Is a rock conscious?

[Swami]

Contrary to popular belief, I view consciousness as being a simple phenomena rather than arising from a complex system. Here are my reasons:

1. Consciousness can exist as pure awareness state (without thought, emotions, forms, etc.) which is a state I reach during meditation. You can have one without the other!
2. Simple forms of life (no complex brain needed), e.g. plants and fish, possess consciousness.
3. Experience. This goes back to point 1 and how I perceived reality while in a pure conscious state. All matter is simply a manifestation of an indivisible field of Consciousness. Read more: Using field research (Meditation) to discover Consciousness.

When Danmark asks how a rock is conscious I think that he's supposing that it could only be conscious if it has feelings, processes information from sensory receptors, etc. But again, consciousness does not have to exist with all of these things. It comes in degrees; its most basic form is pure awareness. Consciousness exists and is expressed differently between awake humans and those in vegetative state or between fish and plants or computers and rocks. It seems scientists do not know where to draw the line when it comes to where consciousness exists.

One label for my view is "panpsychism". Here's a good article explains it:

Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.

This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the “panpsychist� view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.

The materialist viewpoint states that consciousness is derived entirely from physical matter. It’s unclear, though, exactly how this could work.

Dualism holds that consciousness is separate and distinct from physical matter

Panpsychism offers an attractive alternative solution: Consciousness is a fundamental feature of physical matter; every single particle in existence has an “unimaginably simple� form of consciousness, says Goff. These particles then come together to form more complex forms of consciousness, such as humans’ subjective experiences. This isn’t meant to imply that particles have a coherent worldview or actively think, merely that there’s some inherent subjective experience of consciousness in even the tiniest particle.

Quartz article.

Given that consciousness can exist or function in a simple form, then what proof is there to show that consciousness is limited to mammals? Why not fish, plants, computers, and other inanimate matter? Perhaps you don't know?

[Divine Insight]

Given that consciousness can exist or function in a simple form, then what proof is there to show that consciousness is limited to mammals? Why not fish, plants, computers, and other inanimate matter? Perhaps you don't know?

I personally feel that the problem with any discussion along these lines ultimately boils down to what people are willing to call "consciousness". In a very real sense it does come down to semantics. Not the kind of semantics that we can necessarily look up in a dictionary, but rather the actual meaning a person is willing to allow the term "Consciousness" to represent.

Putting the semantic arguments aside over what we're willing to accept that the term "consciousness" might encompass, I can embrace an idea that everything in the universe may very well being having some sort of experience. Even rocks.

However, I would be very careful to add that this is a purely philosophical concept and I can fully understand why many people may demand that a "brain", or at the very least, some form of "nervous system" might actually be required in order to "have an experience" of any sort.

You said,

When Danmark asks how a rock is conscious I think that he's supposing that it could only be conscious if it has feelings, processes information from sensory receptors, etc. But again, consciousness does not have to exist with all of these things. It comes in degrees; its most basic form is pure awareness.

I would tend to agree with Danmark that there are valid reasons to think that something like a rock would have no "awareness" of anything. Even on the most primal level.

Also, you say, "I think that he's supposing that it could only be conscious if it has feelings"

I would agree with Danmark here. If a rock is said to be "conscious", even in the most primal sense, I would take that to mean that the rock can "feel" it's existence, and perhaps things that are happening to it. Like if it bangs against another rock when rolling down a hill, or "feels" the heat of the sunlight landing on it. Or perhaps can "feel" the difference between being in a bone-dry arid environment versus say, under water where is it totally wet and submerged.

In short, if we're going to say that the rock is "conscious", I would say that this can only be meaningful if the can "feel" or "sense" it's existence, and have an experience of that existence. Otherwise why call it "conscious"?

Would it need to think about these experiences in any meaningful way, like knowing that it's burning in the sun, or submerged in water or whatever? I would say no. And in that sense I'm kind of agreeing with your ideas. However, I still hold that it would need to at least "experience" these "feelings" in some manner, even if it has no brain to pass judgement on them.

I don't think we really have any good reason to think that rocks do this.

Also, what if you take a single rock and break it in half? Do both halves then continue having conscious experiences? This certainly doesn't happen with animals or humans. If half of you is removed, only one half will continue to be "conscious" assuming that being cut in half doesn't kill you already.

