Is consciousness caused by an emergent pattern in, or a fundamental property of matter / the universe?
November 03, 2009I define consciousness as any amount of inner experience or feeling. If you believe it is an emergent pattern (for example created by the complexity of nervous systems), then what are your arguments for the development steps toward the evolution of consciousness, and what do you think the smallest unit of consciousness is?
If you believe it is a fundamental property of nature, then how far down do you think it goes? Do you believe that electrons or quarks have some degree of internal experience, if so, how about large objects like rocks or planets?
Myself I am leaning towards consciousness being a fundamental property of energy / nature, as it would explain the evolution of complex consciousness, and it avoids the problem of the smallest unit of conscious experience.
If you can explain it in another way, I’d love to hear it. I’m most interested in an opinion that changes my perspective. However, if you base your answer on religious mythology then please don’t waste my time.
you make a home out of bricks, but the home contains a family that leads through generations of growth and personalities, so do the bricks contain this this life essance (obviously not). This is putting something out of context and putting it into context, but the idea stays the same. some sort of structure is taking form, but we can’t yet see it. a structre is usually made of a pattern, but while the pattern itself is obvious, what makes the pattern. taking a house example place to sleep, eat, dispose and converse. all based on needs. So is conciousness based on needs as the pattern unfolds. But that would be taking one pattern and applying it to another. Patterns are man-made, they never realy exist, but as for one small object forming a bigger object and deciding which has the pattern. I think needs a whole new line of reasearch.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:56 am
you make a home out of bricks, but the home contains a family that leads through generations of growth and personalities, so do the bricks contain this this life essance (obviously not). This is putting something out of context and putting it into context, but the idea stays the same. some sort of structure is taking form, but we can’t yet see it. a structre is usually made of a pattern, but while the pattern itself is obvious, what makes the pattern. taking a house example place to sleep, eat, dispose and converse. all based on needs. So is conciousness based on needs as the pattern unfolds. But that would be taking one pattern and applying it to another. Patterns are man-made, they never realy exist, but as for one small object forming a bigger object and deciding which has the pattern. I think needs a whole new line of reasearch.
References :
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:04 am
Well, I’ll be, Gaz, I think you just explained quite neatly what I was floundering around with on some other question. I also believe as you do, that consciousness is a fundamental property of nature… and I also think it is any amount of inner experience or feeling.
I’m sorry to be parrotting you so closely, but there I was, trying to explain some kind of eternal something that I was calling spirit, that was much too far removed from human to attribute human things to, but that was present always and everywhere. Then I kind of narrowed it down to all living things; but, perhaps like you (?) I said I wondered about rocks and things, though… and I mentioned the terminology around volcanoes, their eruptions, the way they spew out rock in all forms… why limit this eternal whatever to living things? I don’t know why. I just know that living things, people, fish, trees, etc. actually die and become something else… the famous dust, or mulch, or a house… whatever.
You see how lost I’ve been trying to know this. I think often about quarks, too, and their energy fields, tiny as they may be: they are still energy.
I can’t explain it in any other way than you did. And thank you so much. I do tend toward believing that anything with energy, which would change its experiences, has some fundamental degree of consciousness or feeling. (Though "feeling" is a loaded word, due to the way humans have used it for millenia…) So I’ll say consciousness, at least. SOMEthing. Okay, back on track by copying you: "a fundamental property of energy/nature…"
References :
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:46 am
I think that conciousness, as something associated with life, isn’t something that can be broken down into ‘units’ as such but is in proportion to each form of life that exists, from humans to fish to slugs to trees and plants. I feel there are however, gradations of conciousness – fish and lizards lack the emotions that we share with the higher mammals. There comes a point though, where the idea that, say, the earth itself is ‘concious’ becomes an exercise in conceptual thought rather than a tangible reality. If anything conciousness is the thing that imposes value and reality on the inanimate – the rest of the universe becomes resonant and meaningful to beings as sensitive and highly self-aware as us humans merely because it exists in the first place and we’re here to witness and testify to this preposterous, stupendous fact. No matter what explanation given us by science or religion, the mere fact that things have the nerve to exist at all is a source of a deep and profound mystery that connects the entirety of things – as long as there is a conciousness that perceives that entirety. There is a paradox in that as conscious beings we remain isolated from one another while at the same time being able to exult in feelings of connection – to people, places and things. However, if the potential for life is an inherent property of matter then concousness must itself be implicated in that – the paradox again returns though in that the emergent nature of conciousness is something that essentially creates the rest of the cosmos – that old chestnut about there being no existence without somebody there to witness it etc etc. Anyway, I’m going round in circles and it’s late and I really must get out more…
References :
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:15 am
It is possible to design a device with what I would call low level or primitive consciousness where a simple feedback loop enables it to monitor and modify its behaviour as in homing in on some target behaviour. This initial level of complexity is also displayed in simple lifeforms and can allow life to function successfully. More flexible behaviour requires the monitoring of these secondary processes. This requires additional neurons and additional connectional complexity. A functional at least short term memory system is also required to allow the persistence of this sentience in, or to predicate ‘imaginative’ behaviour or introspection.
Estimated neuron number about 10^11 and allowing for about 10^4 synapses per neuron, at least 10^3TB of memory.
I would make a case for developing and elaboration of consciousness as is for the emergence of more elaborate and flexible forms of behaviour through mutation and natural selection.
References :
God told me to say this!
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:49 am
Hi,
I would point you in the direction of Penrose/Hamerof Ocht OR.
It may show that the synapses in the brain have components called tuberules in them that lase information through them in a quantum dynamic. It is Schrodinger’s wave reflex.
References :
If you google Orch-OR you will see what I mean. Wikipedia is good at describing it, does it better than I could.