Is consciousness/lifeforce a property of all matter? (Poll & discussion)

[Virola78]

From the wiki:

Tao (道, pinyin: dào (help·info) ) is a concept found in Taoism, Confucianism, and more generally in ancient Chinese philosophy. While the character itself translates as 'way', 'path', or 'route', or sometimes more loosely as 'doctrine' or 'principle', it is used philosophically to signify the fundamental or true nature of the world. The concept of Tao differs from Western ontology, however; it is an active and holistic conception of the world, rather than one that focuses on a hierarchy of being.

In Taoism, Tao both precedes and encompasses the universe. As with other nondualistic philosophies, all the observable objects in the world - referred to in the Tao Te Ching as 'the named' or 'the ten thousand things' - are considered to be manifestations of Tao, and can only operate within the boundaries of Tao. Tao is, by contrast, often referred to as 'the nameless', because neither it nor its principles can ever be adequately expressed in words. It is conceived, for example, with neither shape nor form, as simultaneously perfectly still and constantly moving, as both larger than the largest thing and smaller than the smallest, because the words that describe shape, movement, size, or other qualities always create dichotomies, and Tao is always a unity.

While the Tao cannot be expressed, Taoism holds that it can be known, and its principles can be followed. Much of Taoist writing focuses on the value of following the Tao - called Te (virtue) - and of the ultimate uselessness of trying to understand or control Tao outright. This is often expressed through yin and yang arguments, where every action creates a counter-action as a natural, unavoidable movement within manifestations of the Tao.

Tao is often compared to water : clear, colorless, unremarkable, yet all beings depend on it for life, and even the hardest stone cannot stand in its way forever.

 

[burnt]

You ask why we need to discuss this, when we can easily just accept your view of the world that we are mere matter and die forever. Because it is THE most important question there is... as beings conscious of the inevitability of our own physical death, the thing most of us want more than anything else in the world, is more life... to be as infinite as the existence in which we dwell, are a part of, are made up of the same stuff as. That is why we discuss these ideas- we are searching for immortality.

I think its worth discussing. Didn't mean to imply it wasn't nor that all chips are in. I don't have all the answers and I could one day be convinced otherwise.

Could DMT be teaching this thing? My dreamer always feels like this in hyperspace.

For SWIM DMT was the final straw. SWIM certainly feels all the weird things others do on dmt but after being sober SWIM is nearly convinced that all mystical and religious experiences are just tricks of the brain. If one silly little teeny tiny neurotransmitter can cause that much distortion.

Hi Burnt, I get your point, but please don't get hung up on the definition of consciousness- this is why I said consciousness/lifeforce- who knows what to call this thing, maybe we'll figure it out here?

I do think definitions are important. But I understand your broader context so yea no need to repeat. But in that case I still say no. There is no evidence for an underlying force that only life has. Life is just organized differently then non life because of its chemistry and structure. This philosophy about life force is as old as philosophy. But yet no one has ever detected anything like it or needed it to explain any of life's behavior or properties nor origins. Of course there are underlying forces that all matter has. But that is far from an intelligence its the fundamental forces which might really all come from the same force but anyway why is that intelligent or conscious? How is electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity intelligent? Even if all the forces are unified or were unified in the early known universe how is that intelligent? We can explain the evolution of all matter without any sort of intelligence coming into the picture without violating any of the so called laws of nature.

Nonetheless i find that all the answers science has to offer when it comes to explaining counsciousness have one weakness: like 69ron said, they fail to totally encompass all aspects and definitions of counsciousness.

There is no neuropsychological model or theory that actually manages to explain counsciousness. It can pretty acurately explain behaviour and symptoms of counsciousness, it can pretty acurately explain the structure of different states of mind.

I accept and agree. This is why I think its no but don't really know for sure.

But when this would be the final explanation of counsciousness, than you would have to say that the conclusion or even simple registration of a fact would already be some sort of counsciousness, that a computer would have a counsciousness the moment it would include itself and its own existance in it's computations.

But when you think about it, you would have to admit that this self-inclusion would have no different logical value then simply telling a computer it exists, since it's all just information, and that simply telling a computer that it exists has no different value than writing down in a book, that it exists.
So then a piece of paper that has written on it something about itself would be counscious.

This I don't agree with. I think that information processing and recognition of sensory information has to be organized in specific ways to for a being to be conscious and self aware. If you cut some neurons out of a rat brain and throw them into a media bath to do experiments on them I don't think they are conscious. Individual neurons are not conscious. Its the system that is conscious. How matter needs to be organized to be conscious is still the mystery to me that science needs to unravel and not so much this philosophical muddling about what consciousness is. If science could then understand that and build/genetically engineer/engineer other life into a conscious machine would that be proof of the hypothesis I am leaning towards?

So are you saying that consciousness is NOT a product of chemical reactions?

Chemical A reacting with chemical B to make chemical C is not how consciousness works. There is far more going on in the brain then that. Its more about signaling and processing information.