I've thought about the concept of panpsychism quite a bit. While it does seem to be somewhat intriguing on a pure philosophical level (on the level of pure imagination), it just doesn't seem to me to be a seriously compelling idea.

I'm willing to give any living entity a potential level of "consciousness". I'll go clear down to slime molds.

But once that slime mold dries up and is dead I don't think it makes sense to continue to think that it could have any kind of experience at all.

Rocks would be more like dried up dead stuff. So thinking that minerals or metals could be having a conscious experience seems to me to be a bit of stretch.

Perhaps if they are made into a computer then the computer might ultimately become conscious. But this would then be consciousness arising from a complex arrangement of coordinated activity. It seems to me that it would make more sense to view consciousness as a result of complex organized activity.

Just my thoughts.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Razorsedge]

Given that consciousness can exist or function in a simple form, then what proof is there to show that consciousness is limited to mammals? Why not fish, plants, computers, and other inanimate matter? Perhaps you don't know?

I think even if we use the generally understood idea of consciousness, our problem then boils down to - do we mean:

1: That which evolved from a non-conscious process
2: That which was necessary for the formation of the universe.
3: That which co-exists with matter and did not create and was not created by matter...the 'mind of matter' as it were.

2 & 3 of course, are related, whereas 1 (matter) does not require the other (consciousness), but somehow inherited the other due to a cosmic coincidence anyway, sparking off the eventual debate... all rather accidentally.

I myself find it hard, if not impossible to consider that the universe is an accident as there are far too many clues suggesting otherwise, so for me, 1 is out as a viable, logical answer.

I can accept that the planet Earth is the form in which an entity consciousness resides, and this extends to/from the idea that the whole universe is the self expressive form of one conscious entity, of which this entity is enabled to experience the myriad of forms which that self expressive entity has created.

Are individual rocks conscious? I do not think it matters in the scheme of things to be that pedantic about it to the point of thus requiring some type of evidence to support such supposition. It is enough, as far as I am concerned, that the planet itself acts as the form in which consciousness can express itself through, without zooming in on the grain of sand details of Her body to see how far this consciousness might 'go'. We need look no further than biological evolution as the expression of the creative process of that intelligence, as well as serendipity and synchronicity and patterns in general which hint at an intelligent source.

...we can even agree that our forms are essentially made up of a lot of the same stuff as rocks anyway...

Computers are an interesting development which show us that one can store data in something which is not at all like a meaty brain but can do the same type of things as a meaty brain can do, so this tells me that it is plausible that the Earth should be able to act as a brain as well, and may well have been created for that specific purpose.

Then we might wonder if other planets or the Sun and even the Galaxy (and thus the whole universe) might be able to function in the same manner, but at least with the Earth we have the chance to study how consciousness reacts through biological forms, providing a diversely interesting laboratory in which consciousness can study itself and even adapt.

Essentially I understand all consciousness to be of the same consciousness and only acts differently because of the form it is specifically involved within. It is a non physical reality involved within a physical reality and likely the reason for why the physical reality exists.

Essentially consciousness is aware of itself, even if it cannot be easily determined by other self aware consciousnesses that this is the case. We cannot directly easily determine that the Earth is conscious of itself, or that it would be easy for such an entity to make it so plain to us that we could not argue otherwise.

But like I mentioned, biological life forms provide an incredible clue that this could well be the case. As some do argue, 'we don't need a creator to explain how life evolved' but the reality might be that whether we 'need' one or not, without one, we may well not be experiencing this life and having the opportunity to express our opinions any way, on the subject.

I think the idea of a creative entity within the form of the Earth being responsible for the formation and design and functionality of biological life forms, is logical, but also understand how infinitesimally small we units called 'human beings' are in relation to the planet and why we would have difficulty accepting the idea, and settle for - if anything - the idea of a human-like creator because that idea is far easier to grasp and identify with.

I write more about this in my Members Notes, here;

♦ The Earth Entity

[Swami]

I appreciate William's detailed explanation as well as yours! Gives me a lot to factor in.

I personally feel that the problem with any discussion along these lines ultimately boils down to what people are willing to call "consciousness". In a very real sense it does come down to semantics. Not the kind of semantics that we can necessarily look up in a dictionary, but rather the actual meaning a person is willing to allow the term "Consciousness" to represent.

Putting the semantic arguments aside over what we're willing to accept that the term "consciousness" might encompass, I can embrace an idea that everything in the universe may very well being having some sort of experience. Even rocks.

