Is Matter Conscious?

[Hugh Johnson]

"Mind creates matter" is not solipsism. Reality outside the mind would still exist even if mind creates it, and other minds would also exist.

 

[sunraiser]

"Mind creates matter" is not solipsism. Reality outside the mind would still exist even if mind creates it, and other minds would also exist.

I'm genuinely interested in why you would invest in this way of thinking / perceiving.

Surely it would take all meaning from the connectedness of beings, but also lead you towards being a sociopath.

I don't feel like you're a sociopath from your posts, but what you're saying IS a theory and I don't see the benefit of adhering to something theoretical that implies all human connection is simply imagined or false.

 

[Kartoffel]

I'm genuinely interested in why you would invest in this way of thinking / perceiving.

Surely it would take all meaning from the connectedness of beings, but also lead you towards being a sociopath.

I don't feel like you're a sociopath from your posts, but what you're saying IS a theory and I don't see the benefit of adhering to something theoretical that implies all human connection is simply imagined or false.

I can tell you what comes next: He will ask you to prove that material reality, existing independently of consciousness, is not also just a theory. "Prove to me that the material world exists"

 

[sunraiser]

I can tell you what comes next: He will ask you to prove that material reality, existing independently of consciousness, is not also just a theory. "Prove to me that the material world exists"

But even so; that would lead me to a choice between two theories - one that implies vast and fulfilling meaning and potential for growth, another that takes all of that away.

Given the choice between those two theories (assuming both were theories) then why choose such a desolate one? What's the benefit?

 

[Kartoffel]

But even so; that would lead me to a choice between two theories - one that implies vast and fulfilling meaning and potential for growth, another that takes all of that away.

Given the choice between those two theories (assuming both were theories) then why choose such a desolate one? What's the benefit?

There is no benefit, except self-aggrandizement. All idealists are solipsists, even if they sometimes claim not to be.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I'm genuinely interested in why you would invest in this way of thinking / perceiving.

Surely it would take all meaning from the connectedness of beings, but also lead you towards being a sociopath.

I don't feel like you're a sociopath from your posts, but what you're saying IS a theory and I don't see the benefit of adhering to something theoretical that implies all human connection is simply imagined or false.

How? And what "way of thinking" am I invested in that post?

 

[haidut]

"Mind creates matter" is not solipsism. Reality outside the mind would still exist even if mind creates it, and other minds would also exist.

Oh ok, sorry, I misunderstood. The mind creating matter is a common expression among solipsistic philosophers but I see your point.

 

[sunraiser]

How? And what "way of thinking" am I invested in that post?

Because all reality and other minds would only exist inside your own mind, and therefore any harm or kindness you did to another would not have a real terms effect beyond what your consciousness wants or perceives.

It'd mean your actions would be of no actual consequence as you could just write everything off as merely being a projection of your mind, hence the potential for sociopathy.

I don't have any desire to say you're wrong, and don't want to derail the thread too much. I'm just interested in the kind of life experience that'd make such a thought thread appear compelling to a person.

I find it unimaginably depressing.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Because all reality and other minds would only exist inside your own mind, and therefore any harm or kindness you did to another would not have a real terms effect beyond what your consciousness wants or perceives.

It'd mean your actions would be of no actual consequence as you could just write everything off as merely being a projection of your mind, hence the potential for sociopathy.

I don't have any desire to say you're wrong, and don't want to derail the thread too much. I'm just interested in the kind of life experience that'd make such a thought thread appear compelling to a person.

I find it unimaginably depressing.

I never claimed such a thing. You are hallucinating things.

 

[dlind70]

Consciousness is just oxygen it really isn't that hard to figure out. If you're not breathing you're not conscious and you have to breathe oxygen. There are states of it sodium activates matter on your body. There are states below that listed as follows. there are also States above that level.

Consciousness acting on matter and sodium helps facilitate it

Energy acting on matter and sulfur or hydrogen helps facilitate it. This is why coffee helps your energy for example.

The final level down is matter acting on matter. Potassium helps facilitate it, in other words going to the bathroom your matter acts on itself.

 

[sunraiser]

I never claimed such a thing. You are hallucinating things.

You said this, in the other thread:

In human experience and even in our sciences we can actually only know things that are in our consciousness. In other words the existence of the material world is purely hypothetical because we do not know anything about our consciousness except that all we experience and have ever experienced happens inside it.