 

[ohayoco]

Thanks for your thoughts, Burnt, they're appreciated. I'm not really fussed about retaining intelligence or technical consciousness when I die, as long as I continue Being, which is why I used the DMT ego-death analogy. I'd be happy with a mere continued existence in some pleasurable form, however basic... I always thought this to be how nirvana was meant to feel. A sleep before another awakening would be ok too (infinite recurrence etc), thought that would be veering off-topic. I think we are similar, in that we both want to be convinced for the reassurance, but aren't there yet. Me, I waver, but even the thought that it's a possibility is some reassurance. I expect that's why many of us are here.

 

[ibeing897]

I dont think the question can be answered, going back to definitions (which are everything), if noone can say what actually are the "life-force" qualities then no-one can say if all matter possesses them. I mean we know the sensory perception will not be the same... so then you ask what's left.... I do think the properties of matter and consciousness could be linked in some surprising way, after all the information contained in light has no meaning at all unless it's given some by an observer, and in a quantum sense, all matter is making measurements and therefore manifesting the world around it... I just don't think this is consciousness, an aspect of it maybe.

I do find it interesting when the conservation turns to life after death, because I can't help but think this topic is always linked to another reality rather than the one right now, that is something I can't imagine speculating upon, and it seems like a different question all together... I mean, my "life-force" (if there is one) is either a property of matter or it isn't, I don't really see it being both.

 

[polytrip]

But when this would be the final explanation of counsciousness, than you would have to say that the conclusion or even simple registration of a fact would already be some sort of counsciousness, that a computer would have a counsciousness the moment it would include itself and its own existance in it's computations.

But when you think about it, you would have to admit that this self-inclusion would have no different logical value then simply telling a computer it exists, since it's all just information, and that simply telling a computer that it exists has no different value than writing down in a book, that it exists.
So then a piece of paper that has written on it something about itself would be counscious.

This I don't agree with. I think that information processing and recognition of sensory information has to be organized in specific ways to for a being to be conscious and self aware. If you cut some neurons out of a rat brain and throw them into a media bath to do experiments on them I don't think they are conscious. Individual neurons are not conscious. Its the system that is conscious. How matter needs to be organized to be conscious is still the mystery to me that science needs to unravel and not so much this philosophical muddling about what consciousness is. If science could then understand that and build/genetically engineer/engineer other life into a conscious machine would that be proof of the hypothesis I am leaning towards?

The thing is that this processing of information exists out of mechanic reactions that are not counscious by themself. So then the system as a whole must be the thing that's counscious.
So then you say that counsciousness is a structure, a mathematical shape.

We would soon agree that a simple image of a brain or a diagram of brain-activity isns't counscious either, so the structure has to be at least 4-dimensional.

We would also agree that a 4 dimensional chart of brain-activity isn't counscious either since this is merely a film that exists out of a series of pictures.

So then we're drawn towards the idea that counsciousness is an active and responsive process that requires an environment of stimuli and that the correlation between the environment and the brain-activity must be part of the structure that's counsciousness.

The idea that counsciousness is just a mechanic proces is something that could be very true.
If it is true, then i think that the next step in our model of counsciousness is to realize that, now the external stimuli are included in the model, the brain can make the distinction between external and internal stimuli and that it therefore can generate something that is a very essential feature of counsciousness, wich is the sense of 'realness', the assumption that we truly exist, that we are real.

The brain can make the distinction between internal and extarnal stimuli and therefore between fact and fantasy, so fantasy would be essential for a brain to be able to come up with the concept of 'realness'.

The structure of counsciousness would look like a brain that constantly generates feedback-loops that are created by and interfere at the same time with a responsive computational proces and that with the help of sensory stimuli, filters out all the noise that comes with this proces.

I can see that such a model would have all the features of a counscious mind. That, if you would build a machine that would work like this, it would be able to apear counscious to us. It would succeed at the turingtest.

Yet, you would be holding the structure of all movements out of wich this proces exists as responsible then, for counsciousness.
And i would think that motion in itself is empty.

I am therefore, possibly by the limitations of my brain, tempted to believe that the shape of all motion can only be counscious if it acts upon a medium, wich is matter.
Wich leads to a view in wich you no longer make the distinction between counscious and not-counscious, but between structured counsciousness and non-structured counsciousness. A bit like 69ron described at the beginning of this thread.

 

[burnt]

Really nice post polytrip.

Yet, you would be holding the structure of all movements out of wich this proces exists as responsible then, for counsciousness.
And i would think that motion in itself is empty.

I am therefore, possibly by the limitations of my brain, tempted to believe that the shape of all motion can only be counscious if it acts upon a medium, wich is matter.
Wich leads to a view in wich you no longer make the distinction between counscious and not-counscious, but between structured counsciousness and non-structured counsciousness. A bit like 69ron described at the beginning of this thread.

Except you lost me here. The first paragraph I don't understand. The second one I see what you mean but am a bit confused on why the preceding remarks lead to that conclusion. Can you explain?

 

[Touche Guevara]

Consciousness is a side effect of overlapping stimulus-response processes in a sufficiently complex brain.