However, I would be very careful to add that this is a purely philosophical concept and I can fully understand why many people may demand that a "brain", or at the very least, some form of "nervous system" might actually be required in order to "have an experience" of any sort.

Point taken. Also, there are many different types of views that fall under panpsychism so we should also explain how any definition of consciousness applies to all matter or the Universe as a whole. Under my view when I say that everything is conscious I mean that everything is part of a Universal conscious in that it is a manifestation of it. Consciousness underlies everything. Taking it a bit further, I also believe it's the only thing that exists.


You said,

When Danmark asks how a rock is conscious I think that he's supposing that it could only be conscious if it has feelings, processes information from sensory receptors, etc. But again, consciousness does not have to exist with all of these things. It comes in degrees; its most basic form is pure awareness.

I would tend to agree with Danmark that there are valid reasons to think that something like a rock would have no "awareness" of anything. Even on the most primal level.

Also, you say, "I think that he's supposing that it could only be conscious if it has feelings"

I would agree with Danmark here. If a rock is said to be "conscious", even in the most primal sense, I would take that to mean that the rock can "feel" it's existence, and perhaps things that are happening to it. Like if it bangs against another rock when rolling down a hill, or "feels" the heat of the sunlight landing on it. Or perhaps can "feel" the difference between being in a bone-dry arid environment versus say, under water where is it totally wet and submerged.

In short, if we're going to say that the rock is "conscious", I would say that this can only be meaningful if the can "feel" or "sense" it's existence, and have an experience of that existence. Otherwise why call it "conscious"?

Would it need to think about these experiences in any meaningful way, like knowing that it's burning in the sun, or submerged in water or whatever? I would say no. And in that sense I'm kind of agreeing with your ideas. However, I still hold that it would need to at least "experience" these "feelings" in some manner, even if it has no brain to pass judgement on them.

I don't think we really have any good reason to think that rocks do this.

Also, what if you take a single rock and break it in half? Do both halves then continue having conscious experiences? This certainly doesn't happen with animals or humans. If half of you is removed, only one half will continue to be "conscious" assuming that being cut in half doesn't kill you already. Very Happy

I've thought about the concept of panpsychism quite a bit. While it does seem to be somewhat intriguing on a pure philosophical level (on the level of pure imagination), it just doesn't seem to me to be a seriously compelling idea.

I'm willing to give any living entity a potential level of "consciousness". I'll go clear down to slime molds. Very Happy

But once that slime mold dries up and is dead I don't think it makes sense to continue to think that it could have any kind of experience at all.

Rocks would be more like dried up dead stuff. So thinking that minerals or metals could be having a conscious experience seems to me to be a bit of stretch.

Perhaps if they are made into a computer then the computer might ultimately become conscious. But this would then be consciousness arising from a complex arrangement of coordinated activity. It seems to me that it would make more sense to view consciousness as a result of complex organized activity.

Just my thoughts.[/quote]

[Swami]

DI,
Thank you for the detailed response. Lots of good points for me to consider. I'll address two of them regarding semantics and consciousness in rocks.

Semantics...
I believe there is a lot of conceptual problems here that boils down to semantics. This probably goes beyond just the definitions since categories or classifications are also involved. In my view, any activity in response to something is an indication of awareness. When the activity is done by a person we call it "behavior", but when done by a non-living thing we call it "activity", "interactions", etc. In my view, the rock interacting with its environment, just as you brought up in your post, is the rock's "behavior". Ironically, there is a push by some materialist to change the language of psychology to physical descriptions (replace consciousness with terms like integrated information or feedback loops of input/output)- a position called 'eliminative materialism'. So perhaps one day the term "behavior" will be thrown out and human behavior will be explained just like any other physical system. I believe this is the wrong track of course because scientists have not shown how consciousness can be reduced to brain. To the contrary, I believe the brain and Universe are just manifestations of consciousness - in other words, all of these things reduce to consciousness!

Consciousness in rocks...
I already explained some why I believe a rock is conscious when I talked on its responses or interactions with the environment. It's interactions with the environment are not "blind" because the rock has some sense of awareness. This sense does not come from a nervous system but rather from being an inherent part of all matter. I admit, I don't have a way to get a rock to proclaim its consciousness like humans can, but we must not be closed to it either. I think you agree that there's also no proof against this. I will say that my experience shows that consciousness is not limited to a "nervous system" and that everything is just a manifestation of it.

