Is Matter Conscious? - Can All Matter Be Conscious?

[brainstorm]

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.

Normally, I would assume this. However, what is so special about brain and nerve cells that would make them the only candidate for housing the kinds of electronic patterns that make it possible to consciously experience interactions between inputs and outputs?

Often people assume that "lower animals" have "a lower level of consciousness," but maybe it is other aspects they lack instead of consciousness. E.g. animals seem to have higher thresholds of pain and discomfort in many cases, but that could just be because they are not sensitized to the extent that humans are. They may also do less cognitive "thinking" than humans, but does that mean they are less aware of the things they pay attention to?

Animals might just be conscious entities like humans that do not think or feel as much. I.e. they could be like super-soldiers that block out thought and feeling to accomplish difficult and potentially traumatic missions.

Anyway, I guess I got off track from my initial point that consciousness might be possible in other media than living nerve tissue, but my point was basically that it's hard to imagine consciousness of different kinds of inputs and outputs than we are used to in human-situations, but that it might still be possible for other things to be conscious, except without self-perception, pain/pleasure, fear(of death), emotions, etc. Plants, for example, might be completely aware of everything going on around them but have absolutely no emotional investment in it, nor in their own existence.

 

[Maui]

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

You are acting irrational. Even if everything we know is wrong, you will need to demolish all of science as we know it, to make a reasonable case on it. You aren't able and no one else is. Accept what our knowledge very strongly implies or join religions, mystics, or any other method of inquiring nature.

 

[DaveC426913]

Normally, I would assume this. However, what is so special about brain and nerve cells that would make them the only candidate for housing the kinds of electronic patterns that make it possible to consciously experience interactions between inputs and outputs?
...
Plants, for example, might be completely aware of everything going on around them but have absolutely no emotional investment in it, nor in their own existence.

And these are fine hypotheses, but ... evidence? See, currently our evidence makes a correlation between complexity and consciousness. You're welcome to refine it.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are acting irrational. Even if everything we know is wrong, you will need to demolish all of science as we know it, to make a reasonable case on it. You aren't able and no one else is. Accept what our knowledge very strongly implies or join religions, mystics, or any other method of inquiring nature.

Enough of this. Jimmy's question may be highly controversial, and we may all be absulutely sure of the answer that he's wrong, but it's not trolling.

He's not saying 'atoms might be consciousness', he's saying 'the scientific method can only go so far and then stops'. That is a perfectly rational stance, certainly appropriate for discussion on a science forum.

 

[brainstorm]

You are acting irrational. Even if everything we know is wrong, you will need to demolish all of science as we know it, to make a reasonable case on it. You aren't able and no one else is. Accept what our knowledge very strongly implies or join religions, mystics, or any other method of inquiring nature.

I wasn't even following the discussion but there is absolutely nothing about critical skepticism that entails demolishing any science. The most fundamentally definitive scientific value is that skepticism and alternative hypotheses are constructive, not destructive. You are trying to make science into what the church was when Galileo and others were questioning its orthodoxies. There is no "accepting what our knowledge implies" in true science. There's only critical inquiry into tentatively held theories. If you want "acceptance," of knowledge, you're better off pursuing some kind of dogmatic faith than science.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

We should agree on what consciousness looks like. As-we-know-it, consciousness involves at least the ability to make simple decisions and react selectively to stimuli.

If you guys want to define some sort of consciousness that you think might apply to atoms, that is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[Maui]

Normally, I would assume this. However, what is so special about brain and nerve cells that would make them the only candidate for housing the kinds of electronic patterns that make it possible to consciously experience interactions between inputs and outputs?

That's a much more reasonable way to make a case on this point(especially without necessarily pressing for consciousness in rocks).

Often people assume that "lower animals" have "a lower level of consciousness," but maybe it is other aspects they lack instead of consciousness. E.g. animals seem to have higher thresholds of pain and discomfort in many cases, but that could just be because they are not sensitized to the extent that humans are. They may also do less cognitive "thinking" than humans, but does that mean they are less aware of the things they pay attention to?

Animals might just be conscious entities like humans that do not think or feel as much. I.e. they could be like super-soldiers that block out thought and feeling to accomplish difficult and potentially traumatic missions.