 

[jamie]

conciousness is diffused throughout all of creation...it is the blue sky of ocean above..it is long walks on the beach durring warm summer sunets..it is the moon..the stars..the birds..the trees..

It is the planets..it is the universe, and the multiverse..

It is hyperspace.

It is falling in love..and falling out of love..and falling in love once again..

It is beautiful..and ugly.

It is music and it is art.

It is cycle.

It is why the world spins..why orcas sing..why the sea has tides..

It can be found in the rain..in the snow..

It is electron spin resonance..

It is evolution..creation and destruction..

It is love..

It is light..

Origin and destination.

It is.

 

[imPsimon]

If you haven't seen it, here's a 2009 bbc documentary about consciousness.

They do some really cool experiments like gradually inserting some guy with a drug (can't remeber which)
to see when he becomes less and less conscious of himself.

BBC Horizon: The secret you. Consciousness. Pt1 of 6

 

[ohayoco]

Here's another one called 'Alone' about an experiment in sensory deprivation (can't seem to link direct, scroll down to it here http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Zuke696&view=playlists )

Yes, I get what you're saying Polytrip, great points. I do think that an advanced enough machine could pass the Turing Test, and that it could have consciousness as we do... both the machine and us are made of the same matter subatomically, so why not I say? I'd also like to hear more on the last bits that Burnt pointed out. I also suspect that without internal or external stimuli, there is no consciousness as we know it... but does that mean there is no life?

Is it possible for brain activity to stop completely, but for the person to still be alive? Or at this point do you count as dead, even if brain activity then returns and consciosness along with it? Does this ever happen medically?

If brain activity can stop entirely, yet a person reports that he was not dead at the time (perhaps with a near death experience), would that be proof that thee is still Being without consciousness? Assuming that crazy time warping does not occur before or after the period of zero activity...

 

[universecannon]

"Something Alan Watts once said:

If consciousness is a complicated form of minerals, then minerals are a primitive form of consciousness. Have your cake and eat it, too."

Great quote..
benzyme, that one by Plancke is as well.

I don't try to hold any definite belief about the idea of all matter being conscious, or a universal mind that pervades everything..but i see it as plausible, almost likely. Maybe its just a hunch.. Though i think it also depends on how you look at it and define your terms.

I have read of and had experiences that involve a pretty convincing sensational and visual display of my consciousness merging with matter, trees and some "inanimate". This could be tricks of the mind. Or just another one of the billion mysteries we haven't a clue about yet. We think we know a lot but i think in the bigger picture we don't understand squat yet, especially about the nature of consciousness..The nice thing is were accelerating at an ever increasing rate.

I think living plants and animals are conscious if only at a lower level than ourselves. But i mean look at the huge mycelium and aspen trees that spread across acres and acres all seemingly disconnected and separate from above, but then look under the surface and we see its all connected, all one big organism. They could have forms of communication, consciousness, information storage, or morphogenetic fields that we haven't discovered yet. They could be much smarter than us. Or they could be connected via hyperspace :twisted: who knows!

 

[polytrip]

Really nice post polytrip.

Yet, you would be holding the structure of all movements out of wich this proces exists as responsible then, for counsciousness.
And i would think that motion in itself is empty.

I am therefore, possibly by the limitations of my brain, tempted to believe that the shape of all motion can only be counscious if it acts upon a medium, wich is matter.
Wich leads to a view in wich you no longer make the distinction between counscious and not-counscious, but between structured counsciousness and non-structured counsciousness. A bit like 69ron described at the beginning of this thread.

Except you lost me here. The first paragraph I don't understand. The second one I see what you mean but am a bit confused on why the preceding remarks lead to that conclusion. Can you explain?

Oh it's not meant as a conclusion, realy. More that i believe in science, but that i'm still bafled by all the mysteries left after we throw all the science at our questions and that i find spiritual concepts very atractive when i look at this life.

 

[Citta]

I thought it was appropriate to pass on this:

"You're assuming" said Dr. Robert "that the brain produces consciousness. I'm assuming that it transmits consciousness. And my explanation is not more farfetched than yours. How on earth can a set of events belonging to one order be experienced as a set of events belonging to an entirely different and incommensurable order? Nobody has the faintest idea. All one can do is accept the facts and concoct hypotheses. And one hypotheses is just about as good, philosophically speaking, as another. You say that the moksha-meditation does something to the silent areas of the brain, which causes them to produce a set of subjective events to which people have given the name "mystical experience". I say that the moksha-medicine does something to the silent areas of the brain, which opens some kind of neurological sluice and so allows a large volume of Mind with a large "M" to flow in to your mind with a small "m". You can't demonstrate the truth of your hypothesis, and I can't demonstrate the truth of mine. And even if you could prove that I'm wrong, would it make any practical difference?"

- Aldous Huxley, Island (1962)

 

[burnt]

We can and people are testing these things. I don't get why people think they aren't or that its impossible. Read the modern neuroscientific literature and you will see. People are finding out whats going on in the brain to help us better understand consciousness.