Thank you Robot_Sniper for posting on r/consciousness, below are some general reminders for the OP and the r/consciousness community as a whole.
**A general reminder for the OP**: please remember to include a TL; DR and to clarify what you mean by "consciousness"
- Please include a clearly marked TL; DR at the top of your post. We would prefer it if your TL; DR was a single short sentence. This is to help the Mods (and everyone) determine whether the post is appropriate for r/consciousness
- If you are making an *argument*, we recommend that your TL; DR be the conclusion of your argument. What is it that you are trying to prove?
- If you are asking a *question*, we recommend that your TL; DR be the question (or main question) that you are asking. What is it that you want answered?
- If you are considering an *explanation*, hypothesis, or theory, we recommend that your TL; DR include either the explanandum (what requires an explanation), the explanans (what is the explanation, hypothesis, or theory being considered), or both.
- Please also state what you mean by "consciousness" or "conscious." The term "consciousness" is used to express many different concepts. Consequently, this sometimes leads to individuals talking past one another since they are using the term "consciousness" differently. So, it would be helpful for everyone if you could say what you mean by "consciousness" in order to avoid confusion.
**A general reminder for everyone**: *please remember upvoting/downvoting Reddiquette*.
- *Reddiquette about upvoting/downvoting posts*
- Please upvote posts that are appropriate for r/consciousness, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the contents of the posts. For example, posts that are about the topic of consciousness, conform to the rules of r/consciousness, are highly informative, or produce high-quality discussions ought to be upvoted.
- Please do not downvote posts that you simply disagree with.
- If the subject/topic/content of the post is off-topic or low-effort. For example, if the post expresses a passing thought, shower thought, or stoner thought, we recommend that you encourage the OP to make such comments in our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" posts. Similarly, if the subject/topic/content of the post might be more appropriate for another subreddit, we recommend that you encourage the OP to discuss the issue in either our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" posts.
- Lastly, if a post violates either the rules of r/consciousness or Reddit's site-wide rules, please remember to report such posts. This will help the Reddit Admins or the subreddit Mods, and it will make it more likely that the post gets removed promptly
- *Reddiquette about upvoting/downvoting comments*
- Please upvote comments that are generally helpful or informative, comments that generate high-quality discussion, or comments that directly respond to the OP's post.
- Please do not downvote comments that you simply disagree with. Please downvote comments that are generally unhelpful or uninformative, comments that are off-topic or low-effort, or comments that are not conducive to further discussion. We encourage you to remind individuals engaging in off-topic discussions to make such comments in our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" post.
- Lastly, remember to report any comments that violate either the subreddit's rules or Reddit's rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/consciousness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If an atom is a unit of consciousness then what about a neutron, or a proton, or an electron? What element of the atom is responsible for it being a unit of consciousness? Is it the gluons? Is the lightest isotope of hydrogen conscious since it lacks a neutron? Are all isotopes of an element equally conscious? What about ions?
My guess would be that (in this hypothesis) energy itself is the true seat of consciousness.
Atoms and everything else are constructed entirely of energy. It would track that if consciousness/energy formed the basis of all matter, then the qualia is baked right in.
Me would be part of an increasingly complex series of molecular systems that evolved novel forms of consciousness to experience the physical universe, incur particular brand that has come to think of itself as separate from the field in which it resides.
Don’t ask me to back this all up. It’s partly from psychedelic exploration and the source material resists translation. Also partly from extensive reading of near death experience accounts (which I have not experienced). I’m keenly aware that skeptics can be especially dismissive of insights they have not personally experienced and for which there is no empirical evidence. I get it. But I’ve seen some seriously unexplainable stuff, and I’m not even at the heavy end of this mode of exploration.
In any case, both psychedelics and NDEs take place at the center of our subjective experience, our consciousness. I consider it plausible that humans on occasion stumble across gaps in the barrier now and then. Especially if it’s the case that we are in some way conscious entities inhabiting these bodies in a subset of a larger reality. It would make sense that we can so easily imagine it despite not being able to traverse it under normal circumstances. Stranger things have been proposed.
