Consciousness

[blü 2]

The clue here is that, one is unwittingly creating obstructions as long as one pursues the mystery via rational thought.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that rational thought is the enemy of your position. That doesn't strike me as a promising start. The contrasts to rational thought are arbitrariness, silliness, and a great deal that's worse.

Consciousness as the fundamental reality cannot be proven via such analytical investigation; it lies beyond the grasp of the rational mind.

I wish all salesmen were as frank. It would save an enormous amount of time. But you're still pointing to the door marked Irrationality and saying, Yeah, in there! So by your own words there's no coherent expounding of what you're arguing for.

You have missed the point: I said that the two have exactly the same nature.

No, you've missed the point. A glass of water is hugely different in nature to the ocean. Your comparison is untenable.

IOW, what you think of as 'my consciousness', is the same consciousness as the s000ource of that consciousness.

That's simply wrong, not only unsupported by evidence but contradicted by evidence.

Each consciousness is the product of its individual brain. That's why you can't read my thoughts. That's why when my brain dies my consciousness dies. That's why a blow to the head, or medicine, or poison, or disease, or drugs, or epilepsy, and so on, can render you unconscious.

Consciousness has no material component. How can a material brain create and contain non-material consciousness?

Except the purely material brain functions that produce it as a particular class of brain states, and maintain it, and turn it off when it's bed time. AND as I said, as we learn more about the brain, we see even more clearly that consciousness is greatly overrated, an incidental tool of mentation.

 

[crossfire]

Isn't delusion a discernment that is incorrect?

The enlightened mind illuminates what is so one just sees things as they are. It does not involve a thinking process.

"And the light that I was was the light that I saw by, and the light that I saw by, was the light that I was"
Incredible String Band

Confusing the subjective for the objective is delusion. Can you be sentient without a subjective mind?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Where do you see a separation between what you call 'matter' and consciousness?

Well, I don't. The reply you quoted was in response to others who do end up making such distinctions.

I think the ultimate hope is that the consciousness somehow transcends the material/body, such that when death comes knocking the consciousness is somehow able to escape the situation. Ultimately it's the same desire to "live" forever as taking a positive position on the idea of "soul". It's just played-out a bit differently. I think its an attempt to make it all seem more scientific, and therefore more plausible or defensible or evidential. So the story goes (anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that there is a pervading consciousness, and without it, the universe may not even exist.

It's basically the same old "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" question. A person can usually accept that the same vibrations are sent out by the crashing tree and COULD be heard if there were an interpreting ear to hear it, but technically what the tree "makes" is not "sound." Supplanting the universe and consciousness in that equation, you get a universe that is not outputting sensory input unless there is something with sensory receptors there to receive. The belief is (at least as far as I have come to understand it) that the universe is, for all intents and purposes, imperceptible unless there is one there to perceive it. I will admit that if no one is there, perceiving it, it certainly means it is not being "perceived" - but that most certainly doesn't mean it isn't still there - just like the vibrations of the fallen tree... the matter and energy of the universe is always in its fundamental form, whether perceived or not.

 

[WalterTrull]

Is consciousness fundamental?
Are all things derived from consciousness?

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

― Max Planck

Well...Yeah!!

 

[godnotgod]

Confusing the subjective for the objective is delusion. Can you be sentient without a subjective mind?

It is the mind, via of its thinking process, which creates the subject/object split in the first place, a split that does not exist to begin with. Pure consciousness* has no such distinction. The better question would be: is sentience still present when the subjective mind is dissolved?, that is to say, when subject and object merge as one. I say 'yes'. In this transformative view, there is no longer an 'experiencer of the experience'; there is only the experience itself, and the 'observer' IS that experience. What is that experience? It is the experience of universal consciousness, a shift away from individual consciousness called 'I'. It is that universal consciousness that is the fundamental reality, what some call 'Brahman', 'Tao', Unified Field, Void, Sunyata, etc, etc., and YOU are exactly THAT. 'Tat tvam asi'

Buddhism says that 'Nirvana and Samsara are not different', and it is Samsara that is the result of the deluded mind, ie; one under the spell of maya. Maya is none other than Brahman, playing itself as maya, ie as 'the world'. The rational mind is tricked into thinking maya to be reality.