For skeptics...
If my experience is not enough then I encourage you to use the same tool (meditation) to have your own experiences. Also, consider my points on pure consciousness (a conscious state w/out thoughts/feelings) and consciousness in simple systems or life forms.

Given that consciousness can exist or function in a simple form, then what proof is there to show that consciousness is limited to mammals? Why not fish, plants, computers, and other inanimate matter? Perhaps you don't know?

I personally feel that the problem with any discussion along these lines ultimately boils down to what people are willing to call "consciousness". In a very real sense it does come down to semantics. Not the kind of semantics that we can necessarily look up in a dictionary, but rather the actual meaning a person is willing to allow the term "Consciousness" to represent.

Putting the semantic arguments aside over what we're willing to accept that the term "consciousness" might encompass, I can embrace an idea that everything in the universe may very well being having some sort of experience. Even rocks.

However, I would be very careful to add that this is a purely philosophical concept and I can fully understand why many people may demand that a "brain", or at the very least, some form of "nervous system" might actually be required in order to "have an experience" of any sort.

You said,

When Danmark asks how a rock is conscious I think that he's supposing that it could only be conscious if it has feelings, processes information from sensory receptors, etc. But again, consciousness does not have to exist with all of these things. It comes in degrees; its most basic form is pure awareness.

I would tend to agree with Danmark that there are valid reasons to think that something like a rock would have no "awareness" of anything. Even on the most primal level.

Also, you say, "I think that he's supposing that it could only be conscious if it has feelings"

I would agree with Danmark here. If a rock is said to be "conscious", even in the most primal sense, I would take that to mean that the rock can "feel" it's existence, and perhaps things that are happening to it. Like if it bangs against another rock when rolling down a hill, or "feels" the heat of the sunlight landing on it. Or perhaps can "feel" the difference between being in a bone-dry arid environment versus say, under water where is it totally wet and submerged.

In short, if we're going to say that the rock is "conscious", I would say that this can only be meaningful if the can "feel" or "sense" it's existence, and have an experience of that existence. Otherwise why call it "conscious"?

Would it need to think about these experiences in any meaningful way, like knowing that it's burning in the sun, or submerged in water or whatever? I would say no. And in that sense I'm kind of agreeing with your ideas. However, I still hold that it would need to at least "experience" these "feelings" in some manner, even if it has no brain to pass judgement on them.

I don't think we really have any good reason to think that rocks do this.

Also, what if you take a single rock and break it in half? Do both halves then continue having conscious experiences? This certainly doesn't happen with animals or humans. If half of you is removed, only one half will continue to be "conscious" assuming that being cut in half doesn't kill you already.

I've thought about the concept of panpsychism quite a bit. While it does seem to be somewhat intriguing on a pure philosophical level (on the level of pure imagination), it just doesn't seem to me to be a seriously compelling idea.

I'm willing to give any living entity a potential level of "consciousness". I'll go clear down to slime molds.

But once that slime mold dries up and is dead I don't think it makes sense to continue to think that it could have any kind of experience at all.

Rocks would be more like dried up dead stuff. So thinking that minerals or metals could be having a conscious experience seems to me to be a bit of stretch.

Perhaps if they are made into a computer then the computer might ultimately become conscious. But this would then be consciousness arising from a complex arrangement of coordinated activity. It seems to me that it would make more sense to view consciousness as a result of complex organized activity.

Just my thoughts.

[Swami]

William,

Like DI, you made some excellent points to consider. Much of your views here are similar to mine. I'll highlight two important points you made,

"Essentially I understand all consciousness to be of the same consciousness and only acts differently because of the form it is specifically involved within. "
And...

"Computers are an interesting development which show us that one can store data in something which is not at all like a meaty brain but can do the same type of things as a meaty brain can do, so this tells me that it is plausible that the Earth should be able to act as a brain as well, and may well have been created for that specific purpose."

I definitely agree with the first one as I strongly believe that there are different ways that consciousness can express itself. Many people get bogged down thinking that conscious activity requires thoughts, feelings, choices, and as such this further removes the possibility of simple systems (as opposed to just complex systems - like brain) possessing consciousness. That's far from being the case and in a simple system, consciousness would just take a simple form but nothing less than awareness, imo.

[Replying to post 1 by Razorsedge]

Given that consciousness can exist or function in a simple form, then what proof is there to show that consciousness is limited to mammals? Why not fish, plants, computers, and other inanimate matter? Perhaps you don't know?