If everything beyond consciousness is purely hypothetical then you would need proof before accepting the capacity of another living being to have their own separate consciousness - that'd be presuming the existence of the material world which you don't accept.

I understand the point in a pedantic way (we can't prove beyond our consciousness), but unless it was something of relevance or importance to your world view then why bother articulating it? Having that concept at the forefront of your philosophy could absolutely lead to sociopathy.

 

[sunraiser]

I stumbled upon this article just 2 weeks after I posted a very similar one on the topic of Universal consciousness. It seems that mainstream science is becoming aware of the dead-end approach it has been pursuing in many disciplines (especially physics and biology) and is looking for a way out of the predicament.
Is The Universe A Conscious Mind?
As far as I was able to verify, the 2 authors do not collaborate or cite each other's work so now we have two eminent philosophers/physicians raising the same basic point. Namely, that consciousness is the fundamental property of reality, or as the article below describes it, the real hardware of the Universe from which everything else stems. Matter and everything else that exists, are the result of this fundamental property of the Universe. In other words, the "material" objects (and even our brain) we can experimentally study are the "software" arising from or being built upon the hardware (consciousness). This author actually ties the well-known "hard problem of matter" to the "hard problem of consciousness", suggesting they are fundamentally the same question. The article below and the one in the thread above are remarkably similar to the CTMU theory by Langan, which @Such_Saturation has been posting about, so I would like to hear his views on these 2 articles.

Is the Hard Problem of Consciousness Connected to the Hard Problem in Physics?
"...Where does consciousness—in this most general sense—come from? Modern science has given us good reason to believe that our consciousness is rooted in the physics and chemistry of the brain, as opposed to anything immaterial or transcendental. In order to get a conscious system, all we need is physical matter. Put it together in the right way, as in the brain, and consciousness will appear. But how and why can consciousness result merely from putting together non-conscious matter in certain complex ways? This problem is distinctively hard because its solution cannot be determined by means of experiment and observation alone. Through increasingly sophisticated experiments and advanced neuroimaging technology, neuroscience is giving us better and better maps of what kinds of conscious experiences depend on what kinds of physical brain states. Neuroscience might also eventually be able to tell us what all of our conscious brain states have in common: for example, that they have high levels of integrated information (per Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory), that they broadcast a message in the brain (per Bernard Baars’ Global Workspace Theory), or that they generate 40-hertz oscillations (per an early proposal by Francis Crick and Christof Koch). But in all these theories, the hard problem remains. How and why does a system that integrates information, broadcasts a message, or oscillates at 40 hertz feel pain or delight? The appearance of consciousness from mere physical complexity seems equally mysterious no matter what precise form the complexity takes."

"...Other natural phenomena, from dark matter to life, as puzzling as they may be, don’t seem nearly as intractable. In principle, we can see that understanding them is fundamentally a matter of gathering more physical detail: building better telescopes and other instruments, designing better experiments, or noticing new laws and patterns in the data we already have. If we were somehow granted knowledge of every physical detail and pattern in the universe, we would not expect these problems to persist. They would dissolve in the same way the problem of heritability dissolved upon the discovery of the physical details of DNA. But the hard problem of consciousness would seem to persist even given knowledge of every imaginable kind of physical detail."

"...One might wonder how physical particles are, independently of what they do or how they relate to other things. What are physical things like in themselves, or intrinsically? Some have argued that there is nothing more to particles than their relations, but intuition rebels at this claim. For there to be a relation, there must be two things being related. Otherwise, the relation is empty—a show that goes on without performers, or a castle constructed out of thin air. In other words, physical structure must be realized or implemented by some stuff or substance that is itself not purely structural. Otherwise, there would be no clear difference between physical and mere mathematical structure, or between the concrete universe and a mere abstraction. But what could this stuff that realizes or implements physical structure be, and what are the intrinsic, non-structural properties that characterize it? This problem is a close descendant of Kant’s classic problem of knowledge of things-in-themselves. The philosopher Galen Strawson has called it the hard problem of matter."

