Is Matter Conscious? - Can All Matter Be Conscious?

[pftest]

I don't think it makes sense to use occams razor to assume atoms lack consciousness, because i do not think it provides a "simpler" explanation for human consciousness than we would have if atoms were conscious. For one we end up needing a strange kind of emergence that doesn't really fit in with how anything else in nature works. Similarly, we do not get a simpler explanation for an eels electric organ by assuming that there was no electromagnetism before eels existed.

 

[DaveC426913]

Therefore, I accept the theory on a tentative basis pending the next experiment.

And in the mean time, you proceed as if apples fall down, unless there is reason to suppose otherwise.

Why would you not do the same with non-conscious atoms?

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?

But since it is impossible to prove a negative, you can treat repeated negative results as evidence.

It's one thing to say 'no evidence of God does not mean there's no God', because God could be around the next corner.

But we can test for the difference between consciousness and not consciousness. A live person who is conscious has brain waves, a dead person does not. If we examine all things, we can divide them into things that emit a certain complexity of brain waves and things that don't, invariably, there will be a correlation between that group and the group of conscious things versus not-conscious things as we understand consciousness.

This is not a litmus test by any means, I'm not suggesting it is, what I'm suggesting is that tests for consciousness in atoms ought to turn up evidence if it were there.

We don't detect it; we should be able to move forward saying it's probably not there, just like we can move forward saying there probably is not a teacup orbiting Jupiter.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think it makes sense to use occams razor to assume atoms lack consciousness, because i do not think it provides a "simpler" explanation for human consciousness than we would have if atoms were conscious. For one we end up needing a strange kind of emergence that doesn't really fit in with how anything else in nature works. Similarly, we do not get a simpler explanation for an eels electric organ by assuming that there was no electromagnetism before eels existed.

So, your theory then is that, because humans have consciousness, it is more likely that all atoms in the universe have consciousness. To you, it does not makes sense that consciousness may be an emergent property of a collection of atoms.

Why do small animals not exhibit this consciousness? Why not pebbles? Why not planets and stars, which are much larger and more complex than us, not exhibit it?

Your theory raises more questions than it answers; it has more exceptions than rules. And that is the whole intent of Occam's razor, to avoid multiplying entities needing explanations.

 

[pftest]

But we can test for the difference between consciousness and not consciousness. A live person who is conscious has brain waves, a dead person does not. If we examine all things, we can divide them into things that emit a certain complexity of brain waves and things that don't, invariably, there will be a correlation between that group and the group of conscious things versus not-conscious things as we understand consciousness.

There are limitations to detecting nonconsciousness this way. It relies on anecdotal evidence that the subjects report and all the problems that come with it. For example, they may simply not remember being conscious. Or they may have been minimally conscious. Or conscious in a way unlike everyday waking consciousness. Etc.

Ill use the eels electric organ again as example: we can stab the eels organ and it may no longer be able to give off electric shocks, but from this it doesn't follow that electric charge doesn't exist outside the eels organ (we know this is false).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And in the mean time, you proceed as if apples fall down, unless there is reason to suppose otherwise.
Why would you not do the same with non-conscious atoms?

I have no issue with it. I merely point out that it is not scientific. I asked you to keep in mind that science matches theory with fact. No fact, no science. Period. But you can still suppose what you like on non-scientific matters. Knock yourself out.

 

[pftest]

So, your theory then is that, because humans have consciousness, it is more likely that all atoms in the universe have consciousness. To you, it does not makes sense that consciousness may be an emergent property of a collection of atoms.

To me emergence doesn't yet make sense because it cannot be found anywhere else in nature. To me that is a strong indication that it is not a natural phenomenon. I always look at how the rest of nature works to find explanations. When i look at how evolution is about simple things getting more complex, i do not get a positive feel about the idea of consciousness being an exception and having no simpler form in one of our ancestors.

Why do small animals not exhibit this consciousness? Why not pebbles? Why not planets and stars, which are much larger and more complex than us, not exhibit it?

I think your questions can be rephrased to this:

- why do small animals not behave like humans?
- why do pebbles not behave like humans?
- why do planets and stars not behave like humans?

Of course they don't behave like humans*, but that doesn't mean they arent conscious. We can infer consciousness in other humans by comparing their behaviour to our own. But when the behaviour is very different (for example in pebbles), we simply lose the ability to infer consciousness. Thats like looking out an airplane window while being blind. You can't see if there is a river down below, but its no reason to assume there isnt.

