Is Matter Conscious? - Can All Matter Be Conscious?

[Jimmy Snyder]

Experimental evidence deals with observable phenomena, i can't prove experimentally that an invisible elephant has not been following me for years. It's not the role of science to provide evidence against such a possibility. It doesn't however point to a conclusion that there could be an elephant. Observationally, atoms do not exhibit features that would qualify them as 'conscious'. Are you sure you didn't mean 'alive' instead of 'conscious'?

The role of science is to match theory with fact. In the absence of fact, it is the duty of science to keep its big mouth shut.

 

[Maui]

That could be just our flawed human interpretation of animal behaviour.

As for flies, look at this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516071806.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news177692594.html

I am not qualified to judge the authors' work, but having read the articles, there appears to be just too much personal opinion in their conclusions.

Ive inserted the bold purple bit. Consciousness is just as invisible as the invisible elephant. There is no way we can directly observe it in others. We can only infer based on extrapolation of our own behaviour.

If i am not conscious, who am i talking to? It's not that i have to prove that I am conscious but that anyone else is. If i am talking to you or anyone else, it means that i am conscious(aware), even if you aren't real.

Saying that consciousness is an illusion, falls in the same category as saying that consciousness is a dream, a hallucination, a vision, etc. Each of those are already conscious activities in the first place (they are experienced), so there is nothing materialistic about any of those statements.

Consciousness is an illusion is an oxymoron.

 

[Maui]

The role of science is to match theory with fact. In the absence of fact, it is the duty of science to keep its big mouth shut.

For a fact, science doesn't claim what is real, what exists, how it exists, why it exists, etc. This qualifies as "keeping its big mouth shut" as far as i am concerned. I am wondering if what you are proposing isn't influenced by some interpretations of the DCE with and without the eraser and the uncertainty principle?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

For a fact, science doesn't claim what is real, what exists, how it exists, why it exists, etc. This qualifies as "keeping its big mouth shut" as far as i am concerned. I am wondering if what you are proposing isn't influenced by some interpretations of the DCE with and without the eraser and the uncertainty principle?

So far, the only thing I have suggested is that someone come up with an experiment. And so far, I have had no takers, just talkers. That isn't what I call "keeping its big mouth shut".

 

[apeiron]

That could be just our flawed human interpretation of animal behaviour.

An even more impressive example of invertebrate cognition is the jumping spider, Portia...
http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/Sinclair ZX80 spiders.pdf

This is one of the reasons I stress the temporal aspect of "consciousness". Portia builds up its model of the world as a slow scan.

 

[ThomasT]

So far, the only thing I have suggested is that someone come up with an experiment. And so far, I have had no takers, just talkers.

I don't know if this qualifies, but I've spent a certain amount of time observing and interacting with my car's hubcaps, and, in the old days, my Jimmy Connors T2000 tennis racquet. The results are inconclusive, but they don't 'seem' conscious.

Anyway, wrt the OP's consideration, I like what a couple of the earlier posters wrote. My take is that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon peculiar to living complex organisms that, at the level of fundamental physical dynamics, doesn't matter.

 

[DaveC426913]

So far, the only thing I have suggested is that someone come up with an experiment. And so far, I have had no takers, just talkers. That isn't what I call "keeping its big mouth shut".

I don't know if this qualifies, but I've spent a certain amount of time observing and interacting with my car's hubcaps, and, in the old days, my Jimmy Connors T2000 tennis racquet. The results are inconclusive, but they don't 'seem' conscious.

That qualifies as evidence in my books.

Jimmy? Counter-evidence?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That qualifies as evidence in my books.

Proof by authority?

 

[DaveC426913]

Proof by authority?

No, proof by preponderance of evidence. Observation of hubcaps and tennis racquets has elicited no evidence of consciousness. My own independent follow-up experiments have corroborated the earlier study (though, so far, only for hubcaps not for racquets).

Care to produce your evidence to the contrary?

 

[Gokul43201]

No, proof by preponderance of evidence. Observation of hubcaps and tennis racquets has elicited no evidence of consciousness. My own independent follow-up experiments have corroborated the earlier study (though, so far, only for hubcaps not for racquets).