"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'
Deepak Chopra

*ie; 'clear' consciousness that just sees things as they are without thought.

 

[godnotgod]

No...A glass of water is hugely different in nature to the ocean.

A glass of water immediately taken from the same ocean is the same water. Where has there been a change in the water itself?

Likewise, what you call 'my' consciousness is the same consciousness that is the fundamental reality. It's just that the illusory mind has sculpted it into an individual ego. But once the facade is pierced, it is seen that 'my' consciousness is in reality universal consciousness. Show me 'I'. Where does it dwell? And while you're at it, who, or what, is it that is showing 'I'? 'I'? And then, who, or what, is it that is conscious of both of them? Now we have 3 'I's. Do I hear a 4th?

Each snowflake is unique in pattern, but all are composed of the same fundamental and universal reality: water.

You have been bamboozled by the mind. Yes, by the rational mind. It's OK. Happens to the best of us.

 

[sealchan]

There are a few terms--God, Universe, Consciousness--which I have come to call "whole terms" for they, as a class, all share the following qualities:

• a reference to the set of all "things"
• hard to define without strong self-reference
• strongly associated with mystery
• self-evident

I suspect such "terms" share much in common in that they are different ways of looking at much the same thing. I suspect that these terms have as much to say about the brain and the mind as they have to say about the nature of the world that the brain and mind re-presents.

 

[crossfire]

It is the mind, via of its thinking process, which creates the subject/object split in the first place, a split that does not exist to begin with. Pure consciousness* has no such distinction. The better question would be: is sentience still present when the subjective mind is dissolved?, that is to say, when subject and object merge as one. I say 'yes'. In this transformative view, there is no longer an 'experiencer of the experience'; there is only the experience itself, and the 'observer' IS that experience. What is that experience? It is the experience of universal consciousness, a shift away from individual consciousness called 'I'. It is that universal consciousness that is the fundamental reality, what some call 'Brahman', 'Tao', Unified Field, Void, Sunyata, etc, etc., and YOU are exactly THAT. 'Tat tvam asi'

"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality'
Deepak Chopra

*ie; 'clear' consciousness that just sees things as they are without thought.

Alright, bear with me for a moment, and point out any logical flaws:

1. All of our perceptions are processed subjectively. This would include sensory observations and abstract thought.
   
2. If you drop all discernment/discrimination, all you are left with is the subjective observations in an unorganized state.
3. The experience of oneness of all when discriminatory overlay is dropped is natural, as it is all of your subjective observations. (Do you observe my subjective observations when in this state? I would hope not!) You are that. That is your subjective universe.
4. Mistaking the subjective for the objective is delusion.
   
5. Makyō refers to the hallucinations and perceptual distortions that can arise during the course of meditation and can be mistaken by the practitioner as "seeing the true nature" or kenshō. Zen masters warn their meditating students to ignore sensory distortions. These can occur in the form of visions and perceptual distortions, but they can also be experiences of blank, trance-like absorption states. In the Zen school, it is understood that neither category of experience – however fascinating they may be – is a true and final enlightenment.

How certain can you be that you are not observing your subjective mind without the conceptual overlay instead of seeing into the "true nature of reality?" (Please keep in mind that mistaking the subjective for the objective is called delusion, and that the Hsin Hsin Ming warns against "clinging to the One.")

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

None of the above is evidence that consciousness originates within the brain. How can a material organ create non-material consciousness? At what point does this occur, and how?

We know from several studies, that focused consciousness (ie meditation) actually grows brain tissue, specifically the cortex tissues.

Sorry, you still have not offered any evidence that consciousness is non-material, and/or that a material brain does not cause consciousness.

Personally, I have no idea where when or how consciousness occurs, as I've not studied it enough to take a firm position...but humans do not now, and may never, be able to fully understand consciousness...the where, when, why, and how.

In other words, I am agnostic about consciousness. Your assertions may be right, or may be wrong, but as you yourself have admitted, it is not (at least at present) testable. Insisting that you're right when it cannot be confirmed or refuted is unwarranted--but you are welcome to your belief.

As I am to mine. It might surprise you that what I believe is actually much closer to your point of view than what I've been arguing here. But I also know that what I believe is not currently borne out by any real, irrefutable evidence. And may never be.