Anyway, I guess I got off track from my initial point that consciousness might be possible in other media than living nerve tissue, but my point was basically that it's hard to imagine consciousness of different kinds of inputs and outputs than we are used to in human-situations, but that it might still be possible for other things to be conscious, except without self-perception, pain/pleasure, fear(of death), emotions, etc. Plants, for example, might be completely aware of everything going on around them but have absolutely no emotional investment in it, nor in their own existence.

The answer to these philosophical musings lies so far into the future that it's almost meaningless to post an opinion. But your points are valid nonetheless.

 

[pftest]

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.

Can we do a simpler example that is easier to understand? I fear the quantum one will open a can of worms about nonlocality and such. If everything is truly emergent, do you think an H2O molecule is a suitable example? If so, what is it that emerges from 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.

Here it is assumed that biting and talking is a neccesary characteristic of being conscious. What about people that don't bite and don't talk?

Materialism is a metaphysical idea, its not science. The idea that science relies on or supports materialism is not true. When Newton came up with classical mechanics, he did not include a paragraph that said "this mathematical equation describes a nonconscious system". There simply is no logic that implies that lawfully behaving objects must be nonconscious objects.

 

[Maui]

I wasn't even following the discussion but there is absolutely nothing about critical skepticism that entails demolishing any science. The most fundamentally definitive scientific value is that skepticism and alternative hypotheses are constructive, not destructive. You are trying to make science into what the church was when Galileo and others were questioning its orthodoxies. There is no "accepting what our knowledge implies" in true science. There's only critical inquiry into tentatively held theories. If you want "acceptance," of knowledge, you're better off pursuing some kind of dogmatic faith than science.

If everything in this universe is conscious, then consciousness IS everything. That would be the death of all we've come to know through science and the system of ideas we hold about the world. Science is far less dogmatic than the church on all levels. Some level of dogma is necessary if we are to remain rational.

 

[brainstorm]

The answer to these philosophical musings lies so far into the future that it's almost meaningless to post an opinion. But your points are valid nonetheless.

[/quote]
I don't see the point of construing something as "philosophical musings" that "lie so far into the future that it's almost meaningless to post an opinion" except to discourage doing so. What's wrong with formulating hypotheses without having the ability to test them (yet)? Isn't it better to at least work toward legitimate theorizing instead of wildly speculating about whether rocks are conscious without rational analytics?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see the point of construing something as "philosophical musings" that "lie so far into the future that it's almost meaningless to post an opinion" except to discourage doing so. What's wrong with formulating hypotheses without having the ability to test them (yet)? Isn't it better to at least work toward legitimate theorizing instead of wildly speculating about whether rocks are conscious without rational analytics?

Some people like to discuss, some don't. Saying 'there's no point' is simply another way of saying 'I wish to bow out'.

Funny thing is, it's redundant. To bow out, one can simply not respond. There's no need to pass judgment on what others wish to do.

 

[pftest]

We should agree on what consciousness looks like. As-we-know-it, consciousness involves at least the ability to make simple decisions and react selectively to stimuli.

I use a theoretically neutral definition of consciousness:

Consciousness = having experiences

Examples of experiences are those that all of us are familiar with: seeing, hearing, smelling, etc.

This is an adequate enough definition for all of us to understand what we are talking about.

We must be very careful in defining consciousness in terms of what it looks like, since this is essentially the same as assuming a conclusion, by deciding up front which things are and are not conscious. If we agree that it looks like human brainactivity, then of course things without it won't be conscious. If we agree that it looks like electrons, then of course everything with electrons is conscious.

 

[Maui]

Isn't it better to at least work toward legitimate theorizing instead of wildly speculating about whether rocks are conscious without rational analytics?[/QUOTE]



Our analysis so far implies very strongly that rocks are not conscious. That isn't even close to wild speculaton at all.

 

[brainstorm]

If everything in this universe is conscious, then consciousness IS everything. That would be the death of all we've come to know through science and the system of ideas we hold about the world. Science is far less dogmatic than the church on all levels. Some level of dogma is necessary if we are to remain rational.

Rationality is anti-dogmatic. Dogma is the rehearsal/recapitulation of knowledge without reason or critical comprehension. Why does it matter whether science is more, less, or equally dogmatic as Galileo's church? Claiming it's less dogmatic only implies that it is better because less dogmatic and therefore to accept whatever dogma it does promote. That's like using science to eschew science.

Why does science have anything to do with believing what is conscious and what isn't? How does understanding the mechanics of physical forces, chemical reactions and properties, or biological systems change if you think of the entities involved as having perception/awareness? It might be comforting to you personally to believe that science conclusively proves that most matter is dead and/or unconscious but I don't see what the conscious/unconscious dichotomy has anything to do with understanding the mechanics of physical matter.

