Thread: What is the substance of Consciousness?

I hadn't heard of any of that. Does that show that animals are as conscious or not as conscious as we are?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I hadn't heard of any of that. Does that show that animals are as conscious or not as conscious as we are?

I don't know. Since we don't know what consciousness is, it is hard to say, I guess. I think a lot of animals are conscious, but I wouldn't know where to draw the line.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Fair enough, but then I chose a bad analogy. My point was that some systems, when ordered in a certain way, exhibit emergent properties which are not exhibited when the system (and everything in it) is rearranged. If consciousness is like this, then it has no 'substance', it is just a property.



Yes, that's exactly what I believe. The only problem is, if you take an entire human and put it into a blender, then although you will still have the same 'stuff', it will not be conscious. If you could somehow put the human back together, it would gain consciousness by virtue of the functioning systems in the body. This means that it takes nothing 'extra' to go from an unconscious mass of stuff to a conscious human, other than a specific arrangement of the stuff.

That's the only reason I think the question is invalid - there is really no 'substance' which makes up this consciousness.

So let me ask you again, do you think consciousness exists? Do you possess consciousness, and if not, what exactly is the feeling of consciousness and what makes humans (and other animals) different from philosophical zombies?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So let me ask you again, do you think consciousness exists? Do you possess consciousness, and if not, what exactly is the feeling of consciousness and what makes humans (and other animals) different from philosophical zombies?

Well, in order to answer that I need a specific definition of consciousness.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Well, in order to answer that I need a specific definition of consciousness.

Well, the most pertinent definition I could find on Dictionary.com was "awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc."

I personally would describe it similarly, perhaps including 'having a sense of self' although that is implied in the 'awareness of one's own existence.'

If you need a definition, how can you say that it is merely an emergent property? How does the question of its existence require a specific definition, but the question of its substance does not?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If you need a definition, how can you say that it is merely an emergent property? How does the question of its existence require a specific definition, but the question of its substance does not?

Well, I believe that everything which makes up who we are - our emotions, thought patterns, memories, skills, etc. - are all emergent properties of our bodies and the matter within them. As consciousness clearly seems to fall into this group, I consider it to be an emergent property as well.

However, if you ask something like "does consciousness exist", then you are calling into question the assumption that consciousness is a part of every normal human being (and therefore, by my beliefs, an emergent property). Then I need a definition, because it sounds like you're using a different one than I am. If consciousness is just "awareness of self", then we obviously have it, and it obviously exists... right?

I'm not sure if you're asking me a serious question or just setting me up for an argument you're about to make

I'm asking because you seem to think its existence is self evident, and yet you say it has no substance. Is it possible for something that exists to be insubstantial? If so, what governs or defines its existence?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Well, I believe that everything which makes up who we are - our emotions, thought patterns, memories, skills, etc. - are all emergent properties of our bodies and the matter within them. As consciousness clearly seems to fall into this group, I consider it to be an emergent property as well.

Interesting, because I believe almost exactly the opposite. That being we are a non material essence or energy, and the body, the brain , and all the physical things that science studies are emergant properties of that non physical essence which manifest into the material plane in shape and form.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'm asking because you seem to think its existence is self evident, and yet you say it has no substance. Is it possible for something that exists to be insubstantial? If so, what governs or defines its existence?

We should probably clear this up, because we might be misunderstanding each other - when you say 'substance of consciousness', you do mean 'what consciousness is made of', right? Because if you mean 'what consciousness arises from', then I would agree that it is substantial.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Interesting, because I believe almost exactly the opposite. That being we are a non material essence or energy, and the body, the brain , and all the physical things that science studies are emergant properties of that non physical essence which manifest into the material plane in shape and form.

Could you define 'energy' in this context?

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

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Could you define 'energy' in this context?

I cannot define as there is no definition that yet exists. All I can do is allureallude to the context itself.

Others over time have labeled such as spirit, consciousness, energy, God, Essence.... take your pick. There are many more words alluringalluding to the same, none of which by themselves really hit the mark.

If it is labeled energy, then it would have to be an energy that is prior to particles, and prior to any phenomenon related back to paticles.

Let me ask a question.

What is the nature of energy as it is before it is converted to matter?

I think you mean 'allude'

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think you mean 'allude'

Yep, you are right.

Sorry for my mistake.

not a big deal, I was just getting rid of any possible confusion preemptively, since allure has a much different meaning.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

What you call 'bluntness', I call 'efficiency'. I stated my position and an example which supported it in two sentences. If people don't like it, maybe I can add some fluff or something.

Well I think you need more support than just a rhetorical question, obviously.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Are you saying that a computer's on-ness has some non-physical substance? Or are you acknowledging that my example question is invalid?

