Is Matter Conscious? - Can All Matter Be Conscious?

[DaveC426913]

Proof is just one aspect of knowledge. Instead of worrying about whether something can be proven or disproven, why not concern yourself with "if/then" problems? E.g. whether or not consciousness can be proven to exist in animals, plants, or non-living things, you can contemplate what it would be like to be conscious as a dog, cat, tree, or laptop by looking at what data-inputs the candidate has and what kind of processing it has at its disposal. You can look at its behavioral options and whether it has the capacity to make choices, and what the basis for its choices might be. This is all much more interesting, imo, than trying to prove/disprove something that hasn't been proved/disproved throughout human history (as far as I know anyway).

This was gonig to be my next comment.

How do we move ahead using Occam's razor?
If we assume atoms do not have consciousness, how far can we go if we're wrong. If we assume they do, how far can we go?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The simple fact is that, at least until we know the cause of consciounsess, there can be no evidence that atoms do not have consciousness; you cannot prove a negative.

Science can't prove a positive either. My comments were not directed toward the cause of consciousness, but rather to the existence of it. I thought that I had set a simple agenda, but it has been interpretted by several people in unexpected ways. All I am asking is if anyone has any experimental evidence to go on, or is this all just idle speculation?

The best science can do is offer Occam's razor. I think this is what Jimmy is getting at.

I don't think that this is what I was getting at. As I said in a earlier post, science is supposed to match up theory with fact. In the absence of fact, science is at a loss and should butt out of the conversation. It is then the philosophers' choice to apply Occam's razor, or any other criterion if they wish to continue their idle speculations.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science can't prove a positive either.

Why not? Do you mean specifically consciousness or in general?

I mean, OK, science can't prove that there are two apples on the table or that they bounce off each other when pushed together, but how much of a preponderance of evidence is enough?

I don't think that this is what I was getting at. As I said in a earlier post, science is supposed to match up theory with fact. In the absence of fact, science is at a loss and should butt out of the conversation.

I don't agree. Science is designed to result in a theory that tries to explain the evidence. It grants that the theory is not conclusive.

It sounds to me like you're thinking that science is nothing more than the experiment itself, and science ends with the delivery of the data, no interpretation.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why not? Do you mean specifically consciousness or in general?

I mean, OK, science can't prove that there are two apples on the table or that they bounce off each other when pushed together, but how much of a preponderance of evidence is enough?

The best science can hope for is to fail to disprove (although fame and fortune go to those who succeed at disproving something). Just because the apple fell down every time we observed it, doesn't mean that it will fall down the next time. The theory is that it will fall down. The fact is it fell down. Theory matches fact. We will accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

 

[DaveC426913]

The best science can hope for is to fail to disprove (although fame and fortune go to those who succeed at disproving something). Just because the apple fell down every time we observed it, doesn't mean that it will fall down the next time. The theory is that it will fall down. The fact is it fell down. Theory matches fact. We will accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

But that is not the same as butting out of the conversation. Science can make a strong claim that apples fall down in a given set of circumstances. Inasmuch as a preponderance of evidence forms an accepted theory, science can form an accepted theory, meaning life can move on as if it is true for practical purposes (even while further tests can falsify it).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

But that is not the same as butting out of the conversation. Science can make a strong claim that apples fall down in a given set of circumstances. Inasmuch as a preponderance of evidence forms an accepted theory, science can form an accepted theory, meaning life can move on as if it is true for practical purposes (even while further tests can falsify it).

Science is for matching theory with fact. In the matter of falling apples, there is plenty of fact and therefore no reason for science to keep quiet. In the matter of whether atoms have consciousness, if there is no fact for science to work with, then science should remain silent and let the philosophers have at it. Knock yourselves out.

