Are Atoms and Inanimate Objects Conscious or Self-Aware?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between consciousness and atoms, questioning whether atoms possess any form of consciousness or self-awareness. It suggests that consciousness may be an emergent property of complex systems, such as the brain, rather than a characteristic of individual atoms. The conversation touches on philosophical concepts like panpsychism and panexperientialism, which propose varying degrees of subjective experience in nature. Participants highlight logical fallacies, such as the fallacy of division and composition, to critique the arguments presented. Ultimately, the debate raises fundamental questions about the nature of consciousness and its relation to physical matter.
RAD4921
346
1
Since my brain is made of atoms I question as to whether atoms are conscious, at least in the brain but possibly even in inanimate objects, possibly varying levels of self awareness.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends on one's view, and this is not by any means a settled matter, but the fact that humans are conscious does not necessarily imply that atoms are conscious. It could be that consciousness is an emergent property, like the fluidity of water is an emergent property of H2O molecules-- if this is the case, then we could say consciousness is a property of the brain as a whole (or some subset of the brain, taken as a whole) but is not a property of the constituent parts. If one is a substance dualist, one would not even attribute consciousness to physical brains themselves, let alone atoms. Panexperientialism is a view that might be amenable to attributing some sort of subjective experience to atoms.
 
"fallacy of division"
 
RAD4921 said:
Since my brain is made of atoms I question as to whether atoms are conscious, at least in the brain but possibly even in inanimate objects, possibly varying levels of self awareness.
By the same same logic: Since a dandelion flower is yellow, I question whether atoms are yellow.

It is easier to see the flaw in this argument and then apply it to yours.
 
I think it's also called panpsychism
 
Tournesol said:
"fallacy of division"

Isn't that the fallacy of composition, or is that just the other way around, to say that the whole must have the same properties as the parts?
 
Jonny_trigonometry said:
I think it's also called panpsychism

Panpsychism is the view that minds are ubiquitous in nature. Panexperientialism is the substantially weaker view that subjective experience is ubiquitous in nature. For X to have a mind, X must be in possession of at least some set of cognitive capacities, such as thought or awareness; for X to have subjective experience, it just must be like something to be X.
 
DaveC426913 said:
By the same same logic: Since a dandelion flower is yellow, I question whether atoms are yellow.

It is easier to see the flaw in this argument and then apply it to yours.

The photons are yellow arent they?
(they appear yellow to us)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top