That your question is invalid, and it really doesn't relate to consciousness I think.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

NO. An emergent property of a system does not have a 'spiritual' substance, damnit. My calculator has emergent properties, snowflakes do, and so do fractals. What on earth does any of that have to do with 'spiritual substance'?

Whoops! I was thinking too far ahead. I think consciousness is a spiritual substance, only recognized obviously by working spiritually with it. My bad, that statement had nothing to do with your context, which I lost in separating it with a quote.

What is an emergent property again?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

however, none of us have the ability to change what we want to do, or how this is decided. We are like robots, doing whatever our brains decide we want to do and nothing else.

Sorry, that is wrong. Funnily enough, this has to do with consciousness.

This is a different thread so don't relate my word here to another thread's; I have a different outlook.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

The problem for me is that there is no obvious source for free will. Where does it come from? The processes in our bodies are the result of chemical reactions. Our brains are just bigger versions of every other animals. Does a monkey have free will? A dog? A mouse? An insect? Even if you throw in some random things, or some quantum things, it doesn't add anything. You see the problem?

You see the answer? We have apparently been debating Will around Philosophy, when really we have shut down our computers with a choice to believe in it all or not. We can believe in fate or luck, or not. And that changes our lives from there. We have the ability and Will to think, and that's all we need.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Consciousness as an emergent property can presumably exist in systems similar to the human brain - these systems are called 'animals'.

The system is actually called "life", so forget talking of computers.



In my view, all the purpose of the universe is to grow and discover itself.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

not a big deal, I was just getting rid of any possible confusion preemptively, since allure has a much different meaning.

I do welcome corrective responses. Its the only way I can learn from and correct my mistakes.

Thanks

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

What is the nature of energy as it is before it is converted to matter?

This is probably going to be really annoying, I apologize, but... I really can't answer that because I don't know what you mean by "the nature of" energy. Do you mean how it interacts with things? Or its properties?

Originally Posted by really

Well I think you need more support than just a rhetorical question, obviously.That your question is invalid, and it really doesn't relate to consciousness I think.

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.

Originally Posted by really

What is an emergent property again?

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)

Originally Posted by really

The system is actually called "life", so forget talking of computers.

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.

Originally Posted by really

In my view, all the purpose of the universe is to grow and discover itself.

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

Originally Posted by thegnome54

This is probably going to be really annoying, I apologize, but... I really can't answer that because I don't know what you mean by "the nature of" energy. Do you mean how it interacts with things? Or its properties?

I have no expectations so theres really nothing to get annoyed over, hopefully its the same with you.

I guess, by nature of energy, I am asking what is energy aside from any relation to particles or matter ?

Ie when an atom is split it is said vast amounts of energy is released. What is that energy?

We witness, heat, light, force, all have physical connotations, but what exactly is that which we call energy which is the cause of all of the above?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Ie when an atom is split it is said vast amounts of energy is released. What is that energy?

We witness, heat, light, force, all have physical connotations, but what exactly is that which we call energy which is the cause of all of the above?

I think that's really all energy is. We don't know anything about it other than what we can detect, and we've simply noticed that these phenomena seem to be caused by something, and named this something 'energy'.

It seems like kind of a filler to me - it helps us make models and use conservation of energy, but we really don't know what it is, or if it really exists as we think it does.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I think that's really all energy is. We don't know anything about it other than what we can detect, and we've simply noticed that these phenomena seem to be caused by something, and named this something 'energy'.

It seems like kind of a filler to me - it helps us make models and use conservation of energy, but we really don't know what it is, or if it really exists as we think it does.

Exactly. Isnt it the same sort of thing with what we call consciousness in my view of it which is reversed from your view of it?

You said earlier in you way of looking at consciousness:

Well, I believe that everything which makes up who we are - our emotions, thought patterns, memories, skills, etc. - are all emergent properties of our bodies and the matter within them. As consciousness clearly seems to fall into this group, I consider it to be an emergent property as well.

The way I see it, all of these are emergent properties of consciousness, showing up as physical manifestations which are "visible' to us as our bodies and all related to those bodies.


In this model what you just said of energy can easily be said of consciousness -

"We don't know anything about it other than what we can detect, and we've simply noticed that these phenomena seem to be caused by something, and named this something 'consciousness'."

Such could be ventured that this "energy" is the same as this "consciousness" that we loosely define at the moment.

At least this seems to be where my view is headed anyhow.

If you are going to ask what energy is, why not ask what matter is too?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

If you are going to ask what energy is, why not ask what matter is too?

Because we already know what matter is; its energy. Asking "Well, then what is energy?" Is the only logical next step.

What is matter?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

What is matter?

It's energy; I said that already.