 

[Maui]

The best science can hope for is to fail to disprove (although fame and fortune go to those who succeed at disproving something). Just because the apple fell down every time we observed it, doesn't mean that it will fall down the next time. The theory is that it will fall down. The fact is it fell down. Theory matches fact. We will accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

This is what 'being rational' is(at least in human terms). One has to believe that the world is rational and follows rational principles if science is to foster. We can't prove that there is no demon fooling us(me) about what everything is, so a bit of seemingly reasonable belief is mandatory if we are to retain our ability to reason in a meaningful way. By believing that the universe is rational, i am able to discard a lot of unbelievable propositions(e.g. that rocks are conscious but are acting in ways that make them seem as if they were not).

Evidence of no evidence?

Do you believe that the universe is rational? Do you worry that you may encounter totally unexplained and uncaused events? Say a dolphin which might jump out of your monitor? There is no evidence that it won't and based on the problem of induction and with a bit of quantum uncertainty, there is a theoretical possibility that it might.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science is for matching theory with fact. In the matter of falling apples, there is plenty of fact and therefore no reason for science to keep quiet. In the matter of whether atoms have consciousness, if there is no fact for science to work with, then science should remain silent and let the philosophers have at it. Knock yourselves out.

But that's simply getting back to the idea that you can prove a positive (apples bounce) but cannot prove a negative.

Question: do you think that the primary reason why consciousness is outside the realm of science is because we do not understand its cause yet? If we determined where consciousness arises, do you think science could then venture an assertion as to whether atoms have it?

 

[Maui]

Science is for matching theory with fact. In the matter of falling apples, there is plenty of fact and therefore no reason for science to keep quiet. In the matter of whether atoms have consciousness, if there is no fact for science to work with, then science should remain silent and let the philosophers have at it. Knock yourselves out.

There is some ambiguity as to what an atom is. According to the modern atomic model, criptic as a classical description might be, an atom is its probability distribution. What reason do we have to seek consciousness in something that is ill-defined in classical terms? Do we have evidence that atoms are not for example tiny animals? Has anyone come up with an experiment to disprove or prove that they are not?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The purpose of science is to match theory with fact. Keep that in mind as you read on.

But that's simply getting back to the idea that you can prove a positive (apples bounce) but cannot prove a negative.

No. I have a theory: Apples fall down. I have a fact: I have never seen apples fall anyway but down. Theory matches fact and so I accept the theory. My job as a scientist is finished. However, there are two important things that are left unsettled. What happened to all those apples that I didn't observe? Did they fall down too? And what of the future? Will the next apple fall down? Therefore, I accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

Question: do you think that the primary reason why consciousness is outside the realm of science is because we do not understand its cause yet? If we determined where consciousness arises, do you think science could then venture an assertion as to whether atoms have it?

By no means. I think that the question "Are atoms conscious?" is outside the realm of science because, unlike falling apples, I have no experimental data to work with. How can I, as a scientist ever hope to match theory with fact when there are no facts lying about to work with? Come up with an experiment of some kind. Instead of examining your belly button, examine the world. What do you see? I will accept your reports from the field as facts and perhaps even come up with a theory that matches those facts. What have you got?

 

[pftest]

I don't think it makes sense to use occams razor to assume atoms lack consciousness, because i do not think it provides a "simpler" explanation for human consciousness than we would have if atoms were conscious. For one we end up needing a strange kind of emergence that doesn't really fit in with how anything else in nature works. Similarly, we do not get a simpler explanation for an eels electric organ by assuming that there was no electromagnetism before eels existed.

 

[DaveC426913]

Therefore, I accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

And in the mean time, you proceed as if apples fall down, unless there is reason to suppose otherwise.

Why would you not do the same with non-conscious atoms?

By no means. I think that the question "Are atoms conscious?" is outside the realm of science because, unlike falling apples, I have no experimental data to work with. How can I, as a scientist ever hope to match theory with fact when there are no facts lying about to work with? Come up with an experiment of some kind. Instead of examining your belly button, examine the world. What do you see? I will accept your reports from the field as facts and perhaps even come up with a theory that matches those facts. What have you got?

But since it is impossible to prove a negative, you can treat repeated negative results as evidence.