I think even if we use the generally understood idea of consciousness, our problem then boils down to - do we mean:

1: That which evolved from a non-conscious process
2: That which was necessary for the formation of the universe.
3: That which co-exists with matter and did not create and was not created by matter...the 'mind of matter' as it were.

2 & 3 of course, are related, whereas 1 (matter) does not require the other (consciousness), but somehow inherited the other due to a cosmic coincidence anyway, sparking off the eventual debate... all rather accidentally.

I myself find it hard, if not impossible to consider that the universe is an accident as there are far too many clues suggesting otherwise, so for me, 1 is out as a viable, logical answer.

I can accept that the planet Earth is the form in which an entity consciousness resides, and this extends to/from the idea that the whole universe is the self expressive form of one conscious entity, of which this entity is enabled to experience the myriad of forms which that self expressive entity has created.

Are individual rocks conscious? I do not think it matters in the scheme of things to be that pedantic about it to the point of thus requiring some type of evidence to support such supposition. It is enough, as far as I am concerned, that the planet itself acts as the form in which consciousness can express itself through, without zooming in on the grain of sand details of Her body to see how far this consciousness might 'go'. We need look no further than biological evolution as the expression of the creative process of that intelligence, as well as serendipity and synchronicity and patterns in general which hint at an intelligent source.

...we can even agree that our forms are essentially made up of a lot of the same stuff as rocks anyway...

Computers are an interesting development which show us that one can store data in something which is not at all like a meaty brain but can do the same type of things as a meaty brain can do, so this tells me that it is plausible that the Earth should be able to act as a brain as well, and may well have been created for that specific purpose.

Then we might wonder if other planets or the Sun and even the Galaxy (and thus the whole universe) might be able to function in the same manner, but at least with the Earth we have the chance to study how consciousness reacts through biological forms, providing a diversely interesting laboratory in which consciousness can study itself and even adapt.

Essentially I understand all consciousness to be of the same consciousness and only acts differently because of the form it is specifically involved within. It is a non physical reality involved within a physical reality and likely the reason for why the physical reality exists.

Essentially consciousness is aware of itself, even if it cannot be easily determined by other self aware consciousnesses that this is the case. We cannot directly easily determine that the Earth is conscious of itself, or that it would be easy for such an entity to make it so plain to us that we could not argue otherwise.

But like I mentioned, biological life forms provide an incredible clue that this could well be the case. As some do argue, 'we don't need a creator to explain how life evolved' but the reality might be that whether we 'need' one or not, without one, we may well not be experiencing this life and having the opportunity to express our opinions any way, on the subject.

I think the idea of a creative entity within the form of the Earth being responsible for the formation and design and functionality of biological life forms, is logical, but also understand how infinitesimally small we units called 'human beings' are in relation to the planet and why we would have difficulty accepting the idea, and settle for - if anything - the idea of a human-like creator because that idea is far easier to grasp and identify with.

I write more about this in my Members Notes, here;

♦ The Earth Entity

[Divine Insight]

Interestingly, scientists have not shown how consciousness can be reduced to brain. To the contrary, I believe the brain and Universe are just manifestations of consciousness - in other words, all of these things reduce to consciousness!

Interestingly, you have not shown how your beliefs can be supported by any evidence either. So at the very best all you could hope to claim is to be on equal "guessing ground" with scientists. And I really don't see any reason to even suspect that this is the case.

I would also imagine that scientists are working with an entirely different semantic definition of what they mean by "consciousness" from the definition you appear to be using. Scientists are aware that subatomic particles "behave" in ways influenced by their environment. However, there is no need to attribute consciousness to this behavior because it can easily be explained by mere forces, etc.

In fact, I would suggest that even in a pure philosophical discussion you have painted yourself into a corner here.

Let's say that we have some dead human bodies. Hopefully you will agree that these dead human bodies are no longer conscious. At least, certainly not in the same way they were then they were alive. Yet let's say that we dump these dead human bodies into a raging river and watch them as they float down the river reacting violently to the water currents that are pushing them around. Then, by your definition, they must be exhibiting consciousness once again.

Personally I don't think this would fly even as a purely philosophical argument. This appears to me more like scratching the very bottom of an idea barrel in the hope to come up with anything at all that could be argued for.

