Consciousness, A Discussion

Well answer the question.

 

I have numerous times, latest post being...

D00d work on reading comprehension or ask me if you don't understand what I am saying. Or if you don't care to understand, at the very least please stop trying to undermine my ideas when I am responding to someone else.

 

And so you agree then that you are born with Consciousness, no matter how developed your prefrontal cortex is? Then there's no reason to say that it's complicated when it's not.

 

Regarding the cruder aspects that you speak of on the evolutionary line, I personally feel that plants have Consciousness as well, and so do some Scientists. Even crystals have a presence and a life to them if you carry them around. They change color over time and i definitely feel a direct effect it has on my overall vibration if I am holding a crystal versus not holding one. The Earth itself is a conscious organism. This leads me to feel that all matter has some form of Consciousness, since everything stems from Nature. This is where i start to sound too out-there for people, but I feel that the Aether is a very fine form of matter that has Consciousness.

But if you aren't open to the idea of these forms of life having Consciousness then it's not as easy for you to feel that Consciousness permeates the Universe rather than just emerging within the brain.

 

I think I've said complex, as in there is many interactions going to forming such structures. Yes I think humans are born conscious, in line with my graduated idea I think human infants consciousness is much more developed than most all other adult animal species. I'm not around adult Great Apes of other species or adult ceteaceans, so I'm not sure in regards to those.

However the prefrontal cortex takes time to develop in humans, which may account for some of the discrepancies we see in self-consciousness, analytical abilities and abstraction from infants to adults.

 

.... from A Philosophy of Deep
Space Ecology . published in the year 4572x.e.
author : (untranslatable name)

Deep Ecology :1973

 

I feel like self-awareness is something possessed by all matter. All matter exists in harmony to the environment. But nothing in and of itself is the environment. Things have the innate ability to distinguish themselves from the environment, which I think is the beginning of self-awareness. A rock fundamentally knows it's not a river. If it knew it were a river, it would be a river. What is it to know something, after all, but to react in a manner that makes sense to what is certain. The rock is certainly a rock, and will always react as a rock to its environment. How can we say that it has no self-awareness whatsoever in relationship to its environment? On the contrary, it knows exactly what to do to remain a rock.

If matter gives rise to consciousness, then we have one of two options. Either matter is giving rise to a phenomena that transcends the limits imposed on matter or it does not. If it does, well then we need to discuss consciousness as something transcendent. If it doesn't, then how is my persistent configuration of matter any more significant than a rock's? I do what a human being does. A rock does what a rock does. On some level we both possess only the ability for the information we are composed of to persist in the way we do in accordance with our relationship to our environment.

What does it mean to say a rock doesn't have consciousness if all consciousness is is a configuration of matter? If consciousness is just a configuration of matter, than any notion of it transcending time and space and the physical laws of the universe is only an illusion. It's just energetic matter being energetic. So is a rock. So is everything.

You could even say that rocks move of their own volition, since it is of their own volition to remain a rock and rocks do move. They aren't, therefore, entirely not to blame for where they move, right? We only move of our own volition in a more self-evident way. But perhaps we don't even move that much more than a rock compared to some other form of matter which can move in even more dimensions. Maybe we are closer to this "dead matter" than we initially appear, and maybe it all has some self-awareness.

In which case, when we die, we will just dissolve into a different configuration of matter that also possesses its own knowledge of self and self-awareness.

What I entirely don't think, though, is that everything is just black and dead before the brain suddenly exists and gives rise to an illusion we call consciousness. For if it is an illusion, then everything just remains as black and dead as it always was, no matter how poetically we might expound upon it.

 

You know? If consciousness is just an illusion, then matter is just being matter. In this case this particular configuration of matter has happened to produce something which it doesn't want to get rid of. That's all I can say about it, that our matter doesn't want to get rid of its "consciousness." It isn't that having consciousness is particularly useful to matter, because who gives a shit what happens to matter?! Who cares if you smash a rock with a hammer/who cares if you smash a person's head open with a hammer? It's just matter being useless, right?

But furthermore, if matter is producing something novel in the case of human beings, then why do we insist that this novelty is subject to the same laws that govern the matter that is producing it? Does anybody get what I am saying? If consciousness is real, and matter has created this "something extra" somehow, then what is this something extra and what laws apply to it? Can it necessarily be destroyed in the same way that matter can be destroyed?

It's like a sperm whale shooting off a spout of water. The sperm whale is producing the jet of water, but the jet of water isn't dependent upon the sperm whale for its continued existence. A sperm whale could be blown into oblivion the moment a jet of water was produced, and the jet of water would still travel through the air, presumably, and return to the sea. Perhaps a better analogy exists, but I can't think of one right now.

And if the brain isn't really producing something extra, like I said, then it's just some futile matter, right? No more significant than a rock or a fence post. And why shouldn't all futile matter possess some self-awareness?

 

If you take a dump and turn around and look at your shit and think it is just as self-aware and conscious as you, that's your prerogative.

I think most people would not feel that way and likewise in regards to the rock, there is a realm of activity that people see in their lives, which is not apparently possessed by the rock. I do not think this is exhibiting anthropocentric bias here either.

 

You're kind of avoiding the topic, though, aren't you? I'll call your bluff -- what exactly is it about me that is more special than my poop? If consciousness is an illusion created by matter, then isn't it also an illusion that my consciousness is special and aren't I therefore no more special than my own feces? My feces and I are actually both just matter. I don't see why it makes matter special that it has tricked itself into thinking it lives a rich, subjective life. In fact, I think if it has tricked itself into thinking this then it is delusional on top of being just ordinary matter. At least my poop doesn't parade itself around like it's something important. My poop doesn't try to buy fancy cars to impress girls.