 

[DaveC426913]

I use a theoretically neutral definition of consciousness:

Consciousness = having experiences

Examples of experiences are those that all of us are familiar with: seeing, hearing, smelling, etc.

This is an adequate enough definition for all of us to understand what we are talking about.

The trouble with your definition is that we are outside observers, so we must have a definition that is external. How do we know something is having experiences?

We must be very careful in defining consciousness in terms of what it looks like, since this is essentially the same as assuming a conclusion, by deciding up front which things are and are not conscious. If we agree that it looks like human brainactivity, then of course things without it won't be conscious. If we agree that it looks like electrons, then of course everything with electrons is conscious.

Do not misunderstand. All I am doing is drawing a empirical correlation of observation. Correlation does not imply causation.

"Whenever we see consciousness-as-we-know-it, we also seem to detect brain waves. Places where we do not see consciousness-as-we-know-it, we also do not detect brain waves. No causation between the two is impllied or intended."

 

[Maui]

Can we do a simpler example that is easier to understand? I fear the quantum one will open a can of worms about nonlocality and such. If everything is truly emergent, do you think an H2O molecule is a suitable example? If so, what is it that emerges from it?

Temperature, surface tension, boiling and freezing point.

Here it is assumed that biting and talking is a neccesary characteristic of being conscious. What about people that don't bite and don't talk?

What about Batman who is invisible?

Materialism is a metaphysical idea, its not science.

Science is deeply rooted in materialism. This doesn't yet say if materilism is the final answer or not.

The idea that science relies on or supports materialism is not true. When Newton came up with classical mechanics, he did not include a paragraph that said "this mathematical equation describes a nonconscious system". There simply is no logic that implies that lawfully behaving objects must be nonconscious objects.

There is no logic in anything, logic is that which we understand, not something that exists apart from us. For some reason the world follows in many cases purely deterministic, causal laws and principles that we can understand and make predictions about future behavior. In that regard, there as much logic that objects must be conscious as there is in the statement that they must not be conscious. Nature is the decisive factor and so far our observations lead to the rational(based on what we know about consciousness) conclusion that rocks are very likely not conscious.

 

[brainstorm]

I use a theoretically neutral definition of consciousness:

Consciousness = having experiences

Examples of experiences are those that all of us are familiar with: seeing, hearing, smelling, etc.

This is an adequate enough definition for all of us to understand what we are talking about.

No, I think consciousness can be theorized as pure awareness of whatever activity is present without assuming vision, hearing, smell, feeling, emotions, pain/pleasure, or even thought. E.g. I assume my monitor is not aware it is on and in use but it could be, theoretically, without having any particular attitude or disposition about what's going on. Then it could become "unaware" when it goes to sleep or is turned off or unplugged, or maybe not even then. The question is what would/could make pure awareness possible.

We must be very careful in defining consciousness in terms of what it looks like, since this is essentially the same as assuming a conclusion, by deciding up front which things are and are not conscious. If we agree that it looks like human brainactivity, then of course things without it won't be conscious. If we agree that it looks like electrons, then of course everything with electrons is conscious.

You're being too definitional. The issue isn't defining consciousness as electrons and so everything with electrons is conscious. The issue is to analyze what could possibly be responsible for consciousness, preferably by beginning with the mechanics of the human nervous system and attempting to figure out why it perceives instead of just reacting to inputs with various processing and outputs.

 

[Maui]

Rationality is anti-dogmatic. Dogma is the rehearsal/recapitulation of knowledge without reason or critical comprehension. Why does it matter whether science is more, less, or equally dogmatic as Galileo's church? Claiming it's less dogmatic only implies that it is better because less dogmatic and therefore to accept whatever dogma it does promote. That's like using science to eschew science.

Why does science have anything to do with believing what is conscious and what isn't? How does understanding the mechanics of physical forces, chemical reactions and properties, or biological systems change if you think of the entities involved as having perception/awareness? It might be comforting to you personally to believe that science conclusively proves that most matter is dead and/or unconscious but I don't see what the conscious/unconscious dichotomy has anything to do with understanding the mechanics of physical matter.