In short, I don't see where your arguments for the meaning of "consciousness" should be taken seriously by anyone who has a sincere interest in the subject. Your arguments appear to be nothing more than an extremely desperate attempt to force a conclusion, rather than seeking truth by simply following where the evidence leads.

Consciousness in rocks...
I already explained some why I believe a rock is conscious when I talked on its responses or interactions with the environment. It's interactions with the environment are not "blind" because the rock has some sense of awareness. This sense does not come from a nervous system but rather from being an inherent part of all matter. I admit, I don't have a way to get a rock to proclaim its consciousness like humans can, but we must not be closed to it either. I think you agree that there's also no proof against this. I will say that my experience shows that consciousness is not limited to a "nervous system" and that everything is just a manifestation of it.

Again, I don't see the justification for jumping to the conclusion that rocks are "aware" of anything. The rocks most certainly don't need to do anything to be "pushed" around by forces. Scientists are aware that rocks can be pushed around by forces, yet this doesn't lead them to postulate that the rocks must then be aware that they are being pushed around. There is simply no need to postulate such a thing. Moreover, how could you ever test or determine whether a rock is aware. Heck we can't even prove that humans other than ourselves are aware. All we can do is speculate that solipsism isn't true.

For skeptics...
If my experience is not enough then I encourage you to use the same tool (meditation) to have your own experiences. Also, consider my points on pure consciousness (a conscious state w/out thoughts/feelings) and consciousness in simple systems or life forms.

You appear to be assuming that no one in the world has ever meditated but yourself. This is far from the situation.

I myself have practiced many different styles of meditation, and none of those experiences has lead me to conclude that rocks must be conscious, or that even I could be conscious without a brain. In fact, when I mediate all I'm really doing is calming my brain to a place where I no longer pay attention to thoughts. I've been there. They call this "transcendental meditation" meaning that we are transcending thought. However, there is no reason to think that I have transcended my brain.

Meditation does not demonstrate the conclusions you appear to have jumped to.

Have you ever been able to mediate and when you were finished mediating wake up in an alternative existence where you no longer required a brain? I don't think so. When you quit meditating you end up in precisely the same place where you began. A brain.

I just don't see how you can claim that meditation supports the conclusions you jump to.

There are actually quite a few scientists who have practiced mediation. They don't view the experience as being evidence of consciousness that doesn't require a brain. To the contrary, meditation is simply one of the many things a brain can do. There is no need to postulate anything beyond this.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

"I would also imagine that scientists are working with an entirely different semantic definition of what they mean by "consciousness" from the definition you appear to be using. Scientists are aware that subatomic particles "behave" in ways influenced by their environment. However, there is no need to attribute consciousness to this behavior because it can easily be explained by mere forces, etc."

There is no need to attribute consciousness to human behavior because our behavior can be easily explained by mere neural processes. All human behavior could easily occur in the dark with no awareness or subjective side to it. Even Western philosophers accept this if you want to look up 'philosophical zombie'.

The only difference between rock and human is that humans can communicate to other humans that we are conscious. Rocks can't do the same.


"You appear to be assuming that no one in the world has ever meditated but yourself. This is far from the situation.

I myself have practiced many different styles of meditation, and none of those experiences has lead me to conclude that rocks must be conscious, or that even I could be conscious without a brain. In fact, when I mediate all I'm really doing is calming my brain to a place where I no longer pay attention to thoughts. I've been there. They call this "transcendental meditation" meaning that we are transcending thought. However, there is no reason to think that I have transcended my brain.

Meditation does not demonstrate the conclusions you appear to have jumped to."

Okay this is fair points. There are different types of meditation, different objects of focus. Some have similar experiences to my own and some don't. Technique increases likelihood of experience. A lot of these are explained in yogic literature, like the Yoga Sutras of Pantanjali. There are good books and videos on having OBEs and astral body travel, as well.

You see DI i'm not here to debate or argue for my position being correct. The fact is there are no proven theories of consciousness. I am simply offering Panpsychism as an alternative. So far no one has disproven it.

[Divine Insight]

You see DI i'm not here to debate or argue for my position being correct. The fact is there are no proven theories of consciousness. I am simply offering Panpsychism as an alternative. So far no one has disproven it.

So far no one has been able to disprove solipsism either.

Not being able to disprove something is not a compelling reason to consider it.

