Is Matter Conscious? - Can All Matter Be Conscious?

[Pythagorean]

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?

You misunderstand. I'm saying you're arguing against me as if I was arguing from authority, which you shouldn't have to do. Anyway, the point is that Einstein was part of the paradigm shift from classical physics to modern physics (he contributed to both quantum mechanics and relativity). I might be wrong that he said that, but I it certainly fits what he did.Apparently (from another thread on here in which you actually particcipated) the quote actually came from Spinoza and Einstein might have quoted Spinoza. Anyway, I thought the implication would be obvious, since Einstein did literally contribute to all the ground-breaking changes in physics at the beginning of the 20th century.

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.

There's two difference in our approach here:

First of all, I don't consider observation facts. You can say it's a fact that you had this or that observation, but that alone is useless. I could link an optical illusion to demonstrate how observations aren't just sensory perception. There's a leap involved; you have to trust and integrate the results of many perceptions and cognitive processes to synthesize one scientific observation.

Second, my point is really that there is no such thing as fact in the strict sense. Sure, it's a fact that you had so and so observation, but if that observation doesn't properly represent reality, then it's a useless fact. We know that our observations don't wholly represent reality (or maybe that reality can't even be "represented" at the quantum level) so we have some license of creativity to what goes on behind the scenes, on how to explain our most consistent observations.

To my mind, fact is inevitably a human consensus reality. There may very well be real facts (in fact, I'm sure there are), and that's what we hope to approach with the scientific method... but part of being scientific also requires that those facts be reconsidered occasionally.

But give me a specific example of a fact to match your description, just in case I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

Isn't anyone willing to answer this question?

 

[Pythagorean]

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

Experimental evidence has already been presented. You just haven't accepted the assumptions that evidence is based on. All experimental evidence requires you to accept assumptions.

 

[pftest]

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

Isn't anyone willing to answer this question?

I will answer: C is invisible except from the first person perspective. So there can be no experimental evidence (observations) of iron atoms having or not having C.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Experimental evidence has already been presented. You just haven't accepted the assumptions that evidence is based on. All experimental evidence requires you to accept assumptions.

My bad. Link to it please. Or summarize it in your own words if you are able.

 

[Pythagorean]

My bad. Link to it please. Or summarize it in your own words if you are able.

It's not a published study or antything, there would be no point. We observe it every day. Iron atoms don't exhibit the complexity that biological lifeforms do. Testing it would be like testing every dog for a brain before declaring "every dog has a brain".

If you jump off a 5, 10 and 15 ft cliff, you don't have to jump off the 20 foot cliff to know that it will hurt, too. We can't possibly take every data point in experiments.

The assumption is Physicalism: that consciousness requires the complex processes provided by the physiology that life exhibits. You also have to accept the assumption that you can derive consciousness from behavior and cell dynamics. Then you would run the test on iron atoms (which would feel quite silly) and see that it failed.

We also know that we can freeze and altar consciousness by hitting somebody in the head really hard or giving them drugs that mess with their electrochemical interactions in their brain.

Iron atoms wouldn't respond to these tests in any way. They don't even have the equipment we assume is necessary for consciousness.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It's not a published study or antything, there would be no point. We observe it every day. Iron atoms don't exhibit the complexity that biological lifeforms do. Testing it would be like testing every dog for a brain before declaring "every dog has a brain".

If you jump off a 5, 10 and 15 ft cliff, you don't have to jump off the 20 foot cliff to know that it will hurt, too. We can't possibly take every data point in experiments.

The assumption is Physicalism: that consciousness requires the complex processes provided by the physiology that life exhibits. You also have to accept the assumption that you can derive consciousness from behavior and cell dynamics. Then you would run the test on iron atoms (which would feel quite silly) and see that it failed.

We also know that we can freeze and altar consciousness by hitting somebody in the head really hard or giving them drugs that mess with their electrochemical interactions in their brain.