"...Indeed, the problem arises even for Newtonian physics, which describes the structure of reality in a way that makes perfect intuitive sense. Roughly speaking, Newtonian physics says that matter consists of solid particles that interact either by bumping into each other or by gravitationally attracting each other. But what is the intrinsic nature of the stuff that behaves in this simple and intuitive way? What is the hardware that implements the software of Newton’s equations? One might think the answer is simple: It is implemented by solid particles. But solidity is just the behavior of resisting intrusion and spatial overlap by other particles—that is, another mere relation to other particles and space. The hard problem of matter arises for any structural description of reality no matter how clear and intuitive at the structural level. Like the hard problem of consciousness, the hard problem of matter cannot be solved by experiment and observation or by gathering more physical detail. This will only reveal more structure, at least as long as physics remains a discipline dedicated to capturing reality in mathematical terms."

"...The hard problem of matter calls for non-structural properties, and consciousness is the one phenomenon we know that might meet this need. Consciousness is full of qualitative properties, from the redness of red and the discomfort of hunger to the phenomenology of thought. Such experiences, or “qualia,” may have internal structure, but there is more to them than structure. We know something about what conscious experiences are like in and of themselves, not just how they function and relate to other properties."

"...This suggests that consciousness—of some primitive and rudimentary form—is the hardware that the software described by physics runs on. The physical world can be conceived of as a structure of conscious experiences. Our own richly textured experiences implement the physical relations that make up our brains. Some simple, elementary forms of experiences implement the relations that make up fundamental particles. Take an electron, for example. What an electron does is to attract, repel, and otherwise relate to other entities in accordance with fundamental physical equations. What performs this behavior, we might think, is simply a stream of tiny electron experiences. Electrons and other particles can be thought of as mental beings with physical powers; as streams of experience in physical relations to other streams of experience."

"...And a radical change it truly is. Philosophers and neuroscientists often assume that consciousness is like software, whereas the brain is like hardware. This suggestion turns this completely around. When we look at what physics tells us about the brain, we actually just find software—purely a set of relations—all the way down. And consciousness is in fact more like hardware, because of its distinctly qualitative, non-structural properties. For this reason, conscious experiences are just the kind of things that physical structure could be the structure of."

"...Given this solution to the hard problem of matter, the hard problem of consciousness all but dissolves. There is no longer any question of how consciousness arises from non-conscious matter, because all matter is intrinsically conscious. There is no longer a question of how consciousness depends on matter, because it is matter that depends on consciousness—as relations depend on relata, structure depends on realizer, or software on hardware."

"...One might object that this is plain anthropomorphism, an illegitimate projection of human qualities on nature. After all, why do we think that physical structure needs some intrinsic realizer? Is it not because our own brains have intrinsic, conscious properties, and we like to think of nature in familiar terms? But this objection does not hold. The idea that intrinsic properties are needed to distinguish real and concrete from mere abstract structure is entirely independent of consciousness. Moreover, the charge of anthropomorphism can be met by a countercharge of human exceptionalism. If the brain is indeed entirely material, why should it be so different from the rest of matter when it comes to intrinsic properties?"

"...Russell’s dual-aspect monism tries to fill in this deficiency. It accepts that the brain is a material system that behaves in accordance with the laws of physics. But it adds another, intrinsic aspect to matter which is hidden from the extrinsic, third-person perspective of physics and which therefore cannot be captured by any purely physical description. But although this intrinsic aspect eludes our physical theories, it does not elude our inner observations. Our own consciousness constitutes the intrinsic aspect of the brain, and this is our clue to the intrinsic aspect of other physical things. To paraphrase Arthur Schopenhauer’s succinct response to Kant: We can know the thing-in-itself because we are it."

"...The most radical version of dual-aspect monism takes the intrinsic aspect of reality to consist of consciousness itself. This is decidedly not the same as subjective idealism, the view that the physical world is merely a structure within human consciousness, and that the external world is in some sense an illusion. According to dual-aspect monism, the external world exists entirely independently of human consciousness. But it would not exist independently of any kind of consciousness, because all physical things are associated with some form of consciousness of their own, as their own intrinsic realizer, or hardware. As a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, dual-aspect monism faces objections of its own. The most common objection is that it results in panpsychism, the view that all things are associated with some form of consciousness. To critics, it’s just too implausible that fundamental particles are conscious. And indeed this idea takes some getting used to. But consider the alternatives. Dualism looks implausible on scientific grounds. Physicalism takes the objective, scientifically accessible aspect of reality to be the only reality, which arguably implies that the subjective aspect of consciousness is an illusion. Maybe so—but shouldn’t we be more confident that we are conscious, in the full subjective sense, than that particles are not?"

