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?

[Swami]

Prominent neuroscientist, Dr. Christof Koch is shifting towards panpsychism to explain consciousness:

Published in Scientific American

As a natural scientist, I find a version of panpsychism modified for the 21st century to be the single most elegant and parsimonious explanation for the universe I find myself in. There are three broad reasons why panpsychism is appealing to the modern mind.

Yet the mental is too radically different for it to arise gradually from the physical. This emergence of subjective feelings from physical stuff appears inconceivable and is at odds with a basic precept of physical thinking, the Ur-conservation law—ex nihilo nihil fit. So if there is nothing there in the first place, adding a little bit more won't make something. If a small brain won't be able to feel pain, why should a large brain be able to feel the god-awfulness of a throbbing toothache? Why should adding some neurons give rise to this ineffable feeling? The phenomenal hails from a kingdom other than the physical and is subject to different laws. I see no way for the divide between unconscious and conscious states to be bridged by bigger brains or more complex neurons.


A more principled solution is to assume that consciousness is a basic feature of certain types of so-called complex systems (defined in some universal, mathematical manner). And that complex systems have sensation, whereas simple systems have none. Consciousness comes with organized chunks of matter. It is immanent in the organization of the system. It is a property of complex entities and cannot be further reduced to the action of more elementary properties. We have reached the ground floor of reductionism.

These century-old arguments bring me to the conceptual framework of the integrated information theory (IIT) of psychiatrist and neuroscientist Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. It postulates that conscious experience is a fundamental aspect of reality and is identical to a particular type of information—integrated information. Consciousness depends on a physical substrate but is not reducible to it. That is, my experience of seeing an aquamarine blue is inexorably linked to my brain but is different from my brain.

Any system that possesses some nonzero amount of integrated information experiences something. Let me repeat: any system that has even one bit of integrated information has a very minute conscious experience.

Published in Wired

Neuroscientist Christof Koch, chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, thinks he might know the answer. According to Koch, consciousness arises within any sufficiently complex, information-processing system. All animals, from humans on down to earthworms, are conscious; even the internet could be. That’s just the way the universe works.

What Koch proposes is a scientifically refined version of an ancient philosophical doctrine called panpsychism — and, coming from someone else, it might sound more like spirituality than science. But Koch has devoted the last three decades to studying the neurological basis of consciousness. His work at the Allen Institute now puts him at the forefront of the BRAIN Initiative, the massive new effort to understand how brains work, which will begin next year.
Koch’s insights have been detailed in dozens of scientific articles and a series of books, including last year’s Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. WIRED talked to Koch about his understanding of this age-old question.

In principle, in all sorts of ways. One implication is that you can build two systems, each with the same input and output — but one, because of its internal structure, has integrated information. One system would be conscious, and the other not. It’s not the input-output behavior that makes a system conscious, but rather the internal wiring.
The theory also says you can have simple systems that are conscious, and complex systems that are not. The cerebellum should not give rise to consciousness because of the simplicity of its connections. Theoretically you could compute that, and see if that’s the case, though we can’t do that right now. There are millions of details we still don’t know. Human brain imaging is too crude. It doesn’t get you to the cellular level.

My thoughts are that Koch's theory extends the boundaries of consciousness by not limiting it to just a "brain". He defines consciousness as being more complex than my definition. This convinces me more that my definition would be even easier to apply everywhere - to all matter - since no information content is needed.

The part in red font is a good argument against theories involving emergence, reductionism, and others that restrict consciousness to a complex brain.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 10 by Razorsedge]

Yet the mental is too radically different for it to arise gradually from the physical. This emergence of subjective feelings from physical stuff appears inconceivable and is at odds with a basic precept of physical thinking, the Ur-conservation law—ex nihilo nihil fit. So if there is nothing there in the first place, adding a little bit more won't make something. If a small brain won't be able to feel pain, why should a large brain be able to feel the god-awfulness of a throbbing toothache? Why should adding some neurons give rise to this ineffable feeling? The phenomenal hails from a kingdom other than the physical and is subject to different laws.[/color] I see no way for the divide between unconscious and conscious states to be bridged by bigger brains or more complex neurons.