Iron atoms wouldn't respond to these tests in any way. They don't even have the equipment we assume is necessary for consciousness.

Thanks. That's two no responses so far.

 

[Pythagorean]

Thanks. That's two no responses so far.

You simply refuse to accept the assumptions.

You could be just as obstinate by requiring that I show the gravitational constant works at some precisely define r, m1, and m2 for which no experiment has been performed.

 

[Boy@n]

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.

When you die, in that split second brains structure is the same as when you were alive, but you aren't conscious anymore. I'd not say consciousness emerges just out of brains, as said, dead brains can have same structure as those "alive", but sure, brains is a fundamental part of human consciousness, but there seems to be more than just physical brains.

What's the physical difference between dead and alive person in a short time span?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Iron atoms wouldn't respond to these tests in any way.

Sorry, I took this to mean that you do not have experimental evidence. Did you intend these words to mean that you do have experimental evidence?

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, all of neuropsychology, pretty much. You're trolling and bating at this point, as you obviously don't accept the assumptions behind the evidence.

 

[pftest]

You simply refuse to accept the assumptions.

You could be just as obstinate by requiring that I show the gravitational constant works at some precisely define r, m1, and m2 for which no experiment has been performed.

To be fair, the assumption here is pretty much the same as the conclusion: assume that consciousness requires humanlike complexity, and then conclude consciousness is absent in things without humanlike complexity. Or in short: human complexity is absent in non-human complexities.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yes, all of neuropsychology, pretty much. You're trolling and bating at this point, as you obviously don't accept the assumptions behind the evidence.

I didn't ask for assumptions, I asked for evidence. You said you don't have any. Who's trolling?

 

[Maui]

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.

Well let's start with the most obvious one - everything. The whole universe and everything that exists. Nothing at all in this universe is reducible to what it seems, all interpretations involve some form of implicit magic. Pushing reductionism leads to a new world, usually simply denoted as "quantum world" with different laws and principles. For some reason(don't ask why here, open a new thread, it's a philosophical question) nature seems to allow mathematical modelling of otherwise irreducible systems. The deeper we probe, the more mathematical and descriptive science becomes(i.e. often lacking causal explanations). Large parts of biology, quantum chemistry, condensed matter physics, etc. deals with collective behavior that is not there in isolated sytems. Let's take as an exmple the most disturbing one to our assumptions - entangled particles separated in space which can only be modeled as a single entity through a single wavefuncion.

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?

The rational part would be the belief that when i pick up a rock, it will not bite or talk to me or display any conscious trait. As far as the current scientific paradigm of how and what the world is supposed to be is concerned, rocks are not conscious. Even mentioning that they might be is considered irrational, as it contradicts all the observations we've accumulated so far of their static, inanimate state. Belief that they might be is an irrational philosophy, pending further evidence.

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.

We would first need to find out much simpler things - like the difference between here and there in our theories. Or between now and tomorrow.

 

[DaveC426913]

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

Isn't anyone willing to answer this question?

I am.

Without knowing what causes consciousness, we are able draw a relationship between the observance of consciousness as-we-know-it and the presence of electrical brain waves.

It may not be a 1:1 correlation, granted, but the facts indicate that, for example, people who are conscious exhibit brain wave patterns, as do animals who seem to be to some degree conscious. Note that, all other things being equal, dead humans and dead animals definitely do not exhibit these brain waves. This points to a strong correlation between living processes and consciousness as well as brain waves.

So: identical structure, yet one that seems conscious also has brain waves, one that does not seem conscious does not have brain waves.

In fact, we can draw a stronger parallel. The complexity of brain wave activity seems tightly correlated with the complexity of the consciousness. Fish show much simpler examples of both. By the time we examine earthworms, we are nearing the limit of both.

Atoms seem to exhibit neither brain wave complexity nor any form of conscious free will.