And what does the study you refer to show? That consciousness is related to the brain. It does not show causality either way. Nor do your thought experiments, and your appeals to experience.

In the meantime, the arguments for consciousness being the cause/ground/whatever of reality is little different than arguments for a transcendent God.

 

[sealchan]

Conversations can go nowhere if the participators are not aware of some of the cognitive biases that might be behind the assumptions of each of the participants. One type of bias is that between sensation and intuition. According to Carl Jung, these are irrational cognitive functions of perception. That is, they perceive "truths" by virtue of their existence in the mind rather than by virtue of rational thought.

Sensations are rooted in the sense organs and are based on those cortical maps which differentiate sensory input. People who prefer their sensory function will be practical, hands-on, show me sorts with respect to reproducible experiences of the sensory world.

Intuitions are rooted in the maps between the sense organs and are able to identify patterns that transcend the experience of the sensory world as such. People who prefer their intuitive function will be more abstract, idea oriented and willing to accept a perceptual possibility as a given without having to place that possibility into the sensory world as such.

Terms like Consciousness and Universe and God are, perhaps, somewhat intuitive notions that give us a handle on our cognitions that make sense...but you will be hard pressed to point to such things in any non-arbitrary way as part of our sensory experience. These terms are intuitive perceptions without direct sensory objects to point to and as such the sensation types will quickly find and question such a basis for understanding reality. However, the sensation type has no firmer ground to stand on really, they just have a different ground. Consciousness is self-evident and those who dismiss it's "substance" (to put it metaphorically) throw out a lot of babies (common sense) with the bathwater.

Also I would say that because science is fundamentally based in reproducible sensory experience it has not yet found a commonly accepted way to understand what consciousness is. However, the various mystical traditions have a rich literature that does describe the experience of consciousness, especially an intuitive experience of consciousness. One has to have a taste for such intuitive language which often sounds new-agey and self-referential in order to appreciate it. But its value and its perennial recognition by many great thinkers suggests that such knowledge is substantial and consistent...from an intuitive point of view. But some twenty plus years ago the traditional scientific community, as a kind of outgrowth from cognitive science, has begun to accept perspectives from the mystical community into the theory of mind in an effort to better understand what consciousness is alongside the perspective of cognitive psychology and neuroscience. So the bridges are being built in academia.

The unity of all things into one's consciousness, the dissolving of the boundaries between the objective and subjective, the limitations of understanding one's self are all well understood. But this mystical knowledge is also rather tricksy. The need is to find a way to make room for this intuition-based knowledge vs the sensation based knowledge so that each, with its respective virtues, can be appreciated separately and utilized cooperatively to deepen our understanding of our own interestingly objective and yet fictional natures.

 

[crossfire]

Alright, bear with me for a moment, and point out any logical flaws:

1. All of our perceptions are processed subjectively. This would include sensory observations and abstract thought.
   
2. If you drop all discernment/discrimination, all you are left with is the subjective observations in an unorganized state.
3. The experience of oneness of all when discriminatory overlay is dropped is natural, as it is all of your subjective observations. (Do you observe my subjective observations when in this state? I would hope not!) You are that. That is your subjective universe.
4. Mistaking the subjective for the objective is delusion.
   
5. Makyō refers to the hallucinations and perceptual distortions that can arise during the course of meditation and can be mistaken by the practitioner as "seeing the true nature" or kenshō. Zen masters warn their meditating students to ignore sensory distortions. These can occur in the form of visions and perceptual distortions, but they can also be experiences of blank, trance-like absorption states. In the Zen school, it is understood that neither category of experience – however fascinating they may be – is a true and final enlightenment.

How certain can you be that you are not observing your subjective mind without the conceptual overlay instead of seeing into the "true nature of reality?" (Please keep in mind that mistaking the subjective for the objective is called delusion, and that the Hsin Hsin Ming warns against "clinging to the One.")

More to consider:

If you go with the Consciousness-Only School of Buddhism, Yogachara, it is the job of the Sixth Consciousness to purify the Seventh Consciousness of its innate fallaciousness. If you disable the discriminating power of the Sixth Consciousness, then all that is left for the Seventh Consciousness is its own innate fallacy. (I suppose this could be a way of seeing the nature of the Seventh Consciousness's fallacy, however.)

