Is a rock conscious?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Swami
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Is a rock conscious?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
Swami
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Post #41

Post by Swami »

Divine Insight wrote: And in that post you say:
Experiencing in this state will lead to the realization that everything is just manifestation of a Universal consciousness.
I've reached that state of mind in mediation on many occasions. I simply disagree that this leads to the conclusion or "realization" you have suggested above.

That so-called "realization" is nothing more than the opinion of the person who is claiming that they have realized something. :roll:
On another post, you said that you were perhaps more experienced at meditation than I. One thing that many may not notice is that I am very humble when talking about Eastern thought. Eastern religions, philosophy, and practices can be very difficult to understand so I always end up learning about it more from others (skilled practitioners, commentaries, etc.) than from reading the primary texts myself.

In this case that you're bringing up, I would rather side with my experiences because it is more supported by tradition and many other experiencers. I'm not sure where exactly you and I disagree but it may help to say that there's a difference between reaching a state of pure consciousness (awareness without mental/cognitive input) and actually doing something (experiencing/interacting) while in that state. You've opened the door but I'm not sure how far you've gone through it.
Divine Insight wrote:In fact, weren't you just talking with DrNoGods about moving mountains via nothing more than conscious thought?

If what you claim is true, then those who have meditated and have come to the "realization" that they are a manifestation of universal consciousness should then be able to return to a normal state of consciousness, and command a mountain to jump into the sea as Jesus had claimed could be done.

But we have never seen anyone who is capable of controlling anything in the universe via nothing more than universal consciousness, much less causing an entire mountain to move via nothing more than conscious whim.
Perhaps Jesus was able to access higher state of consciousness effortlessly. It was almost natural/automatic to him. But to most others the state that I'm referring to, where moving mountains is possible, can only be reached and maintained through meditative effort. Based on yogic practices, you can do this by becoming one with the mountain and then you can exert your will through focus and intention. I'll try to elaborate.

Under the yogic view, consciousness is not simply something in the brain but rather it's part of all that exists. It is the source of all that exists. Think of Universal consciousness as being fundamental or ultimate reality as opposed to a deity. So with that said there are not only laws of the mind (how consciousness works in your "head") but there are also psycho-physical laws (how the consciousness beyond your head works - the one that underlies all of reality). The ancient yogis were able to access this Universal consciousness through meditation. They explored this state and along with its laws. They used archaic language and descriptions to explain their experiences which I'm sure can be updated by scientists.

Given this worldview, moving a mountain should not be a surprise. At the gross level, you perceive rocks and sand, but at the most fundamental level, it is an aspect of consciousness. It is governed not just by physical laws, but also by laws that are dependent on consciousness. The physical laws by themselves are an illusion - a mental construct, but the laws of consciousness (psycho-physical?) are reality. You access open the door to these laws by first discovering pure conscious state. You control them through focus and will.
Divine Insight wrote:Therefore I suggest that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that these fantasy speculations about reality hold any truth.

Nothing they have claimed has ever come to pass. It's all been nothing more than empty hot air for thousands of years. Yet for some reason you seem to think that there still might be something to it.

Why?

I experienced transcendental mediation and I saw no reason to conclude that this means that I'm universal consciousness. In fact, where is there any rational reason to jump to such an unwarranted conclusion?
Ask yourself, is there a reason why prominent scientist have made claims similar to mine when it comes to consciousness? Is there a reason why many prominent scientists are flocking to Buddhism to help understand mind and consciousness? Are you aware that meditation is becoming more and more interest of Western science? More importantly, why were you led to Buddhism?

Like many before them, these scientists have come to or are being led to the realization that materialism can not explain consciousness. Deep down they acknowledge there is something missing, there is more to it. If materialism had all the answers then there would be no need for Eastern thought.

User avatar
SkyChief
Apprentice
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: L.A.
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #42

Post by SkyChief »

Razorsedge wrote:
SkyChief wrote:
Razorsedge wrote:
Everything is conscious.


You are delusional.