While not conclusive, we have managed to draw a strong correlation between brain waves and consciousness. Our theory posits that things that do not emit detectable brain waves are also not conscious. From our theory we generate a hypothesis that the chemical processes that create brain waves are also responsible for the emergent phenomenon of consciousness.

 

[brainstorm]

The assumption is Physicalism: that consciousness requires the complex processes provided by the physiology that life exhibits. You also have to accept the assumption that you can derive consciousness from behavior and cell dynamics. Then you would run the test on iron atoms (which would feel quite silly) and see that it failed.

Normally, I would assume this. However, what is so special about brain and nerve cells that would make them the only candidate for housing the kinds of electronic patterns that make it possible to consciously experience interactions between inputs and outputs?

Often people assume that "lower animals" have "a lower level of consciousness," but maybe it is other aspects they lack instead of consciousness. E.g. animals seem to have higher thresholds of pain and discomfort in many cases, but that could just be because they are not sensitized to the extent that humans are. They may also do less cognitive "thinking" than humans, but does that mean they are less aware of the things they pay attention to?

Animals might just be conscious entities like humans that do not think or feel as much. I.e. they could be like super-soldiers that block out thought and feeling to accomplish difficult and potentially traumatic missions.

Anyway, I guess I got off track from my initial point that consciousness might be possible in other media than living nerve tissue, but my point was basically that it's hard to imagine consciousness of different kinds of inputs and outputs than we are used to in human-situations, but that it might still be possible for other things to be conscious, except without self-perception, pain/pleasure, fear(of death), emotions, etc. Plants, for example, might be completely aware of everything going on around them but have absolutely no emotional investment in it, nor in their own existence.

 

[Maui]

I didn't ask for assumptions, I asked for evidence. You said you don't have any. Who's trolling?

You are acting irrational. Even if everything we know is wrong, you will need to demolish all of science as we know it, to make a reasonable case on it. You aren't able and no one else is. Accept what our knowledge very strongly implies or join religions, mystics, or any other method of inquiring nature.

 

[DaveC426913]

Normally, I would assume this. However, what is so special about brain and nerve cells that would make them the only candidate for housing the kinds of electronic patterns that make it possible to consciously experience interactions between inputs and outputs?
...
Plants, for example, might be completely aware of everything going on around them but have absolutely no emotional investment in it, nor in their own existence.

And these are fine hypotheses, but ... evidence? See, currently our evidence makes a correlation between complexity and consciousness. You're welcome to refine it.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are acting irrational. Even if everything we know is wrong, you will need to demolish all of science as we know it, to make a reasonable case on it. You aren't able and no one else is. Accept what our knowledge very strongly implies or join religions, mystics, or any other method of inquiring nature.

Enough of this. Jimmy's question may be highly controversial, and we may all be absulutely sure of the answer that he's wrong, but it's not trolling.

He's not saying 'atoms might be consciousness', he's saying 'the scientific method can only go so far and then stops'. That is a perfectly rational stance, certainly appropriate for discussion on a science forum.

 

[brainstorm]

You are acting irrational. Even if everything we know is wrong, you will need to demolish all of science as we know it, to make a reasonable case on it. You aren't able and no one else is. Accept what our knowledge very strongly implies or join religions, mystics, or any other method of inquiring nature.

I wasn't even following the discussion but there is absolutely nothing about critical skepticism that entails demolishing any science. The most fundamentally definitive scientific value is that skepticism and alternative hypotheses are constructive, not destructive. You are trying to make science into what the church was when Galileo and others were questioning its orthodoxies. There is no "accepting what our knowledge implies" in true science. There's only critical inquiry into tentatively held theories. If you want "acceptance," of knowledge, you're better off pursuing some kind of dogmatic faith than science.

 

[DaveC426913]

assume that consciousness requires humanlike complexity, and then conclude consciousness is absent in things without humanlike complexity. Or in short: human complexity is absent in non-human complexities.