"...A second important objection is the so-called combination problem. How and why does the complex, unified consciousness of our brains result from putting together particles with simple consciousness? This question looks suspiciously similar to the original hard problem. I and other defenders of panpsychism have argued that the combination problem is nevertheless not as hard as the original hard problem. In some ways, it is easier to see how to get one form of conscious matter (such as a conscious brain) from another form of conscious matter (such as a set of conscious particles) than how to get conscious matter from non-conscious matter. But many find this unconvincing. Perhaps it is just a matter of time, though. The original hard problem, in one form or another, has been pondered by philosophers for centuries. The combination problem has received much less attention, which gives more hope for a yet undiscovered solution."

As this is clearly something you're invested in haidut, what compels you to invest in this particular philosophical thread?

I'm not sure I'm even close to having my head around it. I'm just wondering what ramifications this, if proven would have for yourself and humanity in general. Is it possible to articulate or is it more of a pondering a philosophical conundrum type thing?

 

[Hugh Johnson]

You said this, in the other thread:



If everything beyond consciousness is purely hypothetical then you would need proof before accepting the capacity of another living being to have their own separate consciousness - that'd be presuming the existence of the material world which you don't accept.

I understand the point in a pedantic way (we can't prove beyond our consciousness), but unless it was something of relevance or importance to your world view then why bother articulating it? Having that concept at the forefront of your philosophy could absolutely lead to sociopathy.

That is solipsism. There are plenty of minds, but all of it is in consciousness. There can only be one over arching reality in which all things exist, and the one thing we can establish in our experience is that we are conscious. I do see where you are coming from, and it comes from confusing the individual mind with consciousness. And admittedly I have not been the best person to articulate these things.

 

[Dino D]

That is solipsism. There are plenty of minds, but all of it is in consciousness. There can only be one over arching reality in which all things exist, and the one thing we can establish in our experience is that we are conscious. I do see where you are coming from, and it comes from confusing the individual mind with consciousness. And admittedly I have not been the best person to articulate these things.

Exacty, rupert spira and also the site that i qouted come from the same understanding and point to the same ,,truth" rupert has amazing books, and if we are into this topic he is a ,,must" and the best i think rupert btw is vegetarian, he is super calm and not fat hah :)

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Exacty, rupert spira and also the site that i qouted come from the same understanding and point to the same ,,truth" rupert has amazing books, and if we are into this topic he is a ,,must" and the best i think rupert btw is vegetarian, he is super calm and not fat hah :)

I really don't want you on my side in a debate.

 

[Dino D]

I really don't want you on my side in a debate.

Why?
And why so rude at me? Like I'm a bad guy here?

If I did say something wrong I dont recall to say something bad or rude or like that? Your comment humiliated me...

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Why?
And why so rude at me? Like I'm a bad guy here?

If I did say something wrong I dont recall to say something bad or rude or like that? Your comment humiliated me...

Because your posts before this have been so terrible that I don't want my views associated with them. You have not bothered to spell properly or use proper grammar. Your posts have been something I would expect from an intellectually disabled, severly mentally ill or a very intoxicated person. These views being associated with such people invalidates them in the minds of others.

If you want to be treated well, show some consideration for others when you post.

 

[sunraiser]

Because your posts before this have been so terrible that I don't want my views associated with them. You have not bothered to spell properly or use proper grammar. Your posts have been something I would expect from an intellectually disabled, severly mentally ill or a very intoxicated person. These views being associated with such people invalidates them in the minds of others.

If you want to be treated well, show some consideration for others when you post.

It's clear that English is not his first language so this is extremely inconsiderate. You're asking him for consideration while showing absolutely none yourself.

Besides, I understand his posts just fine and I didn't find it to invalidate the ideas shared at all.

I think it's refreshing to see different writing styles and I enjoy the way people almost create a new way of articulating when they merge some of the logic and syntax of their native language with a second or third language. At times it can be even more evocative and descriptive than a native speaker.

@Dino D I hope this doesn't discourage you from posting. I enjoyed and (in some ways) relate to what you've said earlier in the thread and your posts in general.

 

[Dino D]

[

It's clear that English is not his first language so this is extremely inconsiderate. You're asking him for consideration while showing absolutely none yourself.