 

[blü 2]

A glass of water immediately taken from the same ocean is the same water. Where has there been a change in the water itself?

A glass of water immediately taken from the ocean can never have the same qualities, the same nature, as the ocean. Seawater is not the ocean, H2O is not the ocean, because ─ as I said ─ the ocean is hugely various in its qualities, and that variousness is an inescapable part of the nature of the ocean.

Likewise, what you call 'my' consciousness is the same consciousness that is the fundamental reality.

I've already pointed out that this is untrue, contradicted by examinable evidence, and you've already admitted your claim is irrational. Why are we arguing?

Show me 'I'. Where does it dwell?'

The individual's sense of self is generated by the individual's brain. The evidence is abundant, and contradicts your claim. Read up on where brain science is at, learn what we know ─ as distinct from your imagining ─ about brain functions. Try reason for a month ─ who knows but you might get a taste for it.

And while you're at it, who, or what, is it that is showing 'I'? 'I'?

The 'I' is the sense of self. What do you mean, 'showing' it? Talking about it? Or simply being oneself and being identified by others as a particular individual with a particular personality and particular capacities? I see no mystery in any of that.

And then, who, or what, is it that is conscious of both of them?

I have self-awareness. I have awareness of others. I have awareness of things. These are brain states and processes, not mystical phenomena. You're confusing yourself.

Each snowflake is unique in pattern, but all are composed of the same fundamental and universal reality: water.

By water I take it you mean H2O. There is no single or 'true' exemplar of H2O, only a most common form. Both hydrogen and oxygen have isotopes. Hydrogen normally has no neutrons, but can have one (deuterium) or two (tritium, which is unstable / radioactive). Oxygen has three stable and various radioactive isotopes. In an H2O molecule, any atom can be any available isotope. Your analogies are from antiquity. They don't represent an informed understanding

You have been bamboozled by the mind. Yes, by the rational mind. It's OK. Happens to the best of us.

You've abandoned reason, out loud and proud, and you're happy with your unreason. I wish you well and leave you to it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm pretty sure that what would be needed to resolve the question in a 'scientific' manner would be to establish how consciousness that is this non-material stuff/field/thing/whatever would appear differently in some measurable way from consciousness being an emergent property of matter, which the current research is also consistent with.

That's the epistemological question. The ontological question is:

What is the fundamental nature of the universe? Is it matter and energy, the things we identify through research in sciences such as physics and chemistry?

Or is it consciousness, which we experience but have a difficult time measuring and conceptualizing?

Or, could it be a combination of both of these ideas, some separate but subtle consciousness that can sometimes, under some conditions, interact with the matter and energy we are familiar with?

That's three proposals about the nature of reality. And we may or may not ever be able to firmly establish which is actually the case, or if some other case is the solution.

So, from the epistemological standpoint, what can we know and how can we know it?

Understanding of the matter and energy that we observe in the universe through empirical study strongly suggests, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, that the universe consists of matter and energy, and that is all.

Demonstrating that consciousness is the origin/whatever of reality as we experience it would seem to be much, much more difficult to do. The apparently common experiences of mystics, and the speculations of physicists, and the anecdotes of the paranormal and so on may eventually lead to empirical research that can demonstrate that consciousness is primary, or that there are conscious spirits that move through us, or whatever...

But the science isn't there yet, and it won't be until someone can offer specific ideas about how to differentiate between consciousness originating in matter and consciousness causes our apparently material existence.

 

[allfoak]

 

[YmirGF]

Sorry, you still have not offered any evidence that consciousness is non-material, and/or that a material brain does not cause consciousness.

Personally, I have no idea where when or how consciousness occurs, as I've not studied it enough to take a firm position...but humans do not now, and may never, be able to fully understand consciousness...the where, when, why, and how.

In other words, I am agnostic about consciousness. Your assertions may be right, or may be wrong, but as you yourself have admitted, it is not (at least at present) testable. Insisting that you're right when it cannot be confirmed or refuted is unwarranted--but you are welcome to your belief.

