Cosmic Consciousness: Everything from matter is just making a baseless assumptions

[Ostronomos]

Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment. Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness? What are the properties inherent within matter that allow for a being to compose Beethoven's symphonies, discover a new law of Physics, create life? If there is some extra property in matter that we are completely unaware of, I ask, what is it?

Yazata WroteJan 8, 2021 05:22 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment.
OK. (Lots of open questions there, but I'll ignore them for the sake of argument.)

Quote:Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness?
The question that I would ask at that point is what does the word 'consciousness' mean?

That's the rock that the philosophy of mind ship always seems to strike. When David Chalmers proclaims what he insists is the "hard problem", it only seems hard to him because he's conceptualizing 'consciousness' in such a way that it seems to him to be incompatible with physicalism.

My first reply to Chalmers would be that we won't know whether or not the problem is really "hard" (in his metaphysical sense) until we have a lot better idea of what it is that we are attempting to explain and make consistent with the rest of our worldview.
Yazata,

Recall my definition of consciousness that I proposed while high that says that consciousness is a function that tries to combine the opposites of internal and external reality thus neutralizing the flaws in perception. Hence, in order to have functioning consciousness we must have a perception of both internal and external reality. I read recently on sciforums in the "Inter-Mind" thread that Quantum tunneling is the connection between the physical mind and the conscious mind. Hence, consciousness is ultimately the result of Quantum and not Classical processes.




Quote:Quote:What are the properties inherent within matter that allow for a being to compose Beethoven's symphonies, discover a new law of Physics, create life?
Well, my own inclination is to try to conceptualize those kind of things functionally. Consciousness and intelligence (as I conceive of them) aren't ontological substances, they are activities performed by (material presumably) substances. That's seemingly consistent with all the brain physiology stuff, where awareness and intelligence aren't necessarily present whenever brain substance is present, but are only present when the brain substance is behaving as it should.
The brain is an ontological substance, which leads us to ask how a perfectly functioning consciousness could be the result of matter. It would seem that would require some weird unexplainable ineffable attribute if we were to try to trace the origins of our understanding behind the laws of the universe, Beethoven's symphonies, our metaphysical experiences and our logical understanding of it and so on and so forth. So my question to you is, what is consciousness ultimately the result of if not matter or more specifically the brain? Telic feedback?


Quote:I don't conceive of it in terms of 'properties'. Perhaps the only property of matter that's necessary is causation. So I tend to reduce consciousness to causation. Kick a small rock and it moves, stimulus and response. I suspect that all the rest is elaboration on that theme. (I can already sense CC seething at that idea.) The question (as I conceive of it) is how causation compounds itself into more complex behaviors. Ultimately ending up in organisms with nervous systems of billions of cells that are able to use language to communicate, form ideas of things like abstractions, and are able to intuit (some of) their own inner states. I don't think that we are anywhere near close to explaining that. We can't even really describe it at this point.

So I can't really prove that it's built up out of simpler causal components. It's more of a heuristic hypothesis, my working assumption at this point.

Attributing consciousness to causation is atheistic ignorance. The triumphant success of atheistic ignorance on sciforums would have allowed them to spin any web on God that would have so chosen. Ultimately consciousness comes from the cosmos. As single celled organisms combine to create more complex organisms that is not what is responsible for causation. Ultimately consciousness is not the result of the brain. But telic feedback and Quantum Physics.

 

[sun rise]

There are physicists who theorize that the universe is conscious and thus consciousness is a property of matter.

Is the universe conscious? It seems impossible until you do the maths

 

[syo]

Matter is the final stage. It is not the first stage. we are maya, the last matter. The gods are first, we are the end.

 

[epronovost]

Ever tried to google the term "emergent property"? It's this idea the sum of all parts of a system is greater than their combined individual value. It's observed all the time when you look at teamwork or any computer software or hardware.

 

[stvdv]

Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment. Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness?

Matter is unreal. It seems real in the moment, but over time all can see it changes, hence unreal. So nothing real ever comes from matter.

Note: Truth that what does not change

 

[ChristineM]

Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment. Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness? What are the properties inherent within matter that allow for a being to compose Beethoven's symphonies, discover a new law of Physics, create life? If there is some extra property in matter that we are completely unaware of, I ask, what is it?

Consciousness also requires energy

 

[MikeF]

Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment. Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness? What are the properties inherent within matter that allow for a being to compose Beethoven's symphonies, discover a new law of Physics, create life? If there is some extra property in matter that we are completely unaware of, I ask, what is it?

I do not believe it is as mysterious as you make it out to be. Life on this planet, we biological organisms, are made up of matter. In looking for consciousness, we do not look to generic matter, but look to how the atoms, the molecules formed by different atoms, are all assembled to form the central nervous system of human beings and other forms of life. It is how these molecules are arranged to form specialized cells that dictate the cognitive abilities of a particular species.

We have learned much about how our central nervous system works by studying instances where it has been damaged in some way or is impaired by some other physical or mental pathology, informing us as to how specific structures in the brain relate to cognitive function.

Consciousness comes from the configuration of various elements of matter, it is not a property of the generic term "matter".

 

[janesix]

Matter is the final stage. It is not the first stage. we are maya, the last matter. The gods are first, we are the end.

That is reasonable. And probably true.

 

[MikeF]

Consciousness also requires energy

Someone corrected me once that matter and energy are not different but different states of the same thing.
E=MC².

 

[ChristineM]

Someone corrected me once that matter and energy are not different but different states of the same thing.
E=MC².