Besides, I understand his posts just fine and I didn't find it to invalidate the ideas shared at all.

I think it's refreshing to see different writing styles and I enjoy the way people almost create a new way of articulating when they merge some of the logic and syntax of their native language with a second or third language. At times it can be even more evocative and descriptive than a native speaker.

@Dino D I hope this doesn't discourage you from posting. I enjoyed and (in some ways) relate to what you've said earlier in the thread and your posts in general.

I never felt angry or offended by anyone on the internet... Until now... Because this is truly not personal for me... However @Hugh Johnson really showed a very mean side of a ,,Internet human", that touched my ,, anger centers " very deeply...
He is yelling on a person that he thinks is mentally disabled because this person is agreeing with him (how wrong is that), and because this person (me) seems mentally disabled, or just stupid (whatever), he thinks his status on this forum (like this is something so special) or ego is attacked with such an ,,agreement" so he tries to bully back such a person (me)... Very arrogant and also makes no sense... I don't see any logical connections how somebody who does not speak or write English correctly, and does not know to express what he means precisely, can with agreeing with somebody do ,,harm to his illusionary ego status on the Internet forum." And the guy that he qouted -Ruper Spira- would 100% never encourage such behavior...
He is seriously tripping about me invalidating him with my bad grammar... Evan if this would be true, he would be a scum of a person by pushing me back just to save his rank and status here, despite from my agreements with him... I was happy to see people knowing Rupert Spira even on this forum, if I would resonate like Hough then I should think bad of Rupert now, because Hugh is bad, he quotes Rupert, or agrees with him, so Rupert looks bad... Come on...

Humiliating a human being because it agrees with you is truly amazing... There are not many bad people like that... I'm fascinated... Still I managed to get something positive out from this. I found a grammar checker chrome extension hah

Sunraiser, thx 4 support

 

[Hugh Johnson]

[


I never felt angry or offended by anyone on the internet... Until now... Because this is truly not personal for me... However @Hugh Johnson really showed a very mean side of a ,,Internet human", that touched my ,, anger centers " very deeply...
He is yelling on a person that he thinks is mentally disabled because this person is agreeing with him (how wrong is that), and because this person (me) seems mentally disabled, or just stupid (whatever), he thinks his status on this forum (like this is something so special) or ego is attacked with such an ,,agreement" so he tries to bully back such a person (me)... Very arrogant and also makes no sense... I don't see any logical connections how somebody who does not speak or write English correctly, and does not know to express what he means precisely, can with agreeing with somebody do ,,harm to his illusionary ego status on the Internet forum." And the guy that he qouted -Ruper Spira- would 100% never encourage such behavior...
He is seriously tripping about me invalidating him with my bad grammar... Evan if this would be true, he would be a scum of a person by pushing me back just to save his rank and status here, despite from my agreements with him... I was happy to see people knowing Rupert Spira even on this forum, if I would resonate like Hough then I should think bad of Rupert now, because Hugh is bad, he quotes Rupert, or agrees with him, so Rupert looks bad... Come on...

Humiliating a human being because it agrees with you is truly amazing... There are not many bad people like that... I'm fascinated... Still I managed to get something positive out from this. I found a grammar checker chrome extension hah

Sunraiser, thx 4 support

"scum" "Hugh is bad" "yelling" "bully" "his status" "very arrogant" "humiliating" Who exactly is attacking who here? Who exactly has massive emotional attachment to irrelevant people on the net?

You can spell and write. You are too lazy to do so. As for what Spira would and would not do, you have no idea about that. Ever read The Bhagavad Gita? The world is not for the whiny.

It's clear that English is not his first language so this is extremely inconsiderate. You're asking him for consideration while showing absolutely none yourself.

Besides, I understand his posts just fine and I didn't find it to invalidate the ideas shared at all.

I think it's refreshing to see different writing styles and I enjoy the way people almost create a new way of articulating when they merge some of the logic and syntax of their native language with a second or third language. At times it can be even more evocative and descriptive than a native speaker.

@Dino D I hope this doesn't discourage you from posting. I enjoyed and (in some ways) relate to what you've said earlier in the thread and your posts in general.

I am not whining about how people treat me. He is. I have almost no emotional reaction to words on a screen from people I do not know, and you can insult me if you want. I might respond for fun.