Thread: What is the substance of Consciousness?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

That was actually not a rhetorical question... I do believe you missed my point there. I posed the question because I felt it was clearly invalid, and it was invalid in much the same way as the question of the OP.

You posted a question because it was invalid like the OP? That's a rhetorical question. You didn't really want the question answered, did you?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

An emergent property is a property which does not belong to any one component of the system, and yet is a property of the system as a whole. It is usually a complex pattern or trait which arises from many simple interactions. (like neurons, or the gates in a computer)

Oh, ok I get it.

Were you earlier implying that on-ness is an emergent property?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

No, life is not a guarantee, nor a prerequisite for the emergence of consciousness. Bacteria are alive, yet they are arguably not conscious. If we view consciousness as an emergent property of neurons, then it should also be possible to replicate this system in a machine which is not alive. I only called them 'animals' because those are the only other systems we know of which exhibit similar emergent properties as those of our brains.

How can an electronic computer gate be similar to a neuron? Why is consciousness an emergent property of neurons?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

"Purpose" implies a conscious will. Are you saying that something beyond the universe has made it so?

The universe is everything. I don't know what you mean.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Because we already know what matter is; its energy.

Why do you always have to be so vague?

Originally Posted by thefreedictionary.com

Matter:

1. a. Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.
b. Physics Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

Originally Posted by thefreedictionary.com

Energy:

The capacity or power to do work, such as the capacity to move an object (of a given mass) by the application of force. Energy can exist in a variety of forms, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, thermal, or nuclear, and can be transformed from one form to another. It is measured by the amount of work done, usually in joules or watts.

What those definitions describe are the characteristics of matter and energy. It says nothing about what these things are actually composed of. It has been found that as far as we can tell, matter is composed of energy, and we don't know what energy is composed of.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What those definitions describe are the characteristics of matter and energy. It says nothing about what these things are actually composed of. It has been found that as far as we can tell, matter is composed of energy, and we don't know what energy is composed of.

Matter: Atomic and subatomic particles, or any with mass. Energy: Quantum "force particles" which may not have mass. Isn't it so?

Originally Posted by really

You posted a question because it was invalid like the OP? That's a rhetorical question. You didn't really want the question answered, did you?

The point was that if he couldn't answer the question, it would prove that his initial question was invalid. If he could answer it, then I would understand what he was asking better - not rhetorical.

Originally Posted by really

Were you earlier implying that on-ness is an emergent property?

Yes.

Originally Posted by really

How can an electronic computer gate be similar to a neuron? Why is consciousness an emergent property of neurons?

Neurons, as far as know (which isn't very far) basically fire pulses around, interacting with each other and causing the body to do things. Most of these interactions appear to be fairly simple, especially considering the higher functions which emerge from them. If consciousness is not an emergent property of these neurons, what do you propose it is, and why does the activity of neurons exhibit such parallels to the activity of human consciousness?

Originally Posted by really

The universe is everything. I don't know what you mean.

If you say that the universe has a purpose, then you're implying some sort of intelligent drive behind it. Either something outside the universe is providing this drive, or you are implying that the entire universe is somehow conscious and has some sort of will.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The point was that if he couldn't answer the question, it would prove that his initial question was invalid. If he could answer it, then I would understand what he was asking better - not rhetorical.

Ok, but just be careful, I mean I saw those two questions as very dissimilar.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Neurons, as far as know (which isn't very far) basically fire pulses around, interacting with each other and causing the body to do things. Most of these interactions appear to be fairly simple, especially considering the higher functions which emerge from them. If consciousness is not an emergent property of these neurons, what do you propose it is, and why does the activity of neurons exhibit such parallels to the activity of human consciousness?

My view of consciousness is the emergent of all of our perception. That means it isn't directly from neurons, it is emergent from the smaller emergent properties of our neurons; as the divided areas to different brain activity or brain sections. What do you think?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

If you say that the universe has a purpose, then you're implying some sort of intelligent drive behind it. Either something outside the universe is providing this drive, or you are implying that the entire universe is somehow conscious and has some sort of will.

I don't think there is anything outside the universe, as I have stated the Universe is everything. I think we, as individuals are part of this Universal Mind, who have the will to act on it, and satisfy our purposes. But perhaps that should go into the "The Law Of Attraction" thread.

I reject the notion that free will and determinism are necessarily mutually exclusive. I believe that perhaps there is room for both free-will and determinism. That perhaps they are simply two sides of the same coin.

Imagine you are holding a remote to your television in your hand. You press a button, and the channel changes. Every time you use the remote, the TV responds exactly as you intended. Imagine this as a model for free will.