Hi Razor. I really appreciate the way you pursue the consciousness issue because it is the single greatest threat to the materialist paradigm. I'll explain where I agree and disagree with your article.

Agreement:
- The mental is "radically different" (the author's words) than the physical brain.
- Nothing at the cellular level (neurons) shows any hint of subjective activity.
- New laws are needed to account for the phenomenal or subjective world of existence.

Disagreement:
- Ruling out emergence in favor of panpsychism

In my view both emergence and panpsychism are on the table but the latter tends to not be falsifiable. How can we demonstrate that a Coke bottle is aware even if it was so? As for emergence, Dr. Koch seems to associate emergence with only complexity when that is not always the case. There are examples of emergence with simple cases, like H2O and NaCL having emergent properties. Emergence is simply a concept where in a system you have properties/attributes at the top level differing from properties that make up the top level - the bottom level parts/processes.

So one assumption is thinking emergence always involves complexity, but another one is that emergence involves only the physical. Last I checked, having a physical substrate (the brain) with a non-physical or not-so physical phenomena (mental imagery, awareness, etc. ) operating with it counts as a difference in properties (i.e. physical to non-physical).

And as a bonus, here's a good explanation as to how 'emergence' creates a problem for one of the explanatory models for materialism - reductive materialism:

To further philosophically define the exact point at which reductive materialism breaks down, we need to look at a philosophical problem called strong emergence. Strong emergence entails consciousness arising from a conglomeration of whole-brain activity (if you stick enough brain matter together and wire it all up in just the right way, suddenly you get emotions.)

This belief that consciousness springs into existence at some undefined point of brain complexity is a violation of reductive materialism. If consciousness is “irreducible� beyond a certain level of brain complexity, then this is a clear failure of reductive materialist science.

The ONLY way the brain can achieve “awareness� AND be in compliance with a reductionist philosophy is if the components that make up the brain contain elements of conscious awareness to them.

Source

As to that last sentence, we both know (Dr. Koch included) that nothing at the level of physics, chemistry, and biology (cellular level, at least) has been shown to give a hint of subjective qualities or awareness. Dr. Koch did not even touch on the fact that subjective experience, which it seems he admits as being different from the brain, can affect or determine the behavior of the lower level parts. Perhaps this is where panpsychism might come in. If a "mind" is what determines biology then we call that a creative/personal/conscious force. But when it's inanimate matter (particles, atoms, cells) that determine or cause behavior we call it mechanistic. In my view, both play a role in reality.

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by Razorsedge]

Razorsedge

Forgive my late reply to your own, as I did not see it until now.

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.

Yes - it seems obvious enough through observing that such a conclusion must inevitable be formed.

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.

Awareness defines consciousness...Self awareness, foremost.
There are critters which are not considered to have brains which still show definite signs of self awareness, thus consciousness. This need be taken into account when faced with arguments which claim that consciousness is 'emergent of brains'.
Often what is found here is that those who believe that GODs do not exist, will not take such a fact into consideration, which - while unfortunate - appears to be a necessary faux pas on the part of the Atheist/atheism in order for them to continue being anti-theist in all regards and disregards.

I see too that you decline comment on the second quote re The Earth Entity. It is a huge thing to get ones head around, but makes perfect sense in relation to how life has evolved, and how humans have responded to their position in amongst that.

Reading the following;

[Replying to post 29 by Elijah John]
Is God alone without creator?

By definition, yes. And according to Psalm 100.3, YHVH is God, the Creator.

and:

[Replying to post 32 by postroad]

It's a Christian concept that humanity needs to be conformed to some standard of perfection worthy of being acceptable to God.

It seems that God's requirements demand he reproduce himself. Something not possible even for himself.