It seems like circular reasoning is all I'm saying:

My matter is special because it's conscious; my matter is conscious because it's special.

My question is whether or not there is something truly meaningful about my existence that makes it better than a rock or a piece of poop.

I think we all naturally assume that there is, so what I am arguing is that matter, in our case, has created something special that is truly a step above being just matter, and that we all actually live our lives as if this is the case. I am of the opinion that consciousness does have a meaning that transcends the world of ordinary matter. And if it transcends that world, then one way or another the laws of physics do not really apply to it.

I'm not even going to argue here that it can survive physical death. I am just saying that whatever it is, or was, is not just matter. Or if it is, then I don't think matter is dead in any sense of the word.

 

I don't know what you think I'm avoiding, I responded to a part I saw worth responding to...

I do not think rocks or poop are conscious by the way, so if consciousness was our measure of 'something special', then what makes us special compared to rocks or poop is that we are conscious. I'd probably pass the baton to an existential discussion from there, if we want to go on to discuss how this special feature of consciousness provides meaning, insight, status, so on and so forth in our lives.

In regards to consciousness being an illusion, I don't follow how it's an illusion if consciousness is constrained by time and space.

 

Oneness is realizing the infinity in all of existence and seeing that each part, whether it be feces, slug, or human, plays its part in the whole.

 

You're avoiding the question of what makes our matter meaningful. It isn't special just because it's conscious, or you are saying there is something special about consciousness. In which case, what is it that you think is special about consciousness?

Nevermind whether rocks or poop are conscious. What makes consciousness special as opposed to a complete delusion on matter's part? I could just as well say that rocks and poop are special because they're not conscious.

You are arguing that consciousness is a byproduct of matter. I'm wondering what makes this a good thing. Why is it good for matter to delude itself into thinking its having positive, meaningful experiences when in fact it's just matter, matter not superior to any other matter?

I think we do have to get into this existential matter if we're really going to discuss the nature of consciousness. If it's impossible for us to see consciousness for what it truly is, if in fact it is just an illusion, then what hope do we have of having a meaningful conversation about consciousness?

Well you keep referencing Dennett who says consciousness is an illusion. It's an illusion if it's really just matter, no more significant than any kind of matter. You can't prove that matter is significant just because it possesses consciousness. We think of ourselves as special compared to rocks (and poop). If we didn't, we could destroy each other as easily as we crush rocks or flush poop down the toilet.

It is an assumption that consciousness is special, and the only way for it to be special is for it to be a class above ordinary matter.

So I have proven that our consciousness is extraordinary.

 

Exactly. My feces is only insignificant if I am insignificant. I am not me without my feces. It's these relationships which make us self-aware. And unlike gorilla, I do believe my feces has a modicum of self-awareness.

 

You brought up the term special, I don't know what you mean by that.

Because consciousness allows for interacting with the environment and if the name of the game in evolution is survival of the fittest, it's obvious what the benefits of being conscious are for living organisms survival.

I have yet to read the Dennett book mentioned earlier but from what I've seen on youtube video, is that his reasons why consciousness are illusory are different than what you mentioned.

Again, I don't know how you are defining special but in that nebulous way consciousness can be special if it is an emergent property of matter.

 

Yes I was being whimsical and didn't choose my words carefully. When I say that consciousness is special I mean that it is a good, meaningful thing. We can't prove it is a good thing, but we all must assume it is a good thing in order to function. So functionally, it is a good thing.

Is that the name of the game, though, or is that the illusion? Is the actuality of what is happening here that some matter is arranging itself into lots of different positions in timespace and that's the sum total of it?

What I am saying is that it definitely has meaning. If I thought it didn't, I would be a crazy person. It empirically has meaning. It's not just a subjective wish for it to have meaning.

 

We were talking about consciousness as illusion and now the phrase you are repeating after me was in regards to evolution, so You're losing me here, what part are you asking is that the illusion about?

 

You are saying that consciousness is a vital part of an organism's survival. I am saying that doesn't explain why consciousness should exist, because why should matter give a shit if it survives or not? A rock doesn't care if it survives or not. It's made of matter just like we are. Protons, electrons, gluons, muons, etc. Our matter is nothing special.

So consciousness isn't a necessary part of matter's survival. Instead it is just a fluke.

I would say our consciousness seems almost unfair. It is causing useless matter to think that its survival is important, when what is inescapable is that all any organism really is is an arrangement of dead matter.

So I am saying that we require something special about consciousness in order to make it important that it survives. It can't just be a fluke, and it didn't come about to "protect matter." The idea that lifeless matter should need protection is absurd. It most certainly is important that consciousness survives, though. I think we can take that for granted, since we have no choice but to take it for granted. Why is it so important that a fluke endures or that dead matter endures? It seems counterintuitive to me to suggest that either is the case.

 

I mean, if it is a fluke, then hasn't matter somehow created a meaningfulness that transcends the meaning of the matter itself?

 

Good point, and that's precisely why the issue of consciousness is important to me. We haven't yet identified a clear evolutionary function for consciousness. From an evolutionary standpoint--i.e., our ability to survive and reproduces--how is it helpful that we're conscious? Yet if we weren't conscious, the sheer integrated complexity of this universe would go unnoticed and unappreciated. Some scientists might say "So what?" You used the word "fluke". Either that, or a miracle. This is kind of like the question that philosophers go round and round on: Why is there something instead of nothing? Physicist Lawrence Krauss has written a book A Universe from Nothing, explaining the existence of something in terms of quantum vacuum fluctuations, but those are not "nothing". Why isn't the universe blind? Because we evolved and have consciousness. But why did that happen?