We should agree on what consciousness looks like. As-we-know-it, consciousness involves at least the ability to make simple decisions and react selectively to stimuli.

If you guys want to define some sort of consciousness that you think might apply to atoms, that is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[Maui]

Normally, I would assume this. However, what is so special about brain and nerve cells that would make them the only candidate for housing the kinds of electronic patterns that make it possible to consciously experience interactions between inputs and outputs?

That's a much more reasonable way to make a case on this point(especially without necessarily pressing for consciousness in rocks).

Often people assume that "lower animals" have "a lower level of consciousness," but maybe it is other aspects they lack instead of consciousness. E.g. animals seem to have higher thresholds of pain and discomfort in many cases, but that could just be because they are not sensitized to the extent that humans are. They may also do less cognitive "thinking" than humans, but does that mean they are less aware of the things they pay attention to?

Animals might just be conscious entities like humans that do not think or feel as much. I.e. they could be like super-soldiers that block out thought and feeling to accomplish difficult and potentially traumatic missions.

Anyway, I guess I got off track from my initial point that consciousness might be possible in other media than living nerve tissue, but my point was basically that it's hard to imagine consciousness of different kinds of inputs and outputs than we are used to in human-situations, but that it might still be possible for other things to be conscious, except without self-perception, pain/pleasure, fear(of death), emotions, etc. Plants, for example, might be completely aware of everything going on around them but have absolutely no emotional investment in it, nor in their own existence.

The answer to these philosophical musings lies so far into the future that it's almost meaningless to post an opinion. But your points are valid nonetheless.

 

[pftest]

Well let's start with the most obvious one - everything. The whole universe and everything that exists. Nothing at all in this universe is reducible to what it seems, all interpretations involve some form of implicit magic. Pushing reductionism leads to a new world, usually simply denoted as "quantum world" with different laws and principles. For some reason(don't ask why here, open a new thread, it's a philosophical question) nature seems to allow mathematical modelling of otherwise irreducible systems. The deeper we probe, the more mathematical and descriptive science becomes(i.e. often lacking causal explanations). Large parts of biology, quantum chemistry, condensed matter physics, etc. deals with collective behavior that is not there in isolated sytems. Let's take as an exmple the most disturbing one to our assumptions - entangled particles separated in space which can only be modeled as a single entity through a single wavefuncion.

Can we do a simpler example that is easier to understand? I fear the quantum one will open a can of worms about nonlocality and such. If everything is truly emergent, do you think an H2O molecule is a suitable example? If so, what is it that emerges from it?

The rational part would be the belief that when i pick up a rock, it will not bite or talk to me or display any conscious trait. As far as the current scientific paradigm of how and what the world is supposed to be is concerned, rocks are not conscious. Even mentioning that they might be is considered irrational, as it contradicts all the observations we've accumulated so far of their static, inanimate state. Belief that they might be is an irrational philosophy, pending further evidence.

Here it is assumed that biting and talking is a neccesary characteristic of being conscious. What about people that don't bite and don't talk?

Materialism is a metaphysical idea, its not science. The idea that science relies on or supports materialism is not true. When Newton came up with classical mechanics, he did not include a paragraph that said "this mathematical equation describes a nonconscious system". There simply is no logic that implies that lawfully behaving objects must be nonconscious objects.

 

[Maui]

I wasn't even following the discussion but there is absolutely nothing about critical skepticism that entails demolishing any science. The most fundamentally definitive scientific value is that skepticism and alternative hypotheses are constructive, not destructive. You are trying to make science into what the church was when Galileo and others were questioning its orthodoxies. There is no "accepting what our knowledge implies" in true science. There's only critical inquiry into tentatively held theories. If you want "acceptance," of knowledge, you're better off pursuing some kind of dogmatic faith than science.

If everything in this universe is conscious, then consciousness IS everything. That would be the death of all we've come to know through science and the system of ideas we hold about the world. Science is far less dogmatic than the church on all levels. Some level of dogma is necessary if we are to remain rational.