It's one thing to say 'no evidence of God does not mean there's no God', because God could be around the next corner.

But we can test for the difference between consciousness and not consciousness. A live person who is conscious has brain waves, a dead person does not. If we examine all things, we can divide them into things that emit a certain complexity of brain waves and things that don't, invariably, there will be a correlation between that group and the group of conscious things versus not-conscious things as we understand consciousness.

This is not a litmus test by any means, I'm not suggesting it is, what I'm suggesting is that tests for consciousness in atoms ought to turn up evidence if it were there.

We don't detect it; we should be able to move forward saying it's probably not there, just like we can move forward saying there probably is not a teacup orbiting Jupiter.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think it makes sense to use occams razor to assume atoms lack consciousness, because i do not think it provides a "simpler" explanation for human consciousness than we would have if atoms were conscious. For one we end up needing a strange kind of emergence that doesn't really fit in with how anything else in nature works. Similarly, we do not get a simpler explanation for an eels electric organ by assuming that there was no electromagnetism before eels existed.

So, your theory then is that, because humans have consciousness, it is more likely that all atoms in the universe have consciousness. To you, it does not makes sense that consciousness may be an emergent property of a collection of atoms.

Why do small animals not exhibit this consciousness? Why not pebbles? Why not planets and stars, which are much larger and more complex than us, not exhibit it?

Your theory raises more questions than it answers; it has more exceptions than rules. And that is the whole intent of Occam's razor, to avoid multiplying entities needing explanations.

 

[pftest]

But we can test for the difference between consciousness and not consciousness. A live person who is conscious has brain waves, a dead person does not. If we examine all things, we can divide them into things that emit a certain complexity of brain waves and things that don't, invariably, there will be a correlation between that group and the group of conscious things versus not-conscious things as we understand consciousness.

There are limitations to detecting nonconsciousness this way. It relies on anecdotal evidence that the subjects report and all the problems that come with it. For example, they may simply not remember being conscious. Or they may have been minimally conscious. Or conscious in a way unlike everyday waking consciousness. Etc.

Ill use the eels electric organ again as example: we can stab the eels organ and it may no longer be able to give off electric shocks, but from this it doesn't follow that electric charge doesn't exist outside the eels organ (we know this is false).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And in the mean time, you proceed as if apples fall down, unless there is reason to suppose otherwise.
Why would you not do the same with non-conscious atoms?

I have no issue with it. I merely point out that it is not scientific. I asked you to keep in mind that science matches theory with fact. No fact, no science. Period. But you can still suppose what you like on non-scientific matters. Knock yourself out.

 

[pftest]

So, your theory then is that, because humans have consciousness, it is more likely that all atoms in the universe have consciousness. To you, it does not makes sense that consciousness may be an emergent property of a collection of atoms.

To me emergence doesn't yet make sense because it cannot be found anywhere else in nature. To me that is a strong indication that it is not a natural phenomenon. I always look at how the rest of nature works to find explanations. When i look at how evolution is about simple things getting more complex, i do not get a positive feel about the idea of consciousness being an exception and having no simpler form in one of our ancestors.

Why do small animals not exhibit this consciousness? Why not pebbles? Why not planets and stars, which are much larger and more complex than us, not exhibit it?

I think your questions can be rephrased to this:

- why do small animals not behave like humans?
- why do pebbles not behave like humans?
- why do planets and stars not behave like humans?

Of course they don't behave like humans*, but that doesn't mean they arent conscious. We can infer consciousness in other humans by comparing their behaviour to our own. But when the behaviour is very different (for example in pebbles), we simply lose the ability to infer consciousness. Thats like looking out an airplane window while being blind. You can't see if there is a river down below, but its no reason to assume there isnt.

* its not entirely true that they don't behave like humans

 

[Maui]

To me emergence doesn't yet make sense because it cannot be found anywhere else in nature. To me that is a strong indication that it is not a natural phenomenon.

Really?! What is matter? What is time? What is space? What is consciousness? What is anything? A simple probability distribution? A measurement outcome or my knowledge of it?