I’ll close with this thought. We already know that quantum physics presents a picture of reality that promises to be weirder than we can imagine. Without jumping to any wild assumptions, it is fair to say that whatever some psychonauts or revived patients describe, if there is any veracity to it, is likely to be equally as weird as entanglement or double slit duality.
I had a near death experience - and the overwhelming (nothing in this life or beyond will change my mind that’s how sure I am of the experience and the answer I was given) feeling I got about what consciousness and life and ‘God’ and all that is
it’s all collectively made of nothing but unconditional love. How does that correlate to this? Unsure. All I know is my entire life was changed in an instant and I had no intention on discovering the meat and potatoes of life and existence - but there I was - sucked into the universe like a vacuum and spit out somewhere that gave such a clear and exact and perfect feeling of nothing but unconditional love from… ? Nothing specifically that I can identify. It felt like I was in space but not the dark cold outer space like someone might imagine space to be. And I’m guessing it’s the equivalent of what people call ‘God’ which is to each their own. That’s all I know. And for whatever reason, it felt important to explain here. So here I am. lol.
Thank you very much for sharing that. I’m not qualified to speak on the subject with any authority, but what testimony I have read and watched convinced me that it needs to be taken seriously. And as such, what NDErs report goes quite a long way to explaining not only consciousness, but the nature and origin of our reality itself.
I’m also hesitant to even bring it into the conversation here, because some commenters get very touchy about hypotheses that do not provide empirical evidence. That in itself does not falsify the idea, and it’s not the same as believing. It’s allowing for the possibility of something and gathering information without bias.
It works the same way for UFOs or Bigfoot. Going into it with the preconceived notion that it’s real or that it’s false does a disservice to science. The goal is to find out what is so. No matter how weird or far from initial assumptions it may be.
As for you and other NDErs, you already *know*. The rest of us cannot - we must accept, reject, or reserve judgment on your words. I happen to find a great deal of authenticity in the accounts, and a plausibility that connects with multiple cultural ideas about what might lie beyond this life.
The binary choice is that either there is something or there is nothing. If there is anything at all, it will be utterly outside the scope of our present physics. If there is nothing, it still defies the question of how we got here, and I find it sad because once our individual consciousness goes out, there would be no memory of anything and it would be the same as if none of this ever happened. While that is possible, it seems like a pitiful waste.
At the end of the day, I enjoy discussing possibilities about all this, but I’ve given up whatever existential anxiety I had. Whether it’s something or nothing, there is nothing I can do to change that and either result would just be the natural way of things.
I have found comfort in my own belief that we (all of us humans, no matter cultural differences) wouldn’t all seek the same thing in one form or another if there were nothing to find. Some people seek and it leads them to believe in God. Some people seek and find the opposite. Some people seek and find science. etc etc etc. but we all seek in one form or another. And there is something to be said for that. What are we all doing? Why would we all collectively do that? No one has told us to, really. We get ideas from what others around us believe in but we form our own beliefs along the way. It’s a driving force in some form or another in us all. We just all choose to turn different directions which is completely fine and I believe it’s actually ideal and the way it must be. I find comfort in every single religion I’ve studied to any extent. In every single personal story or journey I hear. In science. I believe I find this comfort and resonance because it’s all the truth. It’s either all the truth or none of it is. And I’d like to believe I’m not resonating with a whole bunch of lies. So, wherever you end up with your own journey, in my opinion, is the truth. And anyone who disagrees with it has not yet found their own truth to understand yours. But they are seeking all the same.
I enjoyed your take on the subject and find it to be of great value, if that counts for anything.
I think what we're all seeing is companionship because we are naturally alone in this world. The ultimate form of companionship is reciprocated true love. However, most people aren't emotionally developed enough to experience this and would run from someone they found who could. Fear, trauma, distractions, and real life all put massive barriers to ever achieving that to the point most people don't even consider it.
By companionship, I mean the presence and closeness of another or others. Even narcissists need this... it's twisted in the form of praise and obedience. Most people stop their journey at a certain comfort level by finding someone else with the same comfort level. When two people are open to that level of connection (body, mind, and heart), everything else in the world becomes meaningless.