As I am to mine. It might surprise you that what I believe is actually much closer to your point of view than what I've been arguing here. But I also know that what I believe is not currently borne out by any real, irrefutable evidence. And may never be.

And what does the study you refer to show? That consciousness is related to the brain. It does not show causality either way. Nor do your thought experiments, and your appeals to experience.

In the meantime, the arguments for consciousness being the cause/ground/whatever of reality is little different than arguments for a transcendent God.

I so identify with what you are saying here. I've tried to be reasonable with the writer you are interacting with and simply got nowhere -- on many occasions. Bon chance.

 

[YmirGF]

Conversations can go nowhere if the participators are not aware of some of the cognitive biases that might be behind the assumptions of each of the participants. One type of bias is that between sensation and intuition. According to Carl Jung, these are irrational cognitive functions of perception. That is, they perceive "truths" by virtue of their existence in the mind rather than by virtue of rational thought.

Sensations are rooted in the sense organs and are based on those cortical maps which differentiate sensory input. People who prefer their sensory function will be practical, hands-on, show me sorts with respect to reproducible experiences of the sensory world.

Intuitions are rooted in the maps between the sense organs and are able to identify patterns that transcend the experience of the sensory world as such. People who prefer their intuitive function will be more abstract, idea oriented and willing to accept a perceptual possibility as a given without having to place that possibility into the sensory world as such.

Terms like Consciousness and Universe and God are, perhaps, somewhat intuitive notions that give us a handle on our cognitions that make sense...but you will be hard pressed to point to such things in any non-arbitrary way as part of our sensory experience. These terms are intuitive perceptions without direct sensory objects to point to and as such the sensation types will quickly find and question such a basis for understanding reality. However, the sensation type has no firmer ground to stand on really, they just have a different ground. Consciousness is self-evident and those who dismiss it's "substance" (to put it metaphorically) throw out a lot of babies (common sense) with the bathwater.

Also I would say that because science is fundamentally based in reproducible sensory experience it has not yet found a commonly accepted way to understand what consciousness is. However, the various mystical traditions have a rich literature that does describe the experience of consciousness, especially an intuitive experience of consciousness. One has to have a taste for such intuitive language which often sounds new-agey and self-referential in order to appreciate it. But its value and its perennial recognition by many great thinkers suggests that such knowledge is substantial and consistent...from an intuitive point of view. But some twenty plus years ago the traditional scientific community, as a kind of outgrowth from cognitive science, has begun to accept perspectives from the mystical community into the theory of mind in an effort to better understand what consciousness is alongside the perspective of cognitive psychology and neuroscience. So the bridges are being built in academia.

The unity of all things into one's consciousness, the dissolving of the boundaries between the objective and subjective, the limitations of understanding one's self are all well understood. But this mystical knowledge is also rather tricksy. The need is to find a way to make room for this intuition-based knowledge vs the sensation based knowledge so that each, with its respective virtues, can be appreciated separately and utilized cooperatively to deepen our understanding of our own interestingly objective and yet fictional natures.

I agree pretty much with everything you have said here but take exception with the very last bit. I'd suggest the this so-called unity is not well understood in the slightest. To my thinking and experience, that is the problem. The supposition that it is well understood is somewhat vacuous otherwise everyone would be in agreement and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Likewise I have considerable disdain for those who minimize the validity of current identity. To me it's, literally, a self defeating ideology that has gained more popularity that the idea ever deserved.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm pretty sure that what would be needed to resolve the question in a 'scientific' manner would be to establish how consciousness that is this non-material stuff/field/thing/whatever would appear differently in some measurable way from consciousness being an emergent property of matter, which the current research is also consistent with.

That's the epistemological question. The ontological question is:

What is the fundamental nature of the universe? Is it matter and energy, the things we identify through research in sciences such as physics and chemistry?

Or is it consciousness, which we experience but have a difficult time measuring and conceptualizing?

Or, could it be a combination of both of these ideas, some separate but subtle consciousness that can sometimes, under some conditions, interact with the matter and energy we are familiar with?

That's three proposals about the nature of reality. And we may or may not ever be able to firmly establish which is actually the case, or if some other case is the solution.

So, from the epistemological standpoint, what can we know and how can we know it?