Yes, thermodynamics is a wonderful thing. Consciousness requires both states.

 

[Polymath257]

Someone corrected me once that matter and energy are not different but different states of the same thing.
E=MC².

You are wrong. Energy is a property of matter, and is related to mass. But matter also has other properties, such as momentum, spin, charge, etc.

In particular, energy is very closely associated with momentum. The equation E=mc^2 , while very popular, is only one case of the equation when a particle is in motion,

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2

where m is the rest mass and p is the momentum. This is the full equation relating energy, mass, and momentum.

 

[MikeF]

You are wrong. Energy is a property of matter, and is related to mass. But matter also has other properties, such as momentum, spin, charge, etc.

In particular, energy is very closely associated with momentum. The equation E=mc^2 , while very popular, is only one case of the equation when a particle is in motion,

E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2

where m is the rest mass and p is the momentum. This is the full equation relating energy, mass, and momentum.

Excellent. Thanks for the clarification. I will try and get that in my brain for the next time this comes up.

 

[halbhh]

One of the fun implications of assuming that consciousness is merely natural (just from physics then), is that it does imply a lot of consciousnesses of various sorts would be out there, sort of filling the universe of course.

And that's fun in more than one way: if the consciousness emerges from matter/energy (i.e.- from physics), then of course all the universe having consciousness....that's just a familiar old way to define "God". One of the old viewpoints, since way back.

So, an atheist viewpoint leads straight to "God" by implication then, heh heh. ;-)

 

[exchemist]

Let us entertain the idea that everything came from matter for a moment. Then the question becomes, how did matter give rise to consciousness? What are the properties inherent within matter that allow for a being to compose Beethoven's symphonies, discover a new law of Physics, create life? If there is some extra property in matter that we are completely unaware of, I ask, what is it?

Put a palaeontologist and a neuroscientist in a room together and you will get a pretty good idea.

The evolution of the central nervous system in animals is well documented and its biochemistry is fairly well understood. There is no need of any "extra" property in matter to account for the development of consciousness, so your question is moot.

 

[exchemist]

One of the fun implications of assuming that consciousness is merely natural (just from physics then), is that it does imply a lot of consciousnesses of various sorts would be out there, sort of filling the universe of course.

And that's fun in more than one way: if the consciousness emerges from matter/energy (i.e.- from physics), then of course all the universe having consciousness....that's just a familiar old way to define "God". One of the old viewpoints, since way back.

So, an atheist viewpoint leads straight to "God" by implication then, heh heh. ;-)

Except that this is a wrong conclusion to draw.

Consciousness is a state of activity of a brain, like the functioning of the operating system of a computer. To have a functioning computer you don't have to imagine that every component it is made from in some way carries out computations, when it is lying in the warehouse before assembly.
See post 4 about emergent properties.

 

[halbhh]

Except that this is a wrong conclusion to draw.

Consciousness is a state of activity of a brain, like the functioning of the operating system of a computer. To have a functioning computer you don't have to imagine that every component it is made from in some way carries out computations, when it is lying in the warehouse before assembly.
See post 4 about emergent properties.

Agree. That's sort of the traditional view, really. Or like it. I call it 'consciousness as computation' in order to intentionally oversimplify to remind us that we are just using an idea. Sort of consciousness as a process, or like math computation (even if self-organizing and so on, etc.). (here's a lately article of that general type, which gets more interesting as you get to the middle: https://www.quantamagazine.org/hod-lipson-is-building-self-aware-robots-20190711/)

I've read so many theories about consciousness over the last 40 years. Really, it's been a lot.

Lately I'm intrigued by the attempts to try to think about whether quantum mechanics or such could be involved.

 

[Revoltingest]

Matter is unreal.

That appears to be a baseless assumption.
Matter has behaviors that are useful to treat as real.
We're doing that even now.

 

[halbhh]

Except that this is a wrong conclusion to draw.

Consciousness is a state of activity of a brain, like the functioning of the operating system of a computer. To have a functioning computer you don't have to imagine that every component it is made from in some way carries out computations, when it is lying in the warehouse before assembly.
See post 4 about emergent properties.

Speaking of which (to continue from above), I see Quanta Magazine has a nice collection I've not read most of yet:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/tag/consciousness

 

[exchemist]

Agree. That's sort of the traditional view, really. Or like it. I call it 'consciousness as computation' in order to intentionally oversimplify to remind us that we are just using an idea.

I've read so many theories about consciousness over the last 40 years. Really, it's been a lot.

Lately I'm intrigued by the attempts to try to think about whether quantum mechanics or such could be involved.

Well, QM is certainly involved, in the sense that QM determines how all atoms and molecules interact, including those in the biochemistry of the structures of the brain.

However, as to whether the operation of the brain may involve quantum computing, most physicists seem to think not, as the environment is too dense, warm and "noisy" in terms of the rapid rates of interaction of quantum systems.

There is a terrible tendency just now for people to try to drag QM into just about anything - especially when, or even because, they don't understand it. I am always a bit sceptical of such attempts.

 

[halbhh]

Well, QM is certainly involved, in the sense that QM determines how all atoms and molecules interact, including those in the biochemistry of the structures of the brain.

However, as to whether the operation of the brain may involve quantum computing, most physicists seem to think not, as the environment is too dense, warm and "noisy" in terms of the rapid rates of interaction of quantum systems.

There is a terrible tendency just now for people to try to drag QM into just about anything - especially when, or even because, they don't understand it. I am always a bit sceptical of such attempts.

heh. There's a Quantamagazine article re that in that list I see. Often they have fairly good reporting/writing.