* its not entirely true that they don't behave like humans

 

[Maui]

To me emergence doesn't yet make sense because it cannot be found anywhere else in nature. To me that is a strong indication that it is not a natural phenomenon.

Really?! What is matter? What is time? What is space? What is consciousness? What is anything? A simple probability distribution? A measurement outcome or my knowledge of it?

Wave-structures of unknown(or unknowable) substance somehow give you enough evidence to make this monstrous claim? How is causality maintained in light of the relativity of simultaneity? How does causality square with entangled states? How does causality fit the ability to only assign probabilities to quantum events? How does einselection work to preserve our observations of causally connected events? Just a reminder, if you're going to make this point - a hidden underlying reality is just as much evidence of 'emergence' as it can ever be(as far as we are concerned). And if we are living in a causal universe as you insist, face up to it, it has to accommodate magical influences.

There are limitations to detecting nonconsciousness this way. It relies on anecdotal evidence that the subjects report and all the problems that come with it. For example, they may simply not remember being conscious. Or they may have been minimally conscious. Or conscious in a way unlike everyday waking consciousness. Etc.

At the end of the day, we have to be rational. We've survived so far as a race because we've been rational. That's a good indication that we have to uphold this typically human trait. Rocks not remembering that they had been conscious is 99.99999% nonsense and rationality requires that we dismiss it. Until at least some evidence accumulates to the contrary.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no issue with it. I merely point out that it is not scientific. I asked you to keep in mind that science matches theory with fact. No fact, no science. Period. But you can still suppose what you like on non-scientific matters. Knock yourself out.

I don't understand why you suggest it is not scientific. Science must proceed on what has gone before. Our theory that something probably doesn't exist allows our scientific method to move forward as if it doesn't. That's called the null hypothesis. The Scientific Method requires it.

 

[brainstorm]

At the end of the day, we have to be rational. We've survived so far as a race because we've been rational. That's a good indication that we have to uphold this typically human trait. Rocks not remembering that they had been conscious is 99.99999% nonsense and rationality requires that we dismiss it. Until at least some evidence accumulates to the contrary.

Don't confuse rationality with plausibility-estimation based on subjective intuition. Your "99%" estimate that rocks aren't conscious is rooted in empathetic intuition. There is no rational basis for attributing or rejecting the existence of consciousness in anyone/anything besides yourself. If there is, it would be based on analysis of potential causes of consciousness and not on intuitive feelings about what constitutes nonsense and what doesn't. Otherwise you could "rationally" hypothesize that the more someone/something else looks like you, the more likely it is to have consciousness - which is of course the reason women and racialized Others have been traditionally viewed as semi-conscious along with animals.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't understand why you suggest it is not scientific.

Theory without facts is not science. I have nothing deeper than that for you to try and understand.

Galileo was a pioneer in advocating that the scholastics of his day take their noses out of their books, open the window, and take a look at the world outside. It is considered the dawn of a revolution in science. Here we are 400 years into the revolution and you still don't get it? Science compares theories to facts. Without facts gathered from observation of the real world, you can't play the game. What is there to understand in that? Put aside your need to understand for just 5 minutes and use that time to gather in a fact. Not from the ivory tower of logical thinking, but from painstakingly careful observation of this dirty and dusty world. Or careless observation, but at all odds, observation, observation, observation. Then you will be doing science. Come up with a theory to explain the fact that you observed. Now you are ready to humbly accept a Nobel in physics.

 

[Pythagorean]

I got to agree with David and Maui here. If we expect the world to be rational (which most scientists do; that's the dominant philosophy) then consciousness is a result of cause and effect (physical interactions).

Jimmy:
Theoretical sciences don't always rely on facts. In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!"

Together with the experimentalists, the whole of science is verified with facts (as Einstein's new facts were eventually verified and are well accepted today), but the individual aspects of science don't always require fact.

 

[DaveC426913]

Theory without facts is not science.

I have no issue with that statement. But that's not what you've been saying. You're been saying science ends with the facts.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Theoretical sciences don't always rely on facts. In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!"

If you look around the web you will soon find that this quote is unsourced and the attribution to Einstein is highly unlikely. What else have you got.

 

[Pythagorean]

If you look around the web you will soon find that this quote is unsourced and the attribution to Einstein is highly unlikely. What else have you got.

It doesn't really matter whether he said it or not, it's that he did it. If you're relying on Einstein having said that for the argument to hold, then you're relying on argument from authority (which is not what I was putting forth).