Only in Trinitarian Christianity. Yahweh's religion is orignally Judaism, and the notion of God reproducing Himself or incarnating Himself is anathema in Jewish thought.

[Replying to post 37 by StuartJ]

I've offered the evidence of comparison. That the Jewish notion of God was far ahead of their neighbors.

But it seems that is not evidence to you. So may I ask, what would be convincing evidence to you that YHVH is God?

The Bible also plainly states the fact, in Psalm 100.3 and elsewhere, in a way that the NT NEVER calls Jesus "God".

Now if you want to reject the testimony or the validity of the Bible fair enough. But I don't recall you clearly asking for extra-Biblical evidence that YHVH is God, though I tried to give you some.

Now what is found in the above quotes is one persons understanding of one cultures reaction to the question of GOD.

And this - from the same thread further on;

Somebody who sends lots of frogs to frighten Pharaoh is a little less than god-like.

All of the miracles that Moses performed for YHWH proved YHWH's direct control over the pagan gods (frogs, flies etc) of the Egyptians, denigrating them and uplifting YHWH above them. At least they got off lightly without Moses calling down fire upon them to prove HIM...that would have been a fright. As it was, they were not frightened enough, eh, even to losing their first born.

The 'Pagans' and Panpsychism had the idea that the Earth itself is a conscious creative self aware purposeful entity, oft seeing 'her' in the feminine. The Mother Earth.

Abrahamism was one peoples reaction to that belief, which - for reasons well enough stated - resolved to end paganism's influences on human beings by replacing the Feminine idea with The masculine, and doing away with most idols/idolatry, the only idol left to worship being the imagined masculine creator YHVH.

What they either didn't understand or understood completely (some may have and others not) is that the evidence for their 'GOD' came directly from The Earth Entity and it was [Her] move to make Israel an 'example to the nations' which caused the ripple effect that it did.

If one is to attempt to think of GOD in terms of 'a ghost of a spirit' which, on occasion, makes itself known - specifically to those who are responsive and looking out for such a thing with expectancy - if one asks oneself this;

IF the earth is in fact the form of a creative self aware purposeful entity...

...THEN, how would such an entity use its form and consciousness in order to connect with and commune with any human being?

The answer would naturally be complicated and difficult for human beings to work out.

But the question itself was not meant to be asked, if the Abrahamic religions are to be believed. The idea of GOD being human in form, lording it over others, sitting on a throne making judgments - while a convenient analogy in bygone eras - loses a lot of impact in a modern world.

If one cares to substitute all religious beliefs about GODs with the idea that the planet itself is the initial cause (but not the elaborator) of such notions, the idea itself opens up a far better way of understanding the evolution of human thought and belief throughout that period of time.

Indeed - one needn't stop with just religion either. Scientific discover can be seen to involve the idea that the Earth Entity inspires humans along that path as well.

[John Human]

It seems to me that Leibniz's concept of monads (in his "Monadology") is not inconsistent with a rock being conscious. From personal experience, I have no doubt that plants are conscious and capable of communicating, but (like humans) the generally don't communicate with just anybody. There's a book by a German forester, "The Hidden Life of Trees," that barely stays within the bounds of what might be called "normally acceptable" on this subject, but the attentive reader can't help getting the impression that the author is saying much less than he could.

[SkyChief]

Is a rock conscious?

To (honestly) answer that question, we must first understand and agree on the meaning of the word 'conscious'.


Conscious can mean any of the the following three things;

• aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.

• having knowledge of something; aware.

• painfully aware of; sensitive to.

Knowing the meaning of the word, and applying Critical Thinking, the answer to this question is obvious:

A rock is NOT conscious.

[Swami]

Is a rock conscious?

To (honestly) answer that question, we must first understand and agree on the meaning of the word 'conscious'.


Conscious can mean any of the the following three things;

• aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.

• having knowledge of something; aware.

• painfully aware of; sensitive to.