 

[brainstorm]

The answer to these philosophical musings lies so far into the future that it's almost meaningless to post an opinion. But your points are valid nonetheless.

[/quote]
I don't see the point of construing something as "philosophical musings" that "lie so far into the future that it's almost meaningless to post an opinion" except to discourage doing so. What's wrong with formulating hypotheses without having the ability to test them (yet)? Isn't it better to at least work toward legitimate theorizing instead of wildly speculating about whether rocks are conscious without rational analytics?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see the point of construing something as "philosophical musings" that "lie so far into the future that it's almost meaningless to post an opinion" except to discourage doing so. What's wrong with formulating hypotheses without having the ability to test them (yet)? Isn't it better to at least work toward legitimate theorizing instead of wildly speculating about whether rocks are conscious without rational analytics?

Some people like to discuss, some don't. Saying 'there's no point' is simply another way of saying 'I wish to bow out'.

Funny thing is, it's redundant. To bow out, one can simply not respond. There's no need to pass judgment on what others wish to do.

 

[pftest]

We should agree on what consciousness looks like. As-we-know-it, consciousness involves at least the ability to make simple decisions and react selectively to stimuli.

I use a theoretically neutral definition of consciousness:

Consciousness = having experiences

Examples of experiences are those that all of us are familiar with: seeing, hearing, smelling, etc.

This is an adequate enough definition for all of us to understand what we are talking about.

We must be very careful in defining consciousness in terms of what it looks like, since this is essentially the same as assuming a conclusion, by deciding up front which things are and are not conscious. If we agree that it looks like human brainactivity, then of course things without it won't be conscious. If we agree that it looks like electrons, then of course everything with electrons is conscious.

 

[Maui]

Isn't it better to at least work toward legitimate theorizing instead of wildly speculating about whether rocks are conscious without rational analytics?[/QUOTE]



Our analysis so far implies very strongly that rocks are not conscious. That isn't even close to wild speculaton at all.

 

[brainstorm]

If everything in this universe is conscious, then consciousness IS everything. That would be the death of all we've come to know through science and the system of ideas we hold about the world. Science is far less dogmatic than the church on all levels. Some level of dogma is necessary if we are to remain rational.

Rationality is anti-dogmatic. Dogma is the rehearsal/recapitulation of knowledge without reason or critical comprehension. Why does it matter whether science is more, less, or equally dogmatic as Galileo's church? Claiming it's less dogmatic only implies that it is better because less dogmatic and therefore to accept whatever dogma it does promote. That's like using science to eschew science.

Why does science have anything to do with believing what is conscious and what isn't? How does understanding the mechanics of physical forces, chemical reactions and properties, or biological systems change if you think of the entities involved as having perception/awareness? It might be comforting to you personally to believe that science conclusively proves that most matter is dead and/or unconscious but I don't see what the conscious/unconscious dichotomy has anything to do with understanding the mechanics of physical matter.

 

[DaveC426913]

I use a theoretically neutral definition of consciousness:

Consciousness = having experiences

Examples of experiences are those that all of us are familiar with: seeing, hearing, smelling, etc.

This is an adequate enough definition for all of us to understand what we are talking about.

The trouble with your definition is that we are outside observers, so we must have a definition that is external. How do we know something is having experiences?

We must be very careful in defining consciousness in terms of what it looks like, since this is essentially the same as assuming a conclusion, by deciding up front which things are and are not conscious. If we agree that it looks like human brainactivity, then of course things without it won't be conscious. If we agree that it looks like electrons, then of course everything with electrons is conscious.

Do not misunderstand. All I am doing is drawing a empirical correlation of observation. Correlation does not imply causation.

"Whenever we see consciousness-as-we-know-it, we also seem to detect brain waves. Places where we do not see consciousness-as-we-know-it, we also do not detect brain waves. No causation between the two is impllied or intended."