The point is that that's one of the things science does: changes facts (or too make it more rigorous, what's actually happening is that the original facts weren't actually facts, but they've worked as facts for a long time)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It doesn't really matter whether he said it or not, it's that he did it. If you're relying on Einstein having said that for the argument to hold, then you're relying on argument from authority (which is not what I was putting forth).

The point is that that's one of the things science does: changes facts (or too make it more rigorous, what's actually happening is that the original facts weren't actually facts, but they've worked as facts for a long time)

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about? Which facts were changed? What was the theory that benefited from the change?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I have no issue with that statement. But that's not what you've been saying. You're been saying science ends with the facts.

In which post did I ever say that. I have repeated and emphasized that science is the comparison of theory and fact.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

you're relying on argument from authority (which is not what I was putting forth).

Hold on slick. You said:
"In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "
And when I point out that the attribution to Einstein is sketchy that equates in your mind that I am arguing from authority?

 

[pftest]

Really?! What is matter? What is time? What is space? What is consciousness? What is anything? A simple probability distribution? A measurement outcome or my knowledge of it?

Wave-structures of unknown(or unknowable) substance somehow give you enough evidence to make this monstrous claim? How is causality maintained in light of the relativity of simultaneity? How does causality square with entangled states? How does causality fit the ability to only assign probabilities to quantum events? How does einselection work to preserve our observations of causally connected events? Just a reminder, if you're going to make this point - a hidden underlying reality is just as much evidence of 'emergence' as it can ever be(as far as we are concerned). And if we are living in a causal universe as you insist, face up to it, it has to accommodate magical influences.

Im not aware of any examples of emergence in nature. Of course that could be because of my limited knowledge, but feel free to offer a clear example that we can focus on.

At the end of the day, we have to be rational. We've survived so far as a race because we've been rational. That's a good indication that we have to uphold this typically human trait. Rocks not remembering that they had been conscious is 99.99999% nonsense and rationality requires that we dismiss it. Until at least some evidence accumulates to the contrary.

Feel free to point out where I am not being rational. You say rocks arent conscious and that rationality requires we dismiss it, but you left out the rational part. What is it?

Btw, if the universe turned out to be entirely rational, do you think this is incompatible with the idea that consciousness (which is the basis of rationality) is a universally found phenomenon? Quite the opposite id say.

 

[Pythagorean]

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about? Which facts were changed? What was the theory that benefited from the change?

ok, my form here is:

"fact" : theory that benefited (or was born, rather) from the fact being wrong (scientist who changed the facts)

Energy is continuous : quantum mechanics (Planck)

(note: there are also numerous fact-changing consequences for other facts that follow from this that resolve such issues as the ultarviolet catastrophe by changing the facts, quantum tunneling)

Space is Euclidian : relativity (Einstein) (numerous fact-changing consequences again.)

Geocentrism : Heliocentrism (Copernicus/Galileo)

Creationism : Big Bang / Evolution (many including Einstein / Darwin)

light is a wave/particle : light is a quantum particle (Einstein)

charges in atoms are distributed evenly (Thompson or Pudding Plum model) : charge is concentrated in the middle of the atom (Rutherford)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Not a single item in your list was ever considered an experimental fact. They are all theories. However, I now understand what you mean by changing fact. It is one thing to make an observation only later to find that it is mistaken. It is quite another to fail to make any observation whatever. When I use the word fact, I do not mean eternal truth. Science would never have come to be if we had to wait for eternally true facts.We still don't have any today. No, by the word fact, I merely mean an observation. Not even the most obstinate pedant could suppose that I meant otherwise because I used the words fact and observation interchangably and repeatedly in this thread. Now, for the benefit of the pedants, I will clarify. Science is the comparison of theory to the facts as they are currently known. However, in the future, I will just shorten that to science is the comparison of theory to fact.

 

[Pythagorean]

Hold on slick. You said:
"In fact, our premiere theoretician, Einstein is known for his quote on the matter "
And when I point out that the attribution to Einstein is sketchy that equates in your mind that I am arguing from authority?

You misunderstand. I'm saying you're arguing against me as if I was arguing from authority, which you shouldn't have to do. Anyway, the point is that Einstein was part of the paradigm shift from classical physics to modern physics (he contributed to both quantum mechanics and relativity). I might be wrong that he said that, but I it certainly fits what he did.Apparently (from another thread on here in which you actually particcipated) the quote actually came from Spinoza and Einstein might have quoted Spinoza. Anyway, I thought the implication would be obvious, since Einstein did literally contribute to all the ground-breaking changes in physics at the beginning of the 20th century.