Seriously.
I don't see why this is so far fetched because we experience everything in consciousness. The world that we know is one that is constructed by the brain and presented to our awareness. Based on these two points, I don’t think it’s to far off to conclude that everything is simply a product of consciousness.

If you think this is all delusional then here’s further support:
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
- Max Planck (father of quantum theory)
We seem to have different ideas about what consciousness really is. I use the definition in the dictionary which is simply "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings."
I appreciate that you quoted Planck. I had much respect for him before I knew of this idea (that all matter has consciousness).

Clearly, the consciousness that you (and Planck) describe is very different than the consciousness in the dictionary, which requires at least some fundamental ability to react to stimuli.

The Cambridge Dictionary refines the term further:

"the state of being awake, aware of what is around you, and able to think"

This definition requires a brain.

So again, we're using the same word (consciousness), but we're describing very different things.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #43

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 40 by SkyChief]
So again, we're using the same word (consciousness), but we're describing very different things.


Important point ... he's clearly using a different definition of the word than most dictionaries (ie. the common interpretation of the word). Given the usual definition, it is impossible for a rock to be conscious, or anything else that does not possess a brain.

So maybe Razorsedge can provide the alternate definition of consciousness being used, or (better) another more suitable word or phrase that better represents what is being referred to.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #44

Post by William »


User avatar
Swami
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Post #45

Post by Swami »

SkyChief wrote: We seem to have different ideas about what consciousness really is. I use the definition in the dictionary which is simply "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings."
I appreciate that you quoted Planck. I had much respect for him before I knew of this idea (that all matter has consciousness).

Clearly, the consciousness that you (and Planck) describe is very different than the consciousness in the dictionary, which requires at least some fundamental ability to react to stimuli.

The Cambridge Dictionary refines the term further:

"the state of being awake, aware of what is around you, and able to think"

This definition requires a brain.

So again, we're using the same word (consciousness), but we're describing very different things.
Consciousness is a real world phenomenon and as such, definitions would describe it as opposed to prescribing what it should be. If you were making up your own word or concept (like a label for a group), then you get to determine what it should be. How consciousness works, which is not up to you and I, should determine the definition. In my case, my definition covers my experiences in consciousness using the Eastern approach.

Under my approach I've found that consciousness is not limited to thought, a brain, or the ability to respond to stimuli. What it retains from your definition is "awareness". When I say that everything is conscious, I'm referring to everything being aware. When I say it is the substrate of existence, I'm referring to this awareness being present at the most fundamental part of reality from which everything else is derived from. There is a way to verify everything that I'm saying if scientists are willing to experience it for themselves.

…………………..
Seeking out the nature of consciousness and experiencing it is what led me to realize that it underlies everything - it is universal. It is God, in that sense.
This Super-Conscious Mind exists as an infinite field of potential which knows no boundaries or limitations. Within itself it contains EVERY probability, from the infinitely large to the infinitely small. It encompasses ALL things from the macroscopic to the microscopic and beyond. It comprises all things physical and those that are non physical.

Additional descriptions of this Super Consciousness are The Alpha, The Omega, The Beginning, The End. The All in All. The I Am.

The Super Conscious Mind is all pervasive. It is within everything and exists everywhere. You could say that it is an Infinite Field of Potential without borders or restriction.
http://www.abundance-and-happiness.com/ ... -mind.html

User avatar
SkyChief
Apprentice
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: L.A.
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is a rock conscious?

Post #46

Post by SkyChief »

Razorsedge wrote: It seems scientists do not know where to draw the line when it comes to where consciousness exists.
Not surprisingly, the exact opposite could be said - - - a spiritual person seems to lack the ability to make the distinction between consciousness and non-consciousness.

Scientific data is much different than spiritual data (if there even IS such a thing), so this might explain the different perceptions of reality between scientists and Eastern philosophers.

Science can't play around with definitions, so their model of reality must be more precise than that of a philosopher's.

As you probably know, peer review is an important component of the scientific method. If one scientist hypothesized that non-living things are "aware" and therefore possess a rudimentary consciousness, then the rest of the scientific community will immediately dismiss him/her as a kook.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 27 times
Contact:

Re: Is a rock conscious?