I don't thing you have understood what Jimmy asked for. Jimmy asked the audience to describe experiments, and your response was, essentially: we've done the experiments - trust us - they demonstrate such-and-such. That is not a description of an experiment. That is simply asking someone to take your word for it.

Care to produce your evidence to the contrary?

I don't see anywhere that he claimed to have evidence to the contrary.

 

[DaveC426913]

Jimmy asked you to describe experiments, and your response is essentially: we've done the experiments - trust us - they demonstrate such-and-such. That is not a description of an experiment. That is simply asking someone to take your word for it.

I admit the experiment was not very rigorous. We listened to the hubcaps and prodded them and asked them questions and attached EEGs to them and we did not get any evidence of consciousness.

While that is not conclusive, it does strongly hint that it's likely not there unless there's some evidence to the contrary.

I don't see anywhere that he claim to have evidence to the contrary.

He doesn't. So our seat-of-the-pants tests are the only evidence. Is there reason to challenge the results? Is there evidence to the contrary?

 

[Pythagorean]

I admit the experiment was not very rigorous. We listened to the hubcaps and prodded them and asked them questions and attached EEGs to them and we did not get any evidence of consciousness.

While that is not conclusive, it does strongly hint that it's likely not there unless there's some evidence to the contrary.


He doesn't. So our seat-of-the-pants tests are the only evidence. Is there reason to challenge the results? Is there evidence to the contrary?

Evidence can be found following the challenge, as is often the case with nonlinear systems: some strange behavior comes out of a theoretical biology model and the experimentalists say "whatever... it's just some computer artifact" until one experimenter is interested enough and then they actually find the behavior once they drive the system to bifurcate as in the model.

This is essentially the same thing, only our models are in a very nascent and qualitative state right now. Is there any evidence, in the first place, that consciousness is something unique to humans/mammals/living things (whatever your personal bias)

Or the same question asked from another perspective... is there any reason to believe that we're more conscious than a rock? Or are we just more complex?

My assumption may align with yours; I think that consciousness results from the higher complexity; I wouldn't be surprised if a single-celled organism had some limited form of consciousness, but rocks and tires don't seem to. However, that's not reasonable to just state it and leave it there. We still have to prove either philosophically that it must be, or empirically that it is.

The major difficulty is that already, you can't prove that any other humans are conscious unless you define it behaviorally (which isn't satisfactory to most philosophers). You only infer it from our assumed likeness to you.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I admit the experiment was not very rigorous. We listened to the hubcaps and prodded them and asked them questions and attached EEGs to them and we did not get any evidence of consciousness.

While that is not conclusive, it does strongly hint that it's likely not there unless there's some evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps you should have tried an FMRI-based experiment.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/fmrisalmon/

 

[schizoid]

I admit the experiment was not very rigorous. We listened to the hubcaps and prodded them and asked them questions and attached EEGs to them and we did not get any evidence of consciousness.

While that is not conclusive, it does strongly hint that it's likely not there unless there's some evidence to the contrary.


He doesn't. So our seat-of-the-pants tests are the only evidence. Is there reason to challenge the results? Is there evidence to the contrary?

couldn't that be a more human way of looking at consciousness , by attaching EEGs you are looking for electrical signals that produces a spike or waveforms and if it is absent it pronounced dead or not living. Maybe conscioucness has to do more with complexity such as neurons and its connections and their interactionwith the surrounding.

 

[Maui]

Anyway, wrt the OP's consideration, I like what a couple of the earlier posters wrote. My take is that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon peculiar to living complex organisms that, at the level of fundamental physical dynamics, doesn't matter.

To sum up - only specific wave-structures like us humans(taking decoherence as a preferred interpretation) are allowed to display magical emergent phenomena like consciousness. The other wave-forms(hubcaps, tennis racquets,...) don't enjoy the same level of emergence.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know if this qualifies, but I've spent a certain amount of time observing and interacting with my car's hubcaps, and, in the old days, my Jimmy Connors T2000 tennis racquet. The results are inconclusive, but they don't 'seem' conscious.

