Consciousness: Emergent property or A'Priori condition?

The Question:
Is consciousness a property of the universe that emerged as it gained complexity or is it an A'Priori condition which animates the physical universe, but is not constrained by it.


First off I want to establish a few fundamental concepts to simplify any ensuing discussion, or at least clarify what amounts to my perspective.


First let's just establish that for purposes of this discussion the physical universe is not a fixed entity, but is rather malleable and is in a constant flux with the conversion of energy to matter and vice versa.
The theory that all we have thus far observed/measured is essentially the same energy at different velocities and vibration states explains the phenomena we observe/experience and thus far "works" given our current knowledge. This is crucial to comprehending the interplay between consciousness and physical reality.


Second fundamental idea is that thus far based on our observations, the only matter in the universe that appears to posses the quality of "consciousness" is matter that we have defined as "living".
The question that I have proposed is most often applied to the development and increasing complexity of the nervous system of animals, culminating in man.
The failing of this limitation is that it does not account for the consciousness that plants and unicellular organisms exhibit. There has been enough research conducted with results indicating that plants do posses the ability to sense and ascertain their environment and then alter behavior in response. (will post links to research when I find them again ) I will accept that as exhibiting consciousness for the purpose of this discussion.


Therefore, given the preceding, I don't see consciousness as a property of the nervous system. I do feel that a sense of self awareness and the development of the "ego" are definitely emergent properties of the nervous system.
I feel consciousness is an energy field that permeates the physical universe but is not constrained by it.
Life is an emergent property of the interaction between consciousness and the physical universe.
The evolution of our nervous system has enabled a fuller expression/experience of that interaction.

So, any thoughts?:mickey:

 

It's a very logical thought process & yes - it does make sense to me.

I just seem to have this barrier inside me at present that wants to stop me believing such things.

This opensup the possibilities for so many things that "feel" illogical, but following reasoned thought processes are not.

Very interesting subject but it's going to take me a while to formulate a decent response to this one... definitely something I will be coming back to in my next introspective trip... that mindset really helps me explore these ideas without the limitation of my ego, I feel that really holds me back in these ideas.

 

Interesting thoughts to kick around...
And another area I'm out of my league in but that doesn't seem to stop me

A lot of the work today involving understanding our universe revolves around running things backwards to determine what was then, from what is now.
The plumber Leonard Susskind makes the analogy of dropping a drop of color into a sink of water and stirring. Given enough computational power, one could take the latter state and run it backwards to the original. A sink of clear water and a drop of color.
That said, perhaps one day a question like this could be answered. Until then it's all theory yes?
Is it a priori or a development caused by the evolution of our expanding and cooling universe? I'm going to go out on an uneducated limb and say that if there be consciousness now, and assume there was not consciousness at the point of singularity, then it follows that it developed over time.

An argument for the existence of a God would be to say consciousness has always and will always exist.
But, I'm an agnostic. :sunny:

That said, there's light years of distance from plants responding to stimuli to true consciousness. On the other hand we still struggle to define the true definition of consciousness itself.

 

I'm kinda hoping to keep God out of this one, but yeah.

I need to find the research I was thinking of because it illustrated a few interesting things,
communication between two plants of differing species
and a rather clear alteration in the growth patterns of the plants as a result.

Can they contemplate things like this thread, of course not, at least I don't think so. But sensing and reacting to stimuli is the most rudimentary expression of consciousness any life form exhibits.

I'm not talking about the degree with which an entity can share and express consciousness, just that it does seem to exist in only living matter and all life has thus far exhibited some degree of consciousness.
I am also not ruling out the possibility that even the individual cells that comprise macro-cellular entities such as humans aren't themselves in possession of that rudimentary consciousness.

 

I'm not going to post any corroborating links. I rely on mutual awareness when pitching for this issue.

I recognize a singular momentum in the world and it accounts for all densities.
I have no mathematical formula to depict this but I have word symbols that find their place in our minds organic circuitry. We need organic circuitry to communicate at the level of organic processes. Organic processes are not responsible for mind, however organic processes are responsible for the ability to interface, communicate, with matter at the level that we do.

Mind is an ubiquitous momentum to be. Magnanimous intent expressed diversely.
Magnanimous meaning great mind. Intent as a word, a symbol for condition, is the psyches interpretation of gravity. Gravity is the weakest force, choreographing the largest movements.

The breath, spirit, does not weigh. Being the most imperceptible of wisps in the vastness of this universe. However it animates animal. I have seen it come and seen it go and have seen the body lie inert without it. Breath is indiscriminate until it calls condition to itself, through mind. The body is a communication device developed to determine direction in order exercise intent, find food.

What intent? Intent expresses itself, diversely. Consciousness comes to seek. What do all things have in common, existential expression.

 

May I offer the organization of motion. This would make it a process that does not distinguish between living and not. The computational powers of the mind/brain are apt to occur do to the inherent propensity to organize motion.
That is the propensity for matter to clump and thereby scribe orbital paths for yet more clumping matter. The apt to emergence of the computational brain is prescribed by the processes of physical bonding and cosmic ejecta.

Of course there is that consciousness is the light by which all things appear to us.

 

If it's just complexity, then how does it have significance? Any object in space is complicated by the existence of another object in space. What is complication, essentially? What is it for information to be aware of information distinct from itself?