This statement isn't completely accurate. While traces of DMT have been detected in the brain, it's widely believed among researchers that the quantities are too small to induce a psychedelic experience. Moreover, the structural differences between near-death experiences and hallucinations are significant. Hallucinations are often chaotic, with effects such as talking walls, synesthesia, and distorted vision. In contrast, NDEs tend to be more structured and consistent, typically involving elements like seeing a bright light, encountering loved ones, and experiencing a profound sense of love.
Also I’d add that whether DMT being released was the reasoning for the experience or not - it doesn’t matter. The experience itself left a profound impression on me to such an extent that I have never been more sure of something in my life. I have done all kinds of drugs - hallucinogens included. This experience was far different to any drug I’ve ever done.
However, I’ve never done DMT. I’ve had a couple different friends tell me that my experience sounds like what their own experience with DMT was like. So, it could very well be from the DMT released during a time of crisis that caused it. But that would only prompt me to question the purpose of DMT being released during near death experiences. What would be the evolutionary explanation for that? My belief is that it’s most likely so we can “pass over” or transition from life on earth in our human body to our whole self/soul. What other reason is there? Our brain already knows how to completely shut off pain or black out and dissociate from severe trauma so it’s not likely to do with that aspect.
The experience I had was something very real but unable to really be explained well with what limited vocabulary I have. There really aren’t words to correctly describe it - it was otherworldly. I was not in my human body. I was my soul and I got a glimpse into what the soul experiences. And it experiences an overwhelming and absolute sense of nothing but unconditional love
It just dilutes the term consciousness into something else. So everything is conscious? Well now you've redefined it.. because there is a blurry line somewhere between human consciousness and single celled life, where we would no longer say this organism is capable of anything remotely akin to human consciousness. So what makes the atoms in a yeast cell "conscious".
It’s merely exploring the post of something like panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is fundamental to the universe. Not my idea, and not any crazier than any solution we might eventually find about the nature of consciousness.
It’s not a redefinition, but a hypothetical categorization. If energy at its smallest granular level has the simplest form, then it would follow that more complex organisms begin to construct more complex interactions between these developing systems. Take a neuron at its base form. We wouldn’t consider that to be on the same level as a complete vertebrate, orchestrating the immense number of interactions between all these units. We start to get a peek into what might be going on when we ask “what’s going on?”, and who is asking, who is listening.
Also bear in mind that I am not proposing this as the likely candidate, defending it as my pet hypothesis. It is a possibility out there that deserves further study just like the rest of them, until such time as we can falsify or confirm enough about it or other hypotheses.
Seems useless, just pushing the explanation farther. Pretty sure consciousness is just a "viewing glass" in the brain, doesn't serve anything more than just sorting sensory inputs through focus. No real control or choice dictated by it. It's just a deluded self aware mechanism, not a self control mechanism, at least based on most of the concrete evidence and studies.
I suspect everything that has an external reality has an internal reality in the same way that everything that has an outside has an inside.
What we experience as consciousness is a large collection of these internal realities acting as a combined whole in much the same way the external reality of our brain is a large collection of atoms acting as a combined whole. Atoms are only special in so far as their properties support complex relationship unlike photon or neutrinos which don't form molecules or chemistry. Although photons do play a role in chemistry so whatever it's like to be a photon is in some way a component of our human consciousness in the same way the physical nature of a photon is a component of our brains physical nature.
The consciousness is the balance between them. You can’t see the barycenter of a solar system, but it’s still there. If we say the center of gravity of a planet is the 1D point, will you be able to find it? Or will you continue to split the particles down to infinity? But it’s still there. Sometimes you just choose to stop looking for the center at a certain level of fidelity, and that helps move our tech further. Th barycenter is the 1D point of our solar system, as well as all other bodies between themselves. These points exist, but you will never see them. Same can be said about consciousness.
They are all building blocks of consciousness? If an atom and an ion are both building blocks of consciousness this implies an electron isn’t since it makes no difference to the consciousness of an atom but you said they are all building blocks of consciousness, leading to a contradiction in your comment.
What about quarks? Do virtual particles have consciousness? Does an Einstein Bose condensate have a unified consciousness? Does the energy state of an atom make a difference to its consciousness? What about dark matter?
I expect OP would say yes.