Now imagine that your remote doesn't actually work, and that instead your neighbor is playing with his remote, changing your TV. Obviously, you have no control at all. But...

What if you don't know that your remote doesn't work? And what if the neighbor just happens to be pressing the same buttons you are at the same time? The TV is not responding to your will, but to an outside force (forget for the moment the "will" of the neighbor). Imagine this case as a model for determinism.

Seemingly, you have no power at all over the TV. It is just an illusion. Or is it? Every command you enter is carried out. All of your intentions are realised. Does it matter if your remote is broken? Not at all! It still "works" in the sense that pressing the button changes the channel, and not pressing a button does not change the channel.

The question about the existence of free will is simply a matter of interpretation of these scenarios. But I submit that your will (your remote) and the outside force (your neighbor's remote) are intertwined. People are so focused on the question of which remote changes the TV, when perhaps they should be focused on why the remotes are synchronized.

To put this back in real-world territory, imagine your free will and pre-determined events as perfectly synchronized, forever intertwined. Every decision you make is part of your free will, and that free-will decision was pre-determined. Maybe they are simply two different ways of looking at the same thing.

But what is the substance of consciousness?

I have no Earthly idea. It is one of the most difficult philosophical questions, and I have never come across anything that even comes close to answering it. We know that we have conscious experience. There is more going on than body parts moving around. My consciousness is the only thing I have ever really known. But what the #*&@% is it????????

I believe consciousness is a figment of our imagination. I believe you are not really conscious, but a computing machine that has a choice making program to deal with immediate stimuli.

All the other BS in our lives is a result of having too much spare time.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I reject the notion that free will and determinism are necessarily mutually exclusive. I believe that perhaps there is room for both free-will and determinism. That perhaps they are simply two sides of the same coin.

Imagine you are holding a remote to your television in your hand. You press a button, and the channel changes. Every time you use the remote, the TV responds exactly as you intended. Imagine this as a model for free will.

Now imagine that your remote doesn't actually work, and that instead your neighbor is playing with his remote, changing your TV. Obviously, you have no control at all. But...

What if you don't know that your remote doesn't work? And what if the neighbor just happens to be pressing the same buttons you are at the same time? The TV is not responding to your will, but to an outside force (forget for the moment the "will" of the neighbor). Imagine this case as a model for determinism.

Seemingly, you have no power at all over the TV. It is just an illusion. Or is it? Every command you enter is carried out. All of your intentions are realised. Does it matter if your remote is broken? Not at all! It still "works" in the sense that pressing the button changes the channel, and not pressing a button does not change the channel.

The question about the existence of free will is simply a matter of interpretation of these scenarios. But I submit that your will (your remote) and the outside force (your neighbor's remote) are intertwined. People are so focused on the question of which remote changes the TV, when perhaps they should be focused on why the remotes are synchronized.

To put this back in real-world territory, imagine your free will and pre-determined events as perfectly synchronized, forever intertwined. Every decision you make is part of your free will, and that free-will decision was pre-determined. Maybe they are simply two different ways of looking at the same thing.

It's a remote...what's a remote have to do about anything? created by man to change channels, record, play movies, stop recording, fast forward, rewind, etcetcetc.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

It's a remote...what's a remote have to do about anything? created by man to change channels, record, play movies, stop recording, fast forward, rewind, etcetcetc.

I'm sorry you have trouble with metaphors. Just forget I mentioned it.

Originally Posted by really

That means it isn't directly from neurons, it is emergent from the smaller emergent properties of our neurons; as the divided areas to different brain activity or brain sections. What do you think?

I think you can't have properties emerge from emergent properties, by the very definition of emergent properties. What you are describing is probably correct, but I would describe it as different levels of complexity of the emergent properties - some of them are simple, some of them are more complex, but the complex ones don't emerge from the simpler ones.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Now imagine that your remote doesn't actually work, and that instead your neighbor is playing with his remote, changing your TV. Obviously, you have no control at all. But...

The problem with this metaphor is that the entity making the choices is not affected by the neighbor. It is assumed that the person operating the disfunct remote is capable of freely choosing what operations to do on the remote. This means that no matter what the remote does or doesn't do, a free choice is still being carried out.

Causal determinism and true free will are completely mutually exclusive, because causal determinism results in a predictable future. This means that all of your decisions are predictable, already set in deterministic stone, and unchangeable. You cannot have free will under these circumstances. The illusion of free will is maintained because we are able to do whatever we decide to do... the thing is, though, that our decision-making processes are mechanical. We can decide what to do, but we can't change how we decide things.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Every decision you make is part of your free will, and that free-will decision was pre-determined. Maybe they are simply two different ways of looking at the same thing.