I think information we process as abstract from us is what gives us significance. We are only individuals in relationship to a greater, distinct environment. Information has to process any information it receives in a realistic way, after all. It can't process it in a fictional way, where the information it is processing is actually a part of itself, right?

I don't really have an opinion as to what is actually happening here. Why are there two and not one? Why are there many and not one? To say that the universe accidentally complicates itself is absurd, though. What it is complicated enough to achieve is all that matters. We don't throw away our telescopes when we compare them to the glory of the Heavenly spheres.

 

You could say that about us too, if we didn't know we were conscious. We sense our environment and certain chemicals are directed around the body in response to stimulus.



Going back to the OP, fuck knows :sultan:

If I were to say anything, which I'm going to, I'd say option 2.

The only scientific theory that has made any sense regarding consciousness is one from a dude called Peter Russell, I posted a video of him explaining it in a thread about quantum bollocks somewhere, I can't remember but I'll have a look..


Basically, he explains the theory of relativity, and then takes it a step further.

Quick outline: Everyone experiences the speed of light to be the same, but space and time aren't constant.. they vary with speed of the person experiencing.

Spacetime, on the other hand.. is constant. I'll have to borrow an explanation from Wiki..

So...

(These numbers aren't right, fuck knows what they actually are.. but for simplicity..)
A dude standing still experiences light going 100km in 1 sec
Another dude going half the speed of light will experience light moving 50km in 0.5 s
Dude number 3 going at 75% the speed of light will experience light moving 25km in 0.25s etc...

Then you reach the speed of light, 100% of it.. you'd experience light moving 0km in 0s. Essentially, light only exists within the frame of space and time.. everything "happens" in that one moment..

He goes onto explain some other really crazy shit that's relevant, but that was the only bit I bothered to remember cos it just blew my mind.. space and time are products of consciousness.


(Now, I'm pretty sure I've got it right. It makes sense to me, but I know what I'm trying to get at, may have missed out some crucial info so if that has happened, gimme a break
I'll find that video.. )


Now, spiritually that's really interesting to me.. Since there is only now.. when we experience now, this theory suggests that we become that state of "creation"(or the stretching out of liquidy spacetime to time and space). I know for a fact that when I get creating, I can come out 8 hours later without realising until I check a clock..
I won't go too far down that road, but I find it to be some spine tingling shit.

There is more I'd like to add, but I'll come back after some sleep.. and some ceremonial acid for the "end of the world". Could be a few days..

 

Nox, you started quite a thread here. I think the "thinkers" are gonna show up for this one. :2thumbsup:

Word.

Nox, I get what you're saying your take on consciousness is. Well, because, I've tripped before. Hard.

Me likey this very much. I was going to bring up the definition of consciousness, as I eluded to earlier. It's amazing that in this day and age, philosophy and science still struggles to define exactly what consciousness is.
We live in an age where computers can beat the hell out of the finest chess players. And yet, according to what TheDope stated, that is not consciousness. That lacks certain criteria.
A mimosa plant may recoil from touch. Yet I would say that is not consciousness. A learned behavior, an instinctual response, an evolutionary propensity to survive and reproduce may not prove consciousness.
Sheer data crunching by organized silicon molecules can do what we cannot.

So then, what is the nature of consciousness?

The original question posed is difficult to answer without knowing that answer.

Damn, now that's a good plan. I have to work tomorrow right up till the scheduled end of the world as we know it.
I need to find a time to trip but it's going to have to be after the winter solstice.

 

Found the fucker, seriously worth making time for

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

 

Thanks bro! That's my bedtime story tonight. :sunny:

 

Beats the shit out of the 3 bears

 

Indeed it does.

And maybe if we can get a grip on the nature of consciousness, we can solve this dilemma Nox posed.

Like anything is ever settled at HF. :sunny:

 

That video is quite good stuff MM. It will require another viewing.

I like one proposal for a description of consciousness. Consciousness is able to experience itself. That is very satisfying.

I do though like how he reminds us over and over that science has not and maybe never will define consciousness.

 

Lot's of good responses.
Been berry,berry, busy.
Will reply soon and I'm looking for that plant research.

 

I don't think MM intended that video to address Nox's post head on. There was talk of the nature of consciousness, I assumed that's why he posted it.

I hear that and grasp what you're saying. But for that to be a valid concept in my mind I would suggest something is missing from that equation.

Life defined in a traditional sense must be more than merely energy interacting with matter, yes?

 

Emergent property or A'Priori condition?

Both.

Just as we wake and sleep, go in an out of alert consciousness, or just as we breath, first in then out, the uni/multiverse, flashes on and off at the speed of light. A series of still, complete in every aspect, particles following each other in a wave. This wave of still particles proceeding at light/blinding speed, presents what we see as a moving seamless picture.

Each individual moment/particular fallout, is new. Each new moment is patterned on the previous moment but there are slightly perceptible changes in each new frame as consciousness informs matter. This is what makes possible .intentional movement.

We tend to think of movement as linear. That is going from one place to another but in the newness of each moment, the previous position is gone, having winked out. The new position reestablishes a coherent picture from modelling on the previous position. Although we seem to accumulate experience, there is in fact, no extant past. The future is memory projection. Both the past and the future are artifacts of current emergence.

We grow space and time, concentrically. As our minds expand in awareness we get a greater handle on probability, prospects for the future grow as our dreams become more dynamically engaged in the process. As we apprehend more and more, the universe is speeding up, counter to intuition based on current mechanical theories of creation.