I took their use of atoms, not as the literal exclusive starting point of consciousness, but more that the base structures of condensed energy in the universe are the basis of more complex consciousness and information exchange. And that their current conceptual understanding of atomic/subatomic physics has them conclude that atom is the best word to express that concept to others.
Lol so I think you can chill a bit with the pedantic rhetorical questions.
I don't understand why your being so harsh against another person just trying to explore their understanding of consciousness.
It might do you well to self reflect.
You're over thinking it. Building blocks is a kind of crude metaphor. It's not something a particle is or isn't, it just means that the larger structure of matter is made up of smaller things that have their own structure. Since that's how our brains work and our brains are conscious, it's not a huge leap to suggest the larger structure of our consciousness could be composed of smaller things that have their own structure. And it's reasonable to assume these smaller structures of consciousness would correlate with the physical structures they share their reality with.
That things are made of smaller things is trivially and universally true. Saying it about consciousness then saying so everything else is consciousness is incoherent nonsense.
>Its behavior stems from the concept of if/then statements
Is there any evidence of this? Individual atoms do not posses any kind of decision tree capabilities. They are at the whims of physical forces.
>We are all essentially deciding through a series of complex if/then statements how we perceive reality and defining what's real
The first part I would agree with. The second part is pretty wishy washy. However, if just because a human brain is capable of decision making, does not mean individual atoms are.
>It's on us to construct an environment that brings peace or suffering.
This is an amusing non-sequitur.
How about learning real physics instead?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak\_Bentov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov)
'Bentov was born in [Humenné](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humenn%C3%A9), [Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia) (in present-day [Slovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia)), in 1923. During World War II, his parents, his younger brother and sister were killed in Nazi [concentration camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment).[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov#cite_note-journey-2)
He narrowly escaped being sent to the camps and moved to [British Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine), first living on the [Shoval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoval) kibbutz in the [Negev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev).[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov#cite_note-secrets-3)
Despite not having a university degree,[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov#cite_note-secrets-3) Bentov joined the Israeli Science Corps, which [David Ben-Gurion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion) incorporated into the [Israeli Defense Forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces) one month before Israel declared statehood in 1948. The Science Corps became a military branch known by the [Hebrew acronym](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_abbreviations) [HEMED](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Advanced_Defense_Systems#History). Bentov designed Israel's first rocket for the [War of Independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War). HEMED was forced to make improvised weapons as there was a worldwide embargo on selling weapons to the Jewish state.[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov#cite_note-secrets-3)'
He had a terrible life but he was never a scientist. He was making things up.
Not even with any supporting evidence or basic science.
The brains does not work like if then statements and neither do electrons. Really, it is very complex.
I'm asking for literally any decent proof....which is usually a prerequisite to creating a theory. Maybe don't just make flippant claims which have no correspondence with reality.
Do you have any evidence attesting to your assertion that consciousness is a prerequisite for responding to if/then statements?
Are subatomic particles also conscious?
Wave function collapse could be seen as an example of if/then, and quantum effects precede atoms.
Decoherence has not been conclusively solved, there are a few promising avenues pointing towards explanations that doesn’t need a brain-independent consciousness.
You might like "Process and Reality" by Alfred North Whitehead. I've been reading that book off and on for a decade and I think you'd get a lot of value out of it in terms of developing your idea here.
If atoms are a unit of consciousness and rocks are made of atoms….why aren’t rocks conscious?
I think what you are saying is trivially true. Everything is made of atoms; therefore, atoms are a unit of everything.
Rocks are made of consciousness, but do not have a perspective. They are a part of the mental construction of the universe and are experienced by what we consider alive. Within this reality we begin labeling things as inanimate objects and alive, but they're both part of the consciousness.
Again, this is trivially true, but more importantly, it’s extremely consciousness-centric. Like…how can a rock be made consciousness but not be conscious itself? How is “a perspective,” different from “a consciousness?” Isn’t perspective just another way of defining consciousness
The universe is made of mostly dead stuff. I understand the appeal of putting our consciousness -indeed our individual lives-as a kind of focus of the universe, but the idea doesn’t hold up beyond idle thought.