We don't possesses complete or perfect knowledge of anything so a little bit of dogma is necessary(like the strong belief that the world is rational and that it will not fall apart tomorrow) to form a coherent world picture. You are free however to not agree to this world picture and make up your own - e.g. that Batman or Spiderman is responsible for the Big Bang. Right now, the proposition that rocks are not conscious is far less dogmatic than the proposition that they are or might be. While not consclusive, circumstantial evidence is better than NO evidence at all.

 

[Maui]

You're being too definitional. The issue isn't defining consciousness as electrons and so everything with electrons is conscious. The issue is to analyze what could possibly be responsible for consciousness, preferably by beginning with the mechanics of the human nervous system and attempting to figure out why it perceives instead of just reacting to inputs with various processing and outputs.

And at some point we get observational evidence that says "1+1=3". We accommodate those cases by putting them in mathematical relationships so we can make predictions about them, but what is going on appears to follow a different type of logic than the one we use.

 

[pftest]

Do not misunderstand. All I am doing is drawing a empirical correlation of observation. Correlation does not imply causation.

"Whenever we see consciousness-as-we-know-it, we also seem to detect brain waves. Places where we do not see consciousness-as-we-know-it, we also do not detect brain waves. No causation between the two is impllied or intended."

Ok i understand, no causation. But look at the bit I've bolded. Because consciousness-as-we-know-it entails brainwaves, isn't this just another way of saying "whenever we see brainwaves, we see brainwaves"?

 

[pftest]

Temperature, surface tension, boiling and freezing point.

Ok temperature. Doesnt that just consist of particles in motion, and particles in motion have been around since the big bang? So what emerges with regards to temperature?

What about Batman who is invisible?

When i don't talk and bite, I am still conscious. There is no need to compare this with an invisible batman.

Science is deeply rooted in materialism. This doesn't yet say if materilism is the final answer or not.

With materialism here we are talking about the idea that consciousness arose in brains. To virtually all scientific ideas, except for a few about the human mind, it is irrelevant whether the brain is the origin of consciousness. It makes no difference to them whatsoever.

Nature is the decisive factor and so far our observations lead to the rational(based on what we know about consciousness) conclusion that rocks are very likely not conscious.

Lets hear it then. What observations and what rationale lead to this conclusion?

 

[pftest]

No, I think consciousness can be theorized as pure awareness of whatever activity is present without assuming vision, hearing, smell, feeling, emotions, pain/pleasure, or even thought. E.g. I assume my monitor is not aware it is on and in use but it could be, theoretically, without having any particular attitude or disposition about what's going on. Then it could become "unaware" when it goes to sleep or is turned off or unplugged, or maybe not even then. The question is what would/could make pure awareness possible.

I didnt mean to say that consciousness must involve vision, hearing, etc. The key part in my definition was "having experiences". This leaves open what kind of experiences, or who is having them.

You're being too definitional. The issue isn't defining consciousness as electrons and so everything with electrons is conscious. The issue is to analyze what could possibly be responsible for consciousness, preferably by beginning with the mechanics of the human nervous system and attempting to figure out why it perceives instead of just reacting to inputs with various processing and outputs.

Ok. Id say that from a physical perspective, the brain does indeed just "react to various processes and outputs". Yet we are conscious. I think the more science understands the brain, the more it will become clear that it really is just an ordinary lump of matter doing what matter always does.

 

[Evo]

If everything in the universe is for the most part made of matter, (to keep the idea simple we'll just say it's all protons neutrons and electrons although I understand you can get smaller with the protons and neutrons)stars, people, cars, oceans, planets.. EVERYTHING is made of the same small units of matter, how is it that some matter is conscious? For example people. We are made from the same matter as a wall of iron (on a subatomic level), so theoretically couldn't all matter could be conscious??

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

Dave, Pythgorean, Maui, etc... I am really surprised at all of you. Did none of you understand Jimmy's question in regards to the OP's question, which I bolded above? Come on guys, you're better than this.

 

[Maui]

Dave, Pythgorean, Maui, etc... I am really surprised at all of you. Did none of you understand Jimmy's question in regards to the OP's question, which I bolded above? Come on guys, you're better than this.

We have lots of what we interpret to be circumstantial evidence based on inferences from nature that point to the conclusion that all matter is not conscious. We did cover this point quite well.

Ok temperature. Doesnt that just consist of particles in motion, and particles in motion have been around since the big bang? So what emerges with regards to temperature?