That qualifies as evidence in my books.

Jimmy? Counter-evidence?

I'm sorry I gave such a short answer to this in my previous post. I gave it a lot of thought overnight. I awake to see that Gokul43201 has provided an answer that is close to what I wanted to say. Let me put it in my own words.

The issue I press is not whether an atom of iron has consciousness. Nor is it that the atom does not have consciousness. Rather I conjecture that the question is not a scientific one. There are many questions that are not scientific, and there is no reason why a scientist would not be allowed to come to a conclusion in spite of it. I, for instance, have come to the conclusion that my wife is the saving grace of my life. I have no real evidence for or against and so I think it is not a scientific question. Yet I hold firmly to my conclusion.

I have heard ThomasT's argument before. It was from William Demsky, one of the main driving forces in favor of Intelligent Design. His argument is that he has stared at the world for a long time and that to him it seems designed. I rejected that argument. But it is not the rejection of the argument that counts, it is the added conclusion that without evidence, his position is not a scientific one. People may and do decide whether to accept the idea of ID, but in my opinion, they do not make that decision based on experimental evidence. I have often made fun of the messsage in some posts that "ID is not falsifiable and it is false." However, that is actually a valid stance as long as the holder understands that the first part of the statement is scientific and the second part is philosophical.

As for the ThomasT experiment, it is not better defined than the Demsky experiment. I don't dispute that you observed hubcaps and that you did not detect consciousness. I want to know what you did detect. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Finally, as to me providing counter-evidence, I remind you that counter-evidence is evidence too and my possition is that there isn't any. To challenge me to find some is to misunderstand my position in this matter.

 

[pftest]

The major difficulty is that already, you can't prove that any other humans are conscious unless you define it behaviorally (which isn't satisfactory to most philosophers). You only infer it from our assumed likeness to you.

Yes exactly. And even then, the group of things that fit into the category of "conscious because of assumed behavioural likeness with humans" becomes very large when you take into account the universality of the laws of physics.

So if we look at the hubcap example that someone mentioned, we can spot the similarity between "human electrons" and "hubcap electrons" and see this as evidence that the hubcap is conscious.

 

[Maui]

Finally, as to me providing counter-evidence, I remind you that counter-evidence is evidence too and my possition is that there isn't any. To challenge me to find some is to misunderstand my position in this matter.

That is worded way too strong but i don't like these debates in philosophical settings. You can't prove anything to a philosopher, as he/she is determined that knowledge is fallible and at the end we all die without knowing anything to be a fact. If one questions everything, there'd be no sufficient amount of evidence for anything, as deep down in our theories, the basis of all knowledge is axioms based on our assumptions of the world.

So if we look at the hubcap example that someone mentioned, we can spot the similarity between "human electrons" and "hubcap electrons" and see this as evidence that the hubcap is conscious.

That'd be jumping to conclusions(just don't go "all knowledge is jumping to conclusions", we don't need a philosophical thought paralysis).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If one questions everything, there'd be no sufficient amount of evidence for anything, as deep down in our theories, the basis of all knowledge is axioms based on our assumptions of the world.

I have not called for sufficient evidence. I'll settle for any evidence at all for or against.

 

[Maui]

I have not called for sufficient evidence. I'll settle for any evidence at all for or against.

So you have discarded scientific(observational) evidence that shows no conclusive evidence of consciousness in atoms here:

The issue I press is not whether an atom of iron has consciousness. Nor is it that the atom does not have consciousness. Rather I conjecture that the question is not a scientific one.

So the issue and its interpretation/conclusion is not scientific any more. The question is what method of inquiry would you like to apply?

I am not aware of there being any knowledge that is ultimately conclusive and unbiased. Philosophically speaking, anything can be; scientifically, based on the chosen set of axioms and their implicit and explict assumptions, no. Lots of conclusions are discarded based on the fact that they appear nonsensical to the scientific framework we are trying to establish(all matter is conscious is a good such example).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So you have discarded scientific(observational) evidence that shows no conclusive evidence of consciousness.

Evidence of no evidence?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The question is what method of inquiry would you like to apply?