Post #47

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to post 44 by SkyChief]

Not only do you fail to see that a spiritual person very well knows, possibly, about the difference of (f)MRI and some "experience" of Nature Is Speaking (Conservation International), by OR gate testing too along with a more complex and proven data-set. You also fail to see that Scientific Method, principally, only requires cognition in order to evaluate the demonstration of experiment!!

Hah-hah-hah-hah-hah, you may need to get sharper or read more? :study: :D 8-)
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

User avatar
SkyChief
Apprentice
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: L.A.
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is a rock conscious?

Post #48

Post by SkyChief »

Aetixintro wrote: [Replying to post 44 by SkyChief]

Not only do you fail to see that a spiritual person very well knows, possibly, about the difference of (f)MRI and some "experience" of Nature Is Speaking (Conservation International), by OR gate testing too along with a more complex and proven data-set. You also fail to see that Scientific Method, principally, only requires cognition in order to evaluate the demonstration of experiment!!

Hah-hah-hah-hah-hah, you may need to get sharper or read more? :study: :D 8-)
Are you suggesting that (f)MRI can detect consciousness within a rock?

You can put a bunch of metal, silicon, glass, plastic, etc on the floor and claim because there are electromagnetic fluctuations surrounding it, this heap of materials is therefore a "radio receiver".

Only it's NOT. . . . It's only the elements that can be used to make a radio receiver.

For these materials to make an actual radio receiver,they must be assembled and connected in a very specific manner.

Only then can this heap of materials detect and codify fluctuations in the electromagnetic field which surrounds it.

A rock contains oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, sodium, potassium, etc...

So does a human being. But the human being has these elements arranged in a physical form which allows for consciousness.

A rock doesn't.

User avatar
Swami
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Post #49

Post by Swami »

SkyChief wrote:
Razorsedge wrote: It seems scientists do not know where to draw the line when it comes to where consciousness exists.
Not surprisingly, the exact opposite could be said - - - a spiritual person seems to lack the ability to make the distinction between consciousness and non-consciousness.

Scientific data is much different than spiritual data (if there even IS such a thing), so this might explain the different perceptions of reality between scientists and Eastern philosophers.

Science can't play around with definitions, so their model of reality must be more precise than that of a philosopher's.

As you probably know, peer review is an important component of the scientific method. If one scientist hypothesized that non-living things are "aware" and therefore possess a rudimentary consciousness, then the rest of the scientific community will immediately dismiss him/her as a kook.
There are several ways to show that a rock is conscious. You wanted to focus on "responses" so I explained how to get a rock to respond to you. Under my approach, you can tell it exactly what you want it to do, and it does it.

Another way to show that the rock is conscious is by showing its nature - what it is made out of. What's apparent are rocks, sand, a very dense atomic structure, but what's not so apparent is its awareness. If you probe further into it's nature you'll began to see that it is a mental construct. This goes back to my first point because if the rock does whatever you want it to do - then you control it, it is dependent on you. If you want to probe even beyond this then you'll realize that everything is a mental construct, and you'll soon want to find the source of all this which is nothing more than consciousness itself. You can't get beyond existence and consciousness. The issue here is you're probably wondering what tool to use to probe as deep as I've been explaining here and I'll get into that next.

You brought up science being distinct from the Eastern approach. The problem with science (Western science, at least) is that it has no way of dealing with consciousness directly. To explore it directly, you need a reliable first-person tool. By the way, this tool can also be used to probe the nature of anything in the Universe (rocks included) even beyond where science can go. Please contemplate on this.

User avatar
SkyChief
Apprentice
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: L.A.
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #50

Post by SkyChief »

Razorsedge wrote:
Another way to show that the rock is conscious is by showing its nature - what it is made out of.
I have already debunked this with the radio receiver metaphor.

Just because you throw some glass, semi-conductors and carbon on the ground doesn't means you have made a radio.

Sorry.

You'll need to do better than that.

Post Reply