Not a single item in your list was ever considered an experimental fact. They are all theories. However, I now understand what you mean by changing fact. It is one thing to make an observation only later to find that it is mistaken. It is quite another to fail to make any observation whatever. When I use the word fact, I do not mean eternal truth. Science would never have come to be if we had to wait for eternally true facts.We still don't have any today. No, by the word fact, I merely mean an observation. Not even the most obstinate pedant could suppose that I meant otherwise because I used the words fact and observation interchangably and repeatedly in this thread. Now, for the benefit of the pedants, I will clarify. Science is the comparison of theory to the facts as they are currently known. However, in the future, I will just shorten that to science is the comparison of theory to fact.

There's two difference in our approach here:

First of all, I don't consider observation facts. You can say it's a fact that you had this or that observation, but that alone is useless. I could link an optical illusion to demonstrate how observations aren't just sensory perception. There's a leap involved; you have to trust and integrate the results of many perceptions and cognitive processes to synthesize one scientific observation.

Second, my point is really that there is no such thing as fact in the strict sense. Sure, it's a fact that you had so and so observation, but if that observation doesn't properly represent reality, then it's a useless fact. We know that our observations don't wholly represent reality (or maybe that reality can't even be "represented" at the quantum level) so we have some license of creativity to what goes on behind the scenes, on how to explain our most consistent observations.

To my mind, fact is inevitably a human consensus reality. There may very well be real facts (in fact, I'm sure there are), and that's what we hope to approach with the scientific method... but part of being scientific also requires that those facts be reconsidered occasionally.

But give me a specific example of a fact to match your description, just in case I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What experimental evidence do you have for or against atoms of iron having consciousness?

Isn't anyone willing to answer this question?

 

[Pythagorean]

What experimental evidence do you have for or against atoms of iron having consciousness?

Experimental evidence has already been presented. You just haven't accepted the assumptions that evidence is based on. All experimental evidence requires you to accept assumptions.

 

[pftest]

What experimental evidence do you have for or against atoms of iron having consciousness?

Isn't anyone willing to answer this question?

I will answer: C is invisible except from the first person perspective. So there can be no experimental evidence (observations) of iron atoms having or not having C.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Experimental evidence has already been presented. You just haven't accepted the assumptions that evidence is based on. All experimental evidence requires you to accept assumptions.

My bad. Link to it please. Or summarize it in your own words if you are able.

 

[Pythagorean]

My bad. Link to it please. Or summarize it in your own words if you are able.

It's not a published study or antything, there would be no point. We observe it every day. Iron atoms don't exhibit the complexity that biological lifeforms do. Testing it would be like testing every dog for a brain before declaring "every dog has a brain".

If you jump off a 5, 10 and 15 ft cliff, you don't have to jump off the 20 foot cliff to know that it will hurt, too. We can't possibly take every data point in experiments.

The assumption is Physicalism: that consciousness requires the complex processes provided by the physiology that life exhibits. You also have to accept the assumption that you can derive consciousness from behavior and cell dynamics. Then you would run the test on iron atoms (which would feel quite silly) and see that it failed.

We also know that we can freeze and altar consciousness by hitting somebody in the head really hard or giving them drugs that mess with their electrochemical interactions in their brain.

Iron atoms wouldn't respond to these tests in any way. They don't even have the equipment we assume is necessary for consciousness.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It's not a published study or antything, there would be no point. We observe it every day. Iron atoms don't exhibit the complexity that biological lifeforms do. Testing it would be like testing every dog for a brain before declaring "every dog has a brain".

If you jump off a 5, 10 and 15 ft cliff, you don't have to jump off the 20 foot cliff to know that it will hurt, too. We can't possibly take every data point in experiments.

The assumption is Physicalism: that consciousness requires the complex processes provided by the physiology that life exhibits. You also have to accept the assumption that you can derive consciousness from behavior and cell dynamics. Then you would run the test on iron atoms (which would feel quite silly) and see that it failed.

We also know that we can freeze and altar consciousness by hitting somebody in the head really hard or giving them drugs that mess with their electrochemical interactions in their brain.

Iron atoms wouldn't respond to these tests in any way. They don't even have the equipment we assume is necessary for consciousness.

Thanks. That's two no responses so far.

 

[Pythagorean]

Thanks. That's two no responses so far.

You simply refuse to accept the assumptions.

You could be just as obstinate by requiring that I show the gravitational constant works at some precisely define r, m1, and m2 for which no experiment has been performed.