I'm open.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Of course, I did not mean to lump ThomasT and Demsky quite so tightly. I think that ThomasT is being facetious, and that Demsky is not.

 

[DaveC426913]

The simple fact is that, at least until we know the cause of consciounsess, there can be no evidence that atoms do not have consciousness; you cannot prove a negative. The best science can do is offer Occam's razor. I think this is what Jimmy is getting at.

He spotted the flaw in all our hubcap experiments: they produced no evidence. As always, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[brainstorm]

That is worded way too strong but i don't like these debates in philosophical settings. You can't prove anything to a philosopher, as he/she is determined that knowledge is fallible and at the end we all die without knowing anything to be a fact. If one questions everything, there'd be no sufficient amount of evidence for anything, as deep down in our theories, the basis of all knowledge is axioms based on our assumptions of the world.

Proof is just one aspect of knowledge. Instead of worrying about whether something can be proven or disproven, why not concern yourself with "if/then" problems? E.g. whether or not consciousness can be proven to exist in animals, plants, or non-living things, you can contemplate what it would be like to be conscious as a dog, cat, tree, or laptop by looking at what data-inputs the candidate has and what kind of processing it has at its disposal. You can look at its behavioral options and whether it has the capacity to make choices, and what the basis for its choices might be. This is all much more interesting, imo, than trying to prove/disprove something that hasn't been proved/disproved throughout human history (as far as I know anyway).

 

[DaveC426913]

Proof is just one aspect of knowledge. Instead of worrying about whether something can be proven or disproven, why not concern yourself with "if/then" problems? E.g. whether or not consciousness can be proven to exist in animals, plants, or non-living things, you can contemplate what it would be like to be conscious as a dog, cat, tree, or laptop by looking at what data-inputs the candidate has and what kind of processing it has at its disposal. You can look at its behavioral options and whether it has the capacity to make choices, and what the basis for its choices might be. This is all much more interesting, imo, than trying to prove/disprove something that hasn't been proved/disproved throughout human history (as far as I know anyway).

This was gonig to be my next comment.

How do we move ahead using Occam's razor?
If we assume atoms do not have consciousness, how far can we go if we're wrong. If we assume they do, how far can we go?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The simple fact is that, at least until we know the cause of consciounsess, there can be no evidence that atoms do not have consciousness; you cannot prove a negative.

Science can't prove a positive either. My comments were not directed toward the cause of consciousness, but rather to the existence of it. I thought that I had set a simple agenda, but it has been interpretted by several people in unexpected ways. All I am asking is if anyone has any experimental evidence to go on, or is this all just idle speculation?

The best science can do is offer Occam's razor. I think this is what Jimmy is getting at.

I don't think that this is what I was getting at. As I said in a earlier post, science is supposed to match up theory with fact. In the absence of fact, science is at a loss and should butt out of the conversation. It is then the philosophers' choice to apply Occam's razor, or any other criterion if they wish to continue their idle speculations.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science can't prove a positive either.

Why not? Do you mean specifically consciousness or in general?

I mean, OK, science can't prove that there are two apples on the table or that they bounce off each other when pushed together, but how much of a preponderance of evidence is enough?

I don't think that this is what I was getting at. As I said in a earlier post, science is supposed to match up theory with fact. In the absence of fact, science is at a loss and should butt out of the conversation.

I don't agree. Science is designed to result in a theory that tries to explain the evidence. It grants that the theory is not conclusive.

It sounds to me like you're thinking that science is nothing more than the experiment itself, and science ends with the delivery of the data, no interpretation.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why not? Do you mean specifically consciousness or in general?

I mean, OK, science can't prove that there are two apples on the table or that they bounce off each other when pushed together, but how much of a preponderance of evidence is enough?