Wave-structures of unknown(or unknowable) substance somehow give you enough evidence to make this monstrous claim? How is causality maintained in light of the relativity of simultaneity? How does causality square with entangled states? How does causality fit the ability to only assign probabilities to quantum events? How does einselection work to preserve our observations of causally connected events? Just a reminder, if you're going to make this point - a hidden underlying reality is just as much evidence of 'emergence' as it can ever be(as far as we are concerned). And if we are living in a causal universe as you insist, face up to it, it has to accommodate magical influences.

There are limitations to detecting nonconsciousness this way. It relies on anecdotal evidence that the subjects report and all the problems that come with it. For example, they may simply not remember being conscious. Or they may have been minimally conscious. Or conscious in a way unlike everyday waking consciousness. Etc.

At the end of the day, we have to be rational. We've survived so far as a race because we've been rational. That's a good indication that we have to uphold this typically human trait. Rocks not remembering that they had been conscious is 99.99999% nonsense and rationality requires that we dismiss it. Until at least some evidence accumulates to the contrary.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no issue with it. I merely point out that it is not scientific. I asked you to keep in mind that science matches theory with fact. No fact, no science. Period. But you can still suppose what you like on non-scientific matters. Knock yourself out.

I don't understand why you suggest it is not scientific. Science must proceed on what has gone before. Our theory that something probably doesn't exist allows our scientific method to move forward as if it doesn't. That's called the null hypothesis. The Scientific Method requires it.

 

[brainstorm]

At the end of the day, we have to be rational. We've survived so far as a race because we've been rational. That's a good indication that we have to uphold this typically human trait. Rocks not remembering that they had been conscious is 99.99999% nonsense and rationality requires that we dismiss it. Until at least some evidence accumulates to the contrary.

Don't confuse rationality with plausibility-estimation based on subjective intuition. Your "99%" estimate that rocks aren't conscious is rooted in empathetic intuition. There is no rational basis for attributing or rejecting the existence of consciousness in anyone/anything besides yourself. If there is, it would be based on analysis of potential causes of consciousness and not on intuitive feelings about what constitutes nonsense and what doesn't. Otherwise you could "rationally" hypothesize that the more someone/something else looks like you, the more likely it is to have consciousness - which is of course the reason women and racialized Others have been traditionally viewed as semi-conscious along with animals.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't understand why you suggest it is not scientific.

Theory without facts is not science. I have nothing deeper than that for you to try and understand.

Galileo was a pioneer in advocating that the scholastics of his day take their noses out of their books, open the window, and take a look at the world outside. It is considered the dawn of a revolution in science. Here we are 400 years into the revolution and you still don't get it? Science compares theories to facts. Without facts gathered from observation of the real world, you can't play the game. What is there to understand in that? Put aside your need to understand for just 5 minutes and use that time to gather in a fact. Not from the ivory tower of logical thinking, but from painstakingly careful observation of this dirty and dusty world. Or careless observation, but at all odds, observation, observation, observation. Then you will be doing science. Come up with a theory to explain the fact that you observed. Now you are ready to humbly accept a Nobel in physics.

 

[Pythagorean]

I got to agree with David and Maui here. If we expect the world to be rational (which most scientists do; that's the dominant philosophy) then consciousness is a result of cause and effect (physical interactions).

Jimmy:
Theoretical sciences don't always rely on facts. In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!"

Together with the experimentalists, the whole of science is verified with facts (as Einstein's new facts were eventually verified and are well accepted today), but the individual aspects of science don't always require fact.

 

[DaveC426913]

Theory without facts is not science.

I have no issue with that statement. But that's not what you've been saying. You're been saying science ends with the facts.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Theoretical sciences don't always rely on facts. In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!"

If you look around the web you will soon find that this quote is unsourced and the attribution to Einstein is highly unlikely. What else have you got.

 

[Pythagorean]

If you look around the web you will soon find that this quote is unsourced and the attribution to Einstein is highly unlikely. What else have you got.