And by the way, panpsychism is one of the most ancient philosophical ideas. Hardly something that needs to be offered as an alternative today. panpsychism is the basis for much of Pantheism, Taoism, Shamanism, Animism, and many forms of Paganism. Even forms of Buddhism embrace the concept of panpsychism. So it's actually a quite popular idea in many ancient philosophies. Of course, those people had no knowledge of how a human brain might work.

We've come a long way since then. So basically all you're really doing is suggesting that modern humans should revert back to the way that primitive humans used to think. That seems to suggest that you simply aren't impressed by modern knowledge.

I mean, but all means, believe whatever strikes your fancy. But modern knowledge simply doesn't point in that direction. Modern knowledge clearly points to the brain for human sentience and animal consciousness. Modern knowledge also allows for primitive nervous systems to potentially have an experience. Precisely where to draw the line on nervous systems is certainly not clear. But I think the line between active biological organisms and inactive materials is pretty convincing.

Especially when it doesn't seem to make any sense at all to claim that dead human bodies are still having an experience. Yet this would need to be the case if rocks are having an experience. Being dead or alive wouldn't make much difference. But clearly it does.

So even if we were to embrace panpsychism as you are proposing it, that still wouldn't explain human consciousness as we experience. The humans experience would still need to be something far removed from mere panpsychism.

A human that has a live functioning brain has a human experience. A human who's brain has died no longer has a human experience. At that point their experience couldn't be much different from that of a rock.

So I don't see where you have gained anything by proposing panpsychism. You'd still have dead human bodies being as dumb as rocks.

And only live humans who have fully functional brains having a full human experience.

It would seem to me that even in your proposal of panpsychism, you're still stuck with brains being paramount to human consciousness.

I mean, I realize that you don't want to debate this. But if you can't make a compelling case for it, then why should anyone accept this as an alternative?

An alternative to what? That brains are responsible for human consciousness? As I've just pointed out, you appear to be stuck with that in any case. Unless you want to claim that a dead human has just as much consciousness as one with a fully functional brain.

It seems to me that the scientists have a far more compelling case. And your so-called "alternative" is really no alternative at all.

[Guy Threepwood]

Contrary to popular belief, I view consciousness as being a simple phenomena rather than arising from a complex system. Here are my reasons:

1. Consciousness can exist as pure awareness state (without thought, emotions, forms, etc.) which is a state I reach during meditation. You can have one without the other!
2. Simple forms of life (no complex brain needed), e.g. plants and fish, possess consciousness.
3. Experience. This goes back to point 1 and how I perceived reality while in a pure conscious state. All matter is simply a manifestation of an indivisible field of Consciousness. Read more: Using field research (Meditation) to discover Consciousness.

When Danmark asks how a rock is conscious I think that he's supposing that it could only be conscious if it has feelings, processes information from sensory receptors, etc. But again, consciousness does not have to exist with all of these things. It comes in degrees; its most basic form is pure awareness. Consciousness exists and is expressed differently between awake humans and those in vegetative state or between fish and plants or computers and rocks. It seems scientists do not know where to draw the line when it comes to where consciousness exists.

One label for my view is "panpsychism". Here's a good article explains it:

Consciousness permeates reality. Rather than being just a unique feature of human subjective experience, it’s the foundation of the universe, present in every particle and all physical matter.

This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum, but as traditional attempts to explain consciousness continue to fail, the “panpsychist� view is increasingly being taken seriously by credible philosophers, neuroscientists, and physicists, including figures such as neuroscientist Christof Koch and physicist Roger Penrose.

The materialist viewpoint states that consciousness is derived entirely from physical matter. It’s unclear, though, exactly how this could work.

Dualism holds that consciousness is separate and distinct from physical matter

Panpsychism offers an attractive alternative solution: Consciousness is a fundamental feature of physical matter; every single particle in existence has an “unimaginably simple� form of consciousness, says Goff. These particles then come together to form more complex forms of consciousness, such as humans’ subjective experiences. This isn’t meant to imply that particles have a coherent worldview or actively think, merely that there’s some inherent subjective experience of consciousness in even the tiniest particle.

Quartz article.

Given that consciousness can exist or function in a simple form, then what proof is there to show that consciousness is limited to mammals? Why not fish, plants, computers, and other inanimate matter? Perhaps you don't know?

I'd say you answered your own question, by asking the question

what questions do plants & computers ask? none

While man is the only means we know of, by which the universe is conscious of, and questions the meaning of, it's own existence.