Electrons do not really move in atoms, this popular picture is slightly misleading, so we have to refrain from asking certain questions and adopt a partial explanation based on a model that we know is not true(dismissing the bohmian description due to the inherent magic involved). I now saw that an experiment has been made to ascertain the "temperature" of a single atom, so part of my motivation to include temperature as an emergent phenomenon is somewhat diminished.

When i don't talk and bite, I am still conscious. There is no need to compare this with an invisible batman.

Would that be reason to assume a rock that doesn't bite might be conscious? Conscious of what? Doesn't science very strongly say that a central nervous system plays a role in being conscious?

Lets hear it then. What observations and what rationale lead to this conclusion?

Zero evidence of a nervous system or organs related to perception.

 

[pftest]

Electrons do not really move in atoms, this popular picture is slightly misleading, so we have to refrain from asking certain questions and adopt a partial explanation based on a model that we know is not true(dismissing the bohmian description due to the inherent magic involved). I now saw that an experiment has been made to ascertain the "temperature" of a single atom, so part of my motivation to include temperature as an emergent phenomenon is diminished.

I think this will happen with any emergent phenomenon you pick. It will turn out to not be emergent.

Would that be reason to assume a rock that doesn't bite might be conscious? Conscious of what? Doesn't science very strongly say that a central nervous system plays a role in being conscious?

It plays a role yes, but that is not the same as it being a requirement. The only evidence we have that a functioning brain is required for consciousness, is anecdotes of unconsciousness. Thats not robust evidence. We can find such anecdotes reporting the opposite aswell.

Zero evidence of a nervous system or organs related to perception.

What do you accept as evidence of consciousness?

 

[Maui]

I think this will happen with any emergent phenomenon you pick. It will turn out to not be emergent.

Observed non-linear behavior and phase transitions are very unlikely to be reduced to more fundamental interactions unless new, unknown causal factors are discovered(basically a different type of physics). It's not that temperature is not emergent, it's that according to the latest knowledge, the field is fundamental and everything emerges from it(incl. space and time). Not a small conceptual issue by any standard. Moreover, the modern understanding of the transition between micro and macro does away with particles - particles are illusory appearances, left over in the process of decoherence. Basically, all we know intuitively is wrong to a large extent and in the process of finding out, we are seeing that what were once self-evident Truths(axioms), they turn out to be a case of human "baggage".

It plays a role yes, but that is not the same as it being a requirement. The only evidence we have that a functioning brain is required for consciousness, is anecdotes of unconsciousness. Thats not robust evidence. We can find such anecdotes reporting the opposite aswell.

The point is we do have circumstantial evidence(what you call anecdotes) that points to consciousness being highly related to the nervous system. The opposite proposition has none at all, just baseless speculation.

What do you accept as evidence of consciousness?

Any manifestation of the consciousness of rocks whatsoever. I am willing to pay to see the evidence.

 

[Pythagorean]

Dave, Pythgorean, Maui, etc... I am really surprised at all of you. Did none of you understand Jimmy's question in regards to the OP's question, which I bolded above? Come on guys, you're better than this.

The point has already been made that water and plasma (for instance) are made of the same subatomic particles, yet have much different emergent properties. Sharing the same matter doesn't mean anything, it's all about the interactions and dynamics. Physics is not materialism.

Did you know 99.9% of everything on Earth is made of up quarks, down quarks, neutrinos, and electrons (and the force carrier particles like photons, of course)? That's it, nothing else. And we have a hell of a range of diversity: people, cars, trees, rocks, weather, fire, fusion just from that small handful of particles.

So it's silly in the first place to indicate that things being made of the subatomic particles should all have the same emergent properties. We still need the periodic table, because adding just one electron and one proton (which is made of up and down quarks) can dramatically change the properties of a material (consider Hydrogen vs. Helium).

There's no reason for such an experiment, and I've outlined why we wouldn't (for the same reason) test that Newton's law of gravitation works for some specific values of m1, m2, and r. We take data points and assume it works out in between them!

 

[Pythagorean]

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.

You start proofs with assumptions; if they're wrong, you will get contradictions by applying them (or you can proof by induction, but this topic isn't formalized mathematically so that would be more difficult)

This is a long-term proof. It started with an assumption... all of the EVIDENCE so far has supported the assumption.

All of the evidence (experiments, measurements, observations, etc) are in cognitive neurosciences. People are studying the binding problem, people are studying qualia (in neuroscience). People are studying self-awareness.