You're presenting it here as if physical law (which drives causal determinism) happens to conform to your choices every time. It seems clear to me that it is entirely the other way around.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I believe consciousness is a figment of our imagination. I believe you are not really conscious, but a computing machine that has a choice making program to deal with immediate stimuli.

All the other BS in our lives is a result of having too much spare time.

If consciousness is a figment of our imagination, then we are aware of the idea of consciousness, and hence are conscious.

...Right?!

Originally Posted by really

Matter: Atomic and subatomic particles, or any with mass. Energy: Quantum "force particles" which may not have mass. Isn't it so?

Actually, W and Z bosons (the weak nuclear force particles) have mass and are relatively heavy compared to other elementary particles, being heavier than entire atoms of iron. It turns out that mass has little to do with differentiating between matter and energy, and has been theorized to be the manifestation of an as of yet undiscovered particle known as the the "higgs boson." In other words, something only has mass because the higgs boson is present.

The line between matter and energy is becoming increasingly vague. Some things that were thought to be the product of substanceless energy, such as forces that hold our world together, have turned out to be as substantial as protons and neutrons.

Basically, matter is composed of Fermions, and energy is composed of Bosons. The only really tangible difference between the two, however, is their spin. Fermions all have a half integer spin and all bosons have an integer spin. There are bosons with mass and there are fermions that are massless. In fact, the mass of protons and neutrons is largley due to the force particles that hold them together, with only a small amount of their mass coming from the actual 'matter.'

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Perhaps if you gave an example of something else that 'arises' from physical substance but has no actual physical substance of its own.

I'd still like to see an answer to this.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I'm sorry you have trouble with metaphors. Just forget I mentioned it.

Using a remote as a metaphor is pretty weak IMO.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'd still like to see an answer to this.

How about Windows XP?

If you take a computer which is running Windows XP and reorganize its components, you can destroy Windows without removing any substance, can't you?

If you want to argue that electrons make up Windows or something along those lines, than consider the time-telling of a grandfather clock. If you mess with the gears inside of it, you can stop its telling time - but you aren't removing any substance from it, right?

:waves: solid discussion.

I side w/ NonDualistic insofar as form is an emergent property of conciousness, not vice versa. The way he originally put it was rather...dualistic--I wouldn't frame conciousness as some spirit or force outside or behind matter. There is one isness; life and human conciousness stand out not by kind, but degree of organization.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

How about Windows XP?

If you take a computer which is running Windows XP and reorganize its components, you can destroy Windows without removing any substance, can't you?

If you want to argue that electrons make up Windows or something along those lines, than consider the time-telling of a grandfather clock. If you mess with the gears inside of it, you can stop its telling time - but you aren't removing any substance from it, right?

Well by that reasoning, a chair has no substance. It's chairness is merely an emergent property of a particular configuration of wood. In fact, wood has no substance either, as it is only an emergent property of a particular configuration of molecules and atoms.

What does have substance then?

P.S.
I would actually argue that the magnetic symbols written on to your hard drive are what make up windows.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I side w/ NonDualistic insofar as form is an emergent property of conciousness, not vice versa.

You can't really have an emergent property which arises from a single already-complex feature, though, can you? Consciousness isn't really a large number of relatively simple parts. I don't think 'emergent property' is an applicable term here.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well by that reasoning, a chair has no substance. It's chairness is merely an emergent property of a particular configuration of wood. In fact, wood has no substance either, as it is only an emergent property of a particular configuration of molecules and atoms.

What does have substance then?

A very good point. I suppose I'm forced to follow my reasoning through to its conclusions, and when I look at them they are not really all that unreasonable.

In truth, a lump of clay has nothing 'more' to it than a statue of a woman made from the same clay. The statue has no more substance than the lump, only a different arrangement of matter.

This is not to say, of course, that chairs, statues, consciousness, and even 'on-ness' do not exist. Simply that these concepts are abstractions which help us to process the world around us. I think the 'issue' here, if there is any, is the question of 'substance'. I am interpreting this term as referring to the physical 'stuff' that something is made of. Under this definition, everything is made of fundamental particles, and everything has the same substance - like I said earlier, the question is a bit meaningless in this light.

With my definition, only specific physical 'pieces' of matter can be said to have substance. The properties of these pieces really have no particular substance which makes them up.