It doesn't really matter whether he said it or not, it's that he did it. If you're relying on Einstein having said that for the argument to hold, then you're relying on argument from authority (which is not what I was putting forth).

The point is that that's one of the things science does: changes facts (or too make it more rigorous, what's actually happening is that the original facts weren't actually facts, but they've worked as facts for a long time)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It doesn't really matter whether he said it or not, it's that he did it. If you're relying on Einstein having said that for the argument to hold, then you're relying on argument from authority (which is not what I was putting forth).

The point is that that's one of the things science does: changes facts (or too make it more rigorous, what's actually happening is that the original facts weren't actually facts, but they've worked as facts for a long time)

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about? Which facts were changed? What was the theory that benefited from the change?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I have no issue with that statement. But that's not what you've been saying. You're been saying science ends with the facts.

In which post did I ever say that. I have repeated and emphasized that science is the comparison of theory and fact.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

you're relying on argument from authority (which is not what I was putting forth).

Hold on slick. You said:
"In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "
And when I point out that the attribution to Einstein is sketchy that equates in your mind that I am arguing from authority?

 

[pftest]

Really?! What is matter? What is time? What is space? What is consciousness? What is anything? A simple probability distribution? A measurement outcome or my knowledge of it?

Wave-structures of unknown(or unknowable) substance somehow give you enough evidence to make this monstrous claim? How is causality maintained in light of the relativity of simultaneity? How does causality square with entangled states? How does causality fit the ability to only assign probabilities to quantum events? How does einselection work to preserve our observations of causally connected events? Just a reminder, if you're going to make this point - a hidden underlying reality is just as much evidence of 'emergence' as it can ever be(as far as we are concerned). And if we are living in a causal universe as you insist, face up to it, it has to accommodate magical influences.

Im not aware of any examples of emergence in nature. Of course that could be because of my limited knowledge, but feel free to offer a clear example that we can focus on.

At the end of the day, we have to be rational. We've survived so far as a race because we've been rational. That's a good indication that we have to uphold this typically human trait. Rocks not remembering that they had been conscious is 99.99999% nonsense and rationality requires that we dismiss it. Until at least some evidence accumulates to the contrary.

Feel free to point out where I am not being rational. You say rocks arent conscious and that rationality requires we dismiss it, but you left out the rational part. What is it?

Btw, if the universe turned out to be entirely rational, do you think this is incompatible with the idea that consciousness (which is the basis of rationality) is a universally found phenomenon? Quite the opposite id say.

 

[Pythagorean]

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about? Which facts were changed? What was the theory that benefited from the change?

ok, my form here is:

"fact" : theory that benefited (or was born, rather) from the fact being wrong (scientist who changed the facts)

Energy is continuous : quantum mechanics (Planck)

(note: there are also numerous fact-changing consequences for other facts that follow from this that resolve such issues as the ultarviolet catastrophe by changing the facts, quantum tunneling)

Space is Euclidian : relativity (Einstein) (numerous fact-changing consequences again.)

Geocentrism : Heliocentrism (Copernicus/Galileo)

Creationism : Big Bang / Evolution (many including Einstein / Darwin)

light is a wave/particle : light is a quantum particle (Einstein)

charges in atoms are distributed evenly (Thompson or Pudding Plum model) : charge is concentrated in the middle of the atom (Rutherford)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Not a single item in your list was ever considered an experimental fact. They are all theories. However, I now understand what you mean by changing fact. It is one thing to make an observation only later to find that it is mistaken. It is quite another to fail to make any observation whatever. When I use the word fact, I do not mean eternal truth. Science would never have come to be if we had to wait for eternally true facts.We still don't have any today. No, by the word fact, I merely mean an observation. Not even the most obstinate pedant could suppose that I meant otherwise because I used the words fact and observation interchangably and repeatedly in this thread. Now, for the benefit of the pedants, I will clarify. Science is the comparison of theory to the facts as they are currently known. However, in the future, I will just shorten that to science is the comparison of theory to fact.