Understanding of the matter and energy that we observe in the universe through empirical study strongly suggests, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, that the universe consists of matter and energy, and that is all.

Demonstrating that consciousness is the origin/whatever of reality as we experience it would seem to be much, much more difficult to do. The apparently common experiences of mystics, and the speculations of physicists, and the anecdotes of the paranormal and so on may eventually lead to empirical research that can demonstrate that consciousness is primary, or that there are conscious spirits that move through us, or whatever...

But the science isn't there yet, and it won't be until someone can offer specific ideas about how to differentiate between consciousness originating in matter and consciousness causes our apparently material existence.

This I like, 100%. It is of little value to wax on about ones assumptions, but especially so when there is no way to test those assumptions. My own guess is that doing such a thing would simply precipitate a psychological feedback loop wherein one sees, literally, what they want to or EXPECT to see/experience. I get the feeling that this is sort of what @crossfire was alluding to in her two posts above this.

 

[sealchan]

I agree pretty much with everything you have said here but take exception with the very last bit. I'd suggest the this so-called unity is not well understood in the slightest. To my thinking and experience, that is the problem. The supposition that it is well understood is somewhat vacuous otherwise everyone would be in agreement and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Likewise I have considerable disdain for those who minimize the validity of current identity. To me it's, literally, a self defeating ideology that has gained more popularity that the idea ever deserved.

I will grant that there is a "specialist" community that I think would feel that mystics throughout the ages are saying something consistent and enduring. And there are also many people who appreciate mysticism and what it seems to offer them as truth even if they also find it largely perplexing.

I would put this somewhat in the same category as mathematics. Now no one can argue the value and use of mathematics and that it offers a very practical sort of truth. But there is also a limited community of people who would say they personally appreciate it and understand it. Many more are those who would recognize its practical benefits than there are those who would personally partake of its many pleasures.

It is also true of a good story, especially if it has a spiritual value. Many are those who appreciate a story but few are those who could say they could create the kinds of stories they appreciate.

Now the difference between mysticism (as a way to understand consciousness) and even story telling on the one hand and mathematics on the other is the ease of recognizing the practical, technological value of mathematics. Here the practical basis of mathematics, a thoroughly intuitive discipline, comes to the rescue.

But we can, with story-telling, at least see the volume of economic activity it generates in the form of books and movies and such. This is more a statement of value than "truth", but I see value as a different but equal from of truth comparable to truth derived rationally from the logical manipulation of well-defined terms.

You speak of "current identity" as it if were a thing. What is this...current identity?

I take if for granted that perennial philosophers, comparative mythologists, comparative religionists and even consciousness studies scientists see the mystical traditions as a consistent enough sort of perspective to indicate that there is a body of knowledge and a community of knowers from which a perspective worth knowing can be obtained.

 

[YmirGF]

You speak of "current identity" as it if were a thing. What is this...current identity?

Put simply, the ever changing perception of self. To say the least, I am not a fan of the self defeating "no self" ideology or those who either imply that self is an illusion or say so outright.

I take if for granted that perennial philosophers, comparative mythologists, comparative religionists and even consciousness studies scientists see the mystical traditions as a consistent enough sort of perspective to indicate that there is a body of knowledge and a community of knowers from which a perspective worth knowing can be obtained.

And yet, with all the above, we still know so precious little about the nature of the psyche, the mystery of identity and how identity/personality impacts on what we like to think of as reality.

I'm not suggesting that we should not look into the claims so many have made, but rather, that we should not just accept those claims at face value as if they were representative of reality. Likewise, unlike others in this thread, I don't expect that my claims should be taken as gospel either.

 

[sealchan]

Again the mistake I think most people make when they re-ify consciousness into a thing is that they want it to be a principle of the Universe because subjectivity is so ultimate. But really consciousness is a dimension/part of a system that contains a free agent in a community of free agents interacting with a evolved co-adapting system of interdependent biological entities. That freedom, consciousness, manifests in the form of that particular agent and its collaborative kind being able to assert qualitatively much more control over its neighboring systems than any other individual agent within that complex of systems.

It is this ability of a very limited part of a system to exert so much influence over so many of its neighboring systems at so many layers which makes consciousness stand out in the set of all known physical systems.