Are you using a different definition of substance, such as 'the characteristics something must display in order to be considered a (blank)'?

What I'm asking is for you to follow the chain of compartmentalized matter until you come to the thing that makes up consciousness. For instance, Protons are made of quarks, atoms are made (in part) of protons, molecules are made of atoms, wood is made of molecules, chairs are made of wood (sometimes, you get the idea). What is the name of the pattern of elementary physical substance that directly composes consciousness? If what you have said is true, and computers are no less capable of becoming conscious than humans are, then it must be a substance that is present in both humans and computers.

The obvious similarity between the two is an electric current, but then theoretically, analog computers are capable of anything digital computers are. They just need to be much (much) bigger. Of course, there is no actual evidence that computers are capable of conscious awareness, and so this is all pure speculation. In reality; we don't rightly know if the human brain is really as comparable to computers as you have implied.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What I'm asking is for you to follow the chain of compartmentalized matter until you come to the thing that makes up consciousness. For instance, Protons are made of quarks, atoms are made (in part) of protons, molecules are made of atoms, wood is made of molecules, chairs are made of wood (sometimes, you get the idea). What is the name of the pattern of elementary physical substance that directly composes consciousness? If what you have said is true, and computers are no less capable of becoming conscious than humans are, then it must be a substance that is present in both humans and computers.

The obvious similarity between the two is an electric current, but then theoretically, analog computers are capable of anything digital computers are. They just need to be much (much) bigger. Of course, there is no actual evidence that computers are capable of conscious awareness, and so this is all pure speculation. In reality; we don't rightly know if the human brain is really as comparable to computers as you have implied.

I don't agree with that bold part - I consider consciousness to be an emergent property of functional groups formed by neurons... but that's only in the case of a human. Generally speaking, the makeup of the groups (a group could be as small as a neuron, I don't know how consciousness actually works, but I think neurons are the building blocks at some level so bear with me) is irrelevant. All that matters is the apparent function of each group as seen by every other group in the system.

This is why analog computers can do everything digital computers can - the substance is irrelevant, it is the functions of each group which is of importance. A computer could be made out of spaghetti, legos, atoms or electric gates, and still do the same job.

The problem with asking what the substance of an abstraction is is that the abstraction is not defined by its substance, but rather by the way it interacts with the rest of the world; furthermore, these interactions are independent of substance.

I thought you were a materialist. How can an interaction take place without substances to interact? Does consciousness exist even without substance? If this is not what you are getting at, then you'll have to define 'independent' for me.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I thought you were a materialist. How can an interaction take place without substances to interact? Does consciousness exist even without substance? If this is not what you are getting at, then you'll have to define 'independent' for me.

I'm not saying that consciousness does not need a substance to occur, I'm saying that consciousness does not need any specific substance to occur. It only needs the interaction of functional parts, and these functional parts can be any substance under the sun - hence the independence.

My point is, as human beings we create abstractions, categories of 'things' which we use to group different objects into. These categories are all based on how the objects interact with the world, and so if two objects interact with the world similarly, then despite being made of different 'substances', we group them into one category. For example, a chair can be made out of cinder blocks, bamboo, styrofoam, or plastic and still be a 'chair'. The concept of a 'chair' has no basic substance, because a variety of elements can make up a chair. The 'chair-ness' is independent of the material of the chair - it is determined by the chair's function.

I fear that this run around stems from an inability to say, "I don't know."

Either way, it seems as though we are going no where, and so I'll change course a little bit.

If consciousness can be composed of anything, is it possible that everything is conscious? What is the mechanism that we utilize in order to be conscious? Is it possible that other mechanisms exist that we are unaware of?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The problem with asking what the substance of an abstraction is is that the abstraction is not defined by its substance, but rather by the way it interacts with the rest of the world; furthermore, these interactions are independent of substance.

This paragraph strikes me as a clear and straightforward summary of gnome's position, not a run-around as Xaquaria put it :shrug:

Fleshing out my earlier point (I was posting from my phone), maybe "emergent property" isn't the best term, but more simply form is a property of consciousness, though pointing out the distinction suggests you see what I'm getting at.

Xaqaria, you're putting the discussion in terms of particle physics, whereas I'm thinking more in accord with string theory and Buddhist and Taoist thought. Rather than a lot of parts and objects interacting, I'm seeing a field of more or less uniform substance that takes on the appearance of difference based on how it behaves in any particular locale. Complex structures like brained animals indicate only a local density of the activity characteristic of the system, like the lacework of froth topping an otherwise uniform ocean wave.