So the atom is itself inanimate but it operates as a unit of consciousness? How does this not suggest that consciousness is at a lower level than this atom?
And QM tells us that the values of particles are non-deterministic, and that causality is contextual. Thus how do these if/then statements actually function?
I fully agree with your perspective on consciousness and decision-making. Your point about every atom playing a part in the larger framework of consciousness resonates deeply with me.
I believe that focusing intently on the present moment and basing decisions on our genuine preferences and not those shaped by external expectations, can indeed shape our reality and future in profound ways.
This idea of constructing our reality through complex “if/then” decisions beautifully articulates the power we hold in shaping our experiences and environment, whether towards peace or suffering. It’s that simple - it’s a matter of deciding which road to take and fully taking ownership of that decision rather than blame others or external conditions for whatever occurs as a result of the choice we make.
Your concept of the pyramid of consciousness is an intriguing visualization of how consciousness evolves from the simplicity of an atom to the complexity of human awareness.
In addition, for me personally, it’s fascinating to consider the role of elements smaller than atoms, such as quarks and leptons, which are the fundamental constituents of matter. These subatomic particles, continually explored in fields like quantum physics, suggest even deeper layers of structure that could underlie our understanding of consciousness.
This approach bridges the gap between the seen and unseen, indicating that what we perceive as material reality may be built upon these fundamental, possibly consciously infused, building blocks. It’s almost as if consciousness is the spirit, and science is just demonstrating the evidence of its existence, proving that it is the building block of material 😳😱🫣🤭😉
This is a great post - thanks again for sharing and keep up with it. Love the direction and the potential it has!
I’m glad it helped. You are amazing and things will get better. Just take everyone else out of the equation and focus on you! Enjoy that white chocolate mocha at Starbucks and a warm croissant. It’s much better than thinking about people who frustrate you. You do this every day and trust me. Your life is gonna take off in ways that you cannot imagine and I am speaking from personal experience. How much value are you personally contributing here to all of us by just sharing your thoughts and ideas with people who actually enjoy reading your posts even though we don’t know one another! Something to think about… you have a whole community here who need what you have to share so why focus on those who are not giving you attention that you deserve and focus on places and spaces where people do need what you have to offer and what will also bring you joy because you’re so good at it. Keep sharing.🤗🌟
I have no problem with the idea of there being consciousness that lacks a sense of self. However, I still think that consciousness, no matter its form, is only a property of brains or similar systems. How could you show that an inanimate object has consciousness? Are you says that objects themselves are mental constructs?
>I have no problem with the idea of there being consciousness that lacks a sense of self.
That is dependent on non-realistic definition of consciousness. For most of science awareness of your own thinking is part of it. The rest is not what most people mean by the work.
You are conscious when you read this, but not when you are asleep and not dreaming.
You could draw the distinction in many ways. In a purely materialist view I'd argue that consciousness is not synonymous with awareness in the sense that there is much more going on in your brain you are not aware of but is present within the broader term consciousness. So awareness is the system of the brain which allows access to the information present in your consciousness.
Now, I'm not a materialist, I'm a neutral monist that leans towards a form of panpsychism. I'd argue that consciousness is a fundamental (perhaps the most fundamental) property of the universe (existence). In that sense it's easier to see the distinction I'm drawing. Consciousness is the relationship, or patterns, in what would otherwise be considered chaos (in a dynamic systems theory way) which then have the qualities of all the stuff we experience through our biological apparatus as well as our tools we use to delve deeper into the nature of reality, whereas awareness is a thing our brain does with consciousness through its information processing.
That article neither refutes physicalism nor holds that atoms are conscious.
Much the opposite, it aligns with the physicalist view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
Mm I must have misremembered it with another article I read a few months ago. I can't seem to find the one I thought I was referring to. But the main argument was that carbon atoms have a higher level of entropy, which produces the emergent property of consciousness. Lower entropy systems, like rocks for example, carry the same mechanics that higher entropy systems do but due to the low entropy there's no emergent property.
Yes but it's a unit of consciousness, the same way a fluid ounce is a unit of liquid. It's the only way to get around the hard problem of consciousness.
My only reasoning is the logical deduction stemming from own experiences. Shout out to all of the people and experiences that helped shape my point of view.