The evidence has repeatedly shown that the complex behavior and cognitive moment all directly come from operations in the brain pertaining to neurons and how they communicate to each other. The matter they are made up of is just the means... the actual information transfer comes from the interactions between the billions of neurons.

 

[Evo]

The point has already been made that water and plasma (for instance) are made of the same subatomic particles, yet have much different emergent properties. Sharing the same matter doesn't mean anything, it's all about the interactions and dynamics. Physics is not materialism.

Did you know 99.9% of everything on Earth is made of up quarks, down quarks, neutrinos, and electrons (and the force carrier particles like photons, of course)? That's it, nothing else. And we have a hell of a range of diversity: people, cars, trees, rocks, weather, fire, fusion just from that small handful of particles.

So it's silly in the first place to indicate that things being made of the subatomic particles should all have the same emergent properties. We still need the periodic table, because adding just one electron and one proton (which is made of up and down quarks) can dramatically change the properties of a material (consider Hydrogen vs. Helium).

There's no reason for such an experiment, and I've outlined why we wouldn't (for the same reason) test that Newton's law of gravitation works for some specific values of m1, m2, and r.

This has nothing to do with jimmy's request directed at the OP. People in this thread have gone off on a tangent that has nothing to do with jimmy's post.

Did any of you read gokul's post? jimmy's post seemed to me to be because of what gokul said.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3000571&postcount=6

 

[Pythagorean]

That's exacly the post I just summarized...

 

[Evo]

That's exacly the post I just summarized...

And what does it have to do with jimmy pointing out that there is no experimental evidence of the OP's post? You guys seem to have completely missed jimmy's point.

 

[Pythagorean]

And what does it have to do with jimmy pointing out that there is no experimental evidence of the OP's post? You guys seem to have completely missed jimmy's point.

But there's plenty of experimental evidence! It's just not one simple experiment, you have to synthesize the results of several chemistry and neuroscience experiments.

Like I said, it's like asking for experimental evidence that the gravitational constant holds at some particular r, m1, and m2? Well, we haven't tested the gravitational constant for every single combination of possible r, m1, and m2. And we're NOT going to! We accept it from the data points we DO have. Asking for an experiment would be a set up.

Do you understand how this is relevant? From many different branches of science come the answers:

We know from dynamical systems that the larger the number, the longer the lifetime of complex behavior (from experiments!).

We know from cognitive neuroscience that cognitive processes rely directly on the brain, and specifically on the particular processes with neurons. Atoms don't have brains or neurons. They have none of the necessary equipment

We know that particular qualia are associated with particular transients (a lack of fixed-point dynamics) in the neuron ensemble.

We know from chemistry and materials science that iron atoms do not display any of the emergent behavior linked to consciousness: not the transients, not the information processing, no ability to predict.

The evidence is out there, it's just not explicit, because nobody expects to be challenged about iron atoms having consciousness: it's rather self-evident that they don't.

 

[Evo]

We know from chemistry and materials science that iron atoms do not display any of the emergent behavior linked to consciousness: not the transients, not the information processing, no ability to predict.

The evidence is out there, it's just not explicit, because nobody expects to be challenged about iron atoms having consciousness: it's rather self-evident that they don't.

So, you realize now what jimmy pointed out in his first post in response to the OP's claim below.

We are made from the same matter as a wall of iron (on a subatomic level), so theoretically couldn't all matter could be conscious??

I'll excuse you since you came in on the tail end and probably didn't realize how badly jimmy's post was misunderstood.

 

[Pythagorean]

So, you realize now what jimmy pointed out in his first post in response to the OP's claim below.

I'll excuse you since you came in on the tail end and probably didn't realize how badly jimmy's post was misunderstood.

I still don't realize what Jimmy's point was if I haven't been addressing it. I'm not very good with implications and hinting, if that's what's going in. Perhaps you could help me out.

Here's what I see: he wants experimental evidence that iron atoms do (or don't) have consciousness. We've presented it (that they don't). He doesn't explicitly say what he doesn't like about it the evidence, he just responds ambiguously: "thanks for the non-reply"

and you just keep quoting other people and asking "do you see it?". Well, I keep thinking I do, but obviously I don't; so there's some ambiguity here. Help me out. Talk to me like I'm eight.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Thanks. That's two no responses so far.

he just responds ambiguously: "thanks for the non-reply".

Sorry. I had asked people if they had evidence and two people responded that they did not. I meant that I had two "No" responses.