Knowing the meaning of the word, and applying Critical Thinking, the answer to this question is obvious:

A rock is NOT conscious.

I accept your definitions but I'd like to add another concept which is related to consciousness.

'Satchitananda' (Sat-chit-ananda, a Sanskrit compound word) used in Hinduism to describe the nature of reality. This term also used to refer to God (Brahman).

The meaning of the individual words of sat-chit-ananda are as follows:
•Sat: truth, absolute being or existence-- that which is enduring and unchanging
•Chit: consciousness, understanding and comprehension
•Ananda: bliss, a state of pure happiness, joy and sensual pleasure

https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/58 ... hit-ananda

Under my definition, everything is conscious (aware, at the least).

There is proof for all of this beyond just definitions, of course. You have to first discover the nature of consciousness. If you follow consciousness to its fullest expression then it will lead you to the very nature of reality. The problem with Western science is that it has not discovered the fullest expression of consciousness.

[SkyChief]

Is a rock conscious?

To (honestly) answer that question, we must first understand and agree on the meaning of the word 'conscious'.


Conscious can mean any of the the following three things;

• aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.

• having knowledge of something; aware.

• painfully aware of; sensitive to.

Knowing the meaning of the word, and applying Critical Thinking, the answer to this question is obvious:

A rock is NOT conscious.

I accept your definitions but I'd like to add another concept which is related to consciousness.

'Satchitananda' (Sat-chit-ananda, a Sanskrit compound word) used in Hinduism to describe the nature of reality. This term also used to refer to God (Brahman).

The meaning of the individual words of sat-chit-ananda are as follows:
•Sat: truth, absolute being or existence-- that which is enduring and unchanging
•Chit: consciousness, understanding and comprehension
•Ananda: bliss, a state of pure happiness, joy and sensual pleasure

https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/58 ... hit-ananda

Under my definition, everything is conscious (aware, at the least).

I don't accept your definition because it requires belief and faith in metaphysical/spiritual things - which I don't have.

So your statement "Everything is conscious" is false.

[Swami]

I don't accept your definition because it requires belief and faith in metaphysical/spiritual things - which I don't have.

So your statement "Everything is conscious" is false.

The Eastern view that I brought up does not use faith as proof. It relies on experience, which is what Eastern religions emphasize through meditation.

[Swami]

I don't accept your definition because it requires belief and faith in metaphysical/spiritual things - which I don't have.

So your statement "Everything is conscious" is false.

Actually, I've verified a lot of my view using an Eastern approach. Eastern religions emphasize meditative experiences instead of faith.

You might disagree with my approach by preferring to stick to the Western science approach, but then I'd question why your approach is any better. And by "better" I'm referring to being better suited to deal with the issue of consciousness.

[Divine Insight]

I don't accept your definition because it requires belief and faith in metaphysical/spiritual things - which I don't have.

So your statement "Everything is conscious" is false.

Actually, I've verified a lot of my view using an Eastern approach. Eastern religions emphasize meditative experiences instead of faith.

You might disagree with my approach by preferring to stick to the Western science approach, but then I'd question why your approach is any better. And by "better" I'm referring to being better suited to deal with the issue of consciousness.

For me science is "better" because it's an approach to questions about reality that results in being able to make predictions about reality that can then be tested and verified.

There are countless examples of this in science, but just to point at one I'd point to The Special Theory of Relativity which predicted that time is not absolute but rather it can be dilated. This was a prediction that could be tested. When it was tested it was found to be correct. Time truly does dilate in our real world.

So where does the "guess" that all things are conscious lead to?

To begin with that "guess" cannot itself be confirmed.

But does this "guess" make any predictions that can be tested and verified?

If so, then please describe at least one such predication as I have done for the sciences.

If not, then why call it a "better" method of inquiring about the true nature of reality?

It should be clear that a method of inquiry that produces verifiable predictions should be considered to be "better" than one that cannot do this.

Don't you think this is a reasonable position to take?