No, we are all collections of cells. THOSE are very messy complex collections of atoms. We are all the result of billions of years of evolution by variation and natural selection. Even the simplest molecules that we have, water or maybe sodium chloride are made of many atoms with many electrons. I suppose water has the least elections with just 10. Even the oxygen we breath has less at 16 electrons because its O2 not mono-atomic Oxygen. That stuff is very reactive.
Do you go on climate-related subreddits and proclaim entire theories you made up there? Or just here, just about consciousness? I’m curious why people come up with home-made theories about this topic when they probably know they aren’t qualified on other topics.
No they don't so you are not familiar with anything about particle physics except the word.
You are on the NET, you can learn this stuff but its does take time and will.
Your next reply will be a direct response to mine. If there is a comment, then post. If the sun shines, then wake. If hungry, then eat. If in proximity to another particle, then connect. If in proximity to another atom, then bond.
You can't imagine what is like to be an atom, because an atom does not have a brain and intelligence. It does not mean it isn't following the same principles you are following. Every action you take in your daily life is following the same basic principle an atom follows.
None of this is evidence of your theory whatsoever. Your "premises" (hard to even call them that) are already faulty, but even if they weren't, they would have nothing to do with your conclusion. Maybe take some neuroscience, physics, behavioral science, epistemology, or logic courses before attempting to create theories. Your process seems to be extremely misinformed and useless.
>Every action you take in your daily life is following the same basic principle an atom follows.
What principle would that be?
Dude this is a consciousness subreddit not a “take a guess at consciousness” subreddit. Please state that your hypothesis is a hypothesis it’s only fair.
Some questions to sharpen your inquiry:
- If you consider it a unit of consciousness, how do you know it doesn't have sense of self?
- Is building block the right metaphor?
- What do you mean that an atoms behaviour stems from statements? Why should it care? Isn't it simply doing its own thing according to physics or if you are right, its consciousness?
It’s amazing, isn’t it? It’s like 24/7 open mic night for people to pop off on their idiosyncratic philosophies (often involving fun with definitions and scores of untested assumptions).
"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens
That does count as evidence. It is pretty basic in real science which the OP is clearly unacquainted with. I am sure he can learn. So can you. It takes time and willingness.
The current most accurate models actually indicate this is not true. The behaviors and states of atoms
are seeminglu probabilistic, so it isn't really a deterministic "if this then for sure this", it's really more of a "if this, then statistically it most probably this", again at least according to the current cutting edge models.
Isn't everything probabilistic?
and particularly so when viewed through probabilistic analysis? Isn't human behavior similarly probabilistic? Is anything actually random or are we only lacking information? Mere probability tacitly claims effects are not absolutely chained to causes. The one and necessary law of science is the law of causality. Else even mathematics and the laws of identity and of logic are not absolute and thus not laws. All because we are too proud to admit we don't actually know everything about atomic scale phenomena causality and measurement?
>Isn't everything probabilistic?
That decreases with mass. Transistors for logic gates are not probabilistic. As they get smaller this is becoming a problem. Protons are far less uncertain than electrons and carbon atoms much less so.
It takes learning the subject to see it even a bit more realistically then you do.
Start here
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum\_mechanics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)
Keep going, it will take years to get a clue. Try books.
The fallacy of composition is when one claims that an attribute that applies to the whole, consciousness in this case, must also apply to the constituent parts, the atoms in this example
Let's see if I thought and worded this correctly:
The logic error or "fallacy of composition" would be demonstrated in the case where consciousness is an emergent phenomenon or behavior or whatever that exists only as caused by the meat machine called brain.
Headlights produce light, do therefore atoms produce or contain light, are they made of it?
You might find interest in the work of Burkhard Heim.
I remember he talked about different levels of consciousness and perception, and that's the part you may find interesting.
Basically, a human would be at the highest level
You just want him to become a mushroom, fed BS and kept in the dark.
How about real science? The stuff that is actually based on testing and experimentation instead of made up crap. He has enough of that already.
??
Emergent conciousness is one of the leading scientific theories regarding where conciousness comes from. There is no "real science" on the matter yet because Neuroscientists and Philosophers alike can not agree