 

[Boy@n]

The consciousness is emergent from a vast interconnected network of neurons in the brain.

A clump of clay is just a homogeneous collection of atoms. A clump of brain is also a collection of atoms, but they are arranged to form higher order structures, the neurons, in a such a way as to allow the vast networking between them to take place.

When you die, in that split second brains structure is the same as when you were alive, but you aren't conscious anymore. I'd not say consciousness emerges just out of brains, as said, dead brains can have same structure as those "alive", but sure, brains is a fundamental part of human consciousness, but there seems to be more than just physical brains.

What's the physical difference between dead and alive person in a short time span?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Iron atoms wouldn't respond to these tests in any way.

Sorry, I took this to mean that you do not have experimental evidence. Did you intend these words to mean that you do have experimental evidence?

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, all of neuropsychology, pretty much. You're trolling and bating at this point, as you obviously don't accept the assumptions behind the evidence.

 

[pftest]

You simply refuse to accept the assumptions.

You could be just as obstinate by requiring that I show the gravitational constant works at some precisely define r, m1, and m2 for which no experiment has been performed.

To be fair, the assumption here is pretty much the same as the conclusion: assume that consciousness requires humanlike complexity, and then conclude consciousness is absent in things without humanlike complexity. Or in short: human complexity is absent in non-human complexities.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yes, all of neuropsychology, pretty much. You're trolling and bating at this point, as you obviously don't accept the assumptions behind the evidence.

I didn't ask for assumptions, I asked for evidence. You said you don't have any. Who's trolling?

 

[Maui]

Im not aware of any examples of emergence in nature. Of course that could be because of my limited knowledge, but feel free to offer a clear example that we can focus on.

Well let's start with the most obvious one - everything. The whole universe and everything that exists. Nothing at all in this universe is reducible to what it seems, all interpretations involve some form of implicit magic. Pushing reductionism leads to a new world, usually simply denoted as "quantum world" with different laws and principles. For some reason(don't ask why here, open a new thread, it's a philosophical question) nature seems to allow mathematical modelling of otherwise irreducible systems. The deeper we probe, the more mathematical and descriptive science becomes(i.e. often lacking causal explanations). Large parts of biology, quantum chemistry, condensed matter physics, etc. deals with collective behavior that is not there in isolated sytems. Let's take as an exmple the most disturbing one to our assumptions - entangled particles separated in space which can only be modeled as a single entity through a single wavefuncion.

Feel free to point out where I am not being rational. You say rocks arent conscious and that rationality requires we dismiss it, but you left out the rational part. What is it?

The rational part would be the belief that when i pick up a rock, it will not bite or talk to me or display any conscious trait. As far as the current scientific paradigm of how and what the world is supposed to be is concerned, rocks are not conscious. Even mentioning that they might be is considered irrational, as it contradicts all the observations we've accumulated so far of their static, inanimate state. Belief that they might be is an irrational philosophy, pending further evidence.

Btw, if the universe turned out to be entirely rational, do you think this is incompatible with the idea that consciousness (which is the basis of rationality) is a universally found phenomenon? Quite the opposite id say.

We would first need to find out much simpler things - like the difference between here and there in our theories. Or between now and tomorrow.

 

[DaveC426913]

What experimental evidence do you have for or against atoms of iron having consciousness?

Isn't anyone willing to answer this question?

I am.

Without knowing what causes consciousness, we are able draw a relationship between the observance of consciousness as-we-know-it and the presence of electrical brain waves.

It may not be a 1:1 correlation, granted, but the facts indicate that, for example, people who are conscious exhibit brain wave patterns, as do animals who seem to be to some degree conscious. Note that, all other things being equal, dead humans and dead animals definitely do not exhibit these brain waves. This points to a strong correlation between living processes and consciousness as well as brain waves.

So: identical structure, yet one that seems conscious also has brain waves, one that does not seem conscious does not have brain waves.

In fact, we can draw a stronger parallel. The complexity of brain wave activity seems tightly correlated with the complexity of the consciousness. Fish show much simpler examples of both. By the time we examine earthworms, we are nearing the limit of both.

Atoms seem to exhibit neither brain wave complexity nor any form of conscious free will.

While not conclusive, we have managed to draw a strong correlation between brain waves and consciousness. Our theory posits that things that do not emit detectable brain waves are also not conscious. From our theory we generate a hypothesis that the chemical processes that create brain waves are also responsible for the emergent phenomenon of consciousness.