The best science can hope for is to fail to disprove (although fame and fortune go to those who succeed at disproving something). Just because the apple fell down every time we observed it, doesn't mean that it will fall down the next time. The theory is that it will fall down. The fact is it fell down. Theory matches fact. We will accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

 

[DaveC426913]

The best science can hope for is to fail to disprove (although fame and fortune go to those who succeed at disproving something). Just because the apple fell down every time we observed it, doesn't mean that it will fall down the next time. The theory is that it will fall down. The fact is it fell down. Theory matches fact. We will accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

But that is not the same as butting out of the conversation. Science can make a strong claim that apples fall down in a given set of circumstances. Inasmuch as a preponderance of evidence forms an accepted theory, science can form an accepted theory, meaning life can move on as if it is true for practical purposes (even while further tests can falsify it).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

But that is not the same as butting out of the conversation. Science can make a strong claim that apples fall down in a given set of circumstances. Inasmuch as a preponderance of evidence forms an accepted theory, science can form an accepted theory, meaning life can move on as if it is true for practical purposes (even while further tests can falsify it).

Science is for matching theory with fact. In the matter of falling apples, there is plenty of fact and therefore no reason for science to keep quiet. In the matter of whether atoms have consciousness, if there is no fact for science to work with, then science should remain silent and let the philosophers have at it. Knock yourselves out.

 

[Maui]

The best science can hope for is to fail to disprove (although fame and fortune go to those who succeed at disproving something). Just because the apple fell down every time we observed it, doesn't mean that it will fall down the next time. The theory is that it will fall down. The fact is it fell down. Theory matches fact. We will accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

This is what 'being rational' is(at least in human terms). One has to believe that the world is rational and follows rational principles if science is to foster. We can't prove that there is no demon fooling us(me) about what everything is, so a bit of seemingly reasonable belief is mandatory if we are to retain our ability to reason in a meaningful way. By believing that the universe is rational, i am able to discard a lot of unbelievable propositions(e.g. that rocks are conscious but are acting in ways that make them seem as if they were not).

Evidence of no evidence?

Do you believe that the universe is rational? Do you worry that you may encounter totally unexplained and uncaused events? Say a dolphin which might jump out of your monitor? There is no evidence that it won't and based on the problem of induction and with a bit of quantum uncertainty, there is a theoretical possibility that it might.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science is for matching theory with fact. In the matter of falling apples, there is plenty of fact and therefore no reason for science to keep quiet. In the matter of whether atoms have consciousness, if there is no fact for science to work with, then science should remain silent and let the philosophers have at it. Knock yourselves out.

But that's simply getting back to the idea that you can prove a positive (apples bounce) but cannot prove a negative.

Question: do you think that the primary reason why consciousness is outside the realm of science is because we do not understand its cause yet? If we determined where consciousness arises, do you think science could then venture an assertion as to whether atoms have it?

 

[Maui]

Science is for matching theory with fact. In the matter of falling apples, there is plenty of fact and therefore no reason for science to keep quiet. In the matter of whether atoms have consciousness, if there is no fact for science to work with, then science should remain silent and let the philosophers have at it. Knock yourselves out.

There is some ambiguity as to what an atom is. According to the modern atomic model, criptic as a classical description might be, an atom is its probability distribution. What reason do we have to seek consciousness in something that is ill-defined in classical terms? Do we have evidence that atoms are not for example tiny animals? Has anyone come up with an experiment to disprove or prove that they are not?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The purpose of science is to match theory with fact. Keep that in mind as you read on.

But that's simply getting back to the idea that you can prove a positive (apples bounce) but cannot prove a negative.

No. I have a theory: Apples fall down. I have a fact: I have never seen apples fall anyway but down. Theory matches fact and so I accept the theory. My job as a scientist is finished. However, there are two important things that are left unsettled. What happened to all those apples that I didn't observe? Did they fall down too? And what of the future? Will the next apple fall down? Therefore, I accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

Question: do you think that the primary reason why consciousness is outside the realm of science is because we do not understand its cause yet? If we determined where consciousness arises, do you think science could then venture an assertion as to whether atoms have it?

By no means. I think that the question "Are atoms conscious?" is outside the realm of science because, unlike falling apples, I have no experimental data to work with. How can I, as a scientist ever hope to match theory with fact when there are no facts lying about to work with? Come up with an experiment of some kind. Instead of examining your belly button, examine the world. What do you see? I will accept your reports from the field as facts and perhaps even come up with a theory that matches those facts. What have you got?