of animal behaviour.

As for flies, look at this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516071806.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news177692594.html

I am not qualified to judge the authors' work, but having read the articles, there appears to be just too much personal opinion in their conclusions.

Ive inserted the bold purple bit. Consciousness is just as invisible as the invisible elephant. There is no way we can directly observe it in others. We can only infer based on extrapolation of our own behaviour.

If i am not conscious, who am i talking to? It's not that i have to prove that I am conscious but that anyone else is. If i am talking to you or anyone else, it means that i am conscious(aware), even if you aren't real.

Saying that consciousness is an illusion, falls in the same category as saying that consciousness is a dream, a hallucination, a vision, etc. Each of those are already conscious activities in the first place (they are experienced), so there is nothing materialistic about any of those statements.

Consciousness is an illusion is an oxymoron.

 

[Maui]

The role of science is to match theory with fact. In the absence of fact, it is the duty of science to keep its big mouth shut.

For a fact, science doesn't claim what is real, what exists, how it exists, why it exists, etc. This qualifies as "keeping its big mouth shut" as far as i am concerned. I am wondering if what you are proposing isn't influenced by some interpretations of the DCE with and without the eraser and the uncertainty principle?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

For a fact, science doesn't claim what is real, what exists, how it exists, why it exists, etc. This qualifies as "keeping its big mouth shut" as far as i am concerned. I am wondering if what you are proposing isn't influenced by some interpretations of the DCE with and without the eraser and the uncertainty principle?

So far, the only thing I have suggested is that someone come up with an experiment. And so far, I have had no takers, just talkers. That isn't what I call "keeping its big mouth shut".

 

[apeiron]

That could be just our flawed human interpretation of animal behaviour.

An even more impressive example of invertebrate cognition is the jumping spider, Portia...
http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/Sinclair ZX80 spiders.pdf

This is one of the reasons I stress the temporal aspect of "consciousness". Portia builds up its model of the world as a slow scan.

 

[ThomasT]

So far, the only thing I have suggested is that someone come up with an experiment. And so far, I have had no takers, just talkers.

I don't know if this qualifies, but I've spent a certain amount of time observing and interacting with my car's hubcaps, and, in the old days, my Jimmy Connors T2000 tennis racquet. The results are inconclusive, but they don't 'seem' conscious.

Anyway, wrt the OP's consideration, I like what a couple of the earlier posters wrote. My take is that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon peculiar to living complex organisms that, at the level of fundamental physical dynamics, doesn't matter.

 

[DaveC426913]

So far, the only thing I have suggested is that someone come up with an experiment. And so far, I have had no takers, just talkers. That isn't what I call "keeping its big mouth shut".

I don't know if this qualifies, but I've spent a certain amount of time observing and interacting with my car's hubcaps, and, in the old days, my Jimmy Connors T2000 tennis racquet. The results are inconclusive, but they don't 'seem' conscious.

That qualifies as evidence in my books.

Jimmy? Counter-evidence?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That qualifies as evidence in my books.

Proof by authority?

 

[DaveC426913]

Proof by authority?

No, proof by preponderance of evidence. Observation of hubcaps and tennis racquets has elicited no evidence of consciousness. My own independent follow-up experiments have corroborated the earlier study (though, so far, only for hubcaps not for racquets).

Care to produce your evidence to the contrary?

 

[Gokul43201]

No, proof by preponderance of evidence. Observation of hubcaps and tennis racquets has elicited no evidence of consciousness. My own independent follow-up experiments have corroborated the earlier study (though, so far, only for hubcaps not for racquets).

I don't thing you have understood what Jimmy asked for. Jimmy asked the audience to describe experiments, and your response was, essentially: we've done the experiments - trust us - they demonstrate such-and-such. That is not a description of an experiment. That is simply asking someone to take your word for it.

Care to produce your evidence to the contrary?

I don't see anywhere that he claimed to have evidence to the contrary.

 

[DaveC426913]

Jimmy asked you to describe experiments, and your response is essentially: we've done the experiments - trust us - they demonstrate such-and-such. That is not a description of an experiment. That is simply asking someone to take your word for it.

I admit the experiment was not very rigorous. We listened to the hubcaps and prodded them and asked them questions and attached EEGs to them and we did not get any evidence of consciousness.

While that is not conclusive, it does strongly hint that it's likely not there unless there's some evidence to the contrary.

I don't see anywhere that he claim to have evidence to the contrary.

He doesn't. So our seat-of-the-pants tests are the only evidence. Is there reason to challenge the results? Is there evidence to the contrary?

 

[Pythagorean]

I admit the experiment was not very rigorous. We listened to the hubcaps and prodded them and asked them questions and attached EEGs to them and we did not get any evidence of consciousness.

While that is not conclusive, it does strongly hint that it's likely not there unless there's some evidence to the contrary.


He doesn't. So our seat-of-the-pants tests are the only evidence. Is there reason to challenge the results? Is there evidence to the contrary?

Evidence can be found following the challenge, as is often the case with nonlinear systems: some strange behavior comes out of a theoretical biology model and the experimentalists say "whatever... it's just some computer artifact" until one experimenter is interested enough and then they actually find the behavior once they drive the system to bifurcate as in the model.

This is essentially the same thing, only our models are in a very nascent and qualitative state right now. Is there any evidence, in the first place, that consciousness is something unique to humans/mammals/living things (whatever your personal bias)

Or the same question asked from another perspective... is there any reason to believe that we're more conscious than a rock? Or are we just more complex?

My assumption may align with yours; I think that consciousness results from the higher complexity; I wouldn't be surprised if a single-celled organism had some limited form of consciousness, but rocks and tires don't seem to. However, that's not reasonable to just state it and leave it there. We still have to prove either philosophically that it must be, or empirically that it is.

The major difficulty is that already, you can't prove that any other humans are conscious unless you define it behaviorally (which isn't satisfactory to most philosophers). You only infer it from our assumed likeness to you.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I admit the experiment was not very rigorous. We listened to the hubcaps and prodded them and asked them questions and attached EEGs to them and we did not get any evidence of consciousness.

While that is not conclusive, it does strongly hint that it's likely not there unless there's some evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps you should have tried an FMRI-based experiment.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/fmrisalmon/

 

[schizoid]

I admit the experiment was not very rigorous. We listened to the hubcaps and prodded them and asked them questions and attached EEGs to them and we did not get any evidence of consciousness.

While that is not conclusive, it does strongly hint that it's likely not there unless there's some evidence to the contrary.


He doesn't. So our seat-of-the-pants tests are the only evidence. Is there reason to challenge the results? Is there evidence to the contrary?

couldn't that be a more human way of looking at consciousness , by attaching EEGs you are looking for electrical signals that produces a spike or waveforms and if it is absent it pronounced dead or not living. Maybe conscioucness has to do more with complexity such as neurons and its connections and their interactionwith the surrounding.

 

[Maui]

Anyway, wrt the OP's consideration, I like what a couple of the earlier posters wrote. My take is that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon peculiar to living complex organisms that, at the level of fundamental physical dynamics, doesn't matter.

To sum up - only specific wave-structures like us humans(taking decoherence as a preferred interpretation) are allowed to display magical emergent phenomena like consciousness. The other wave-forms(hubcaps, tennis racquets,...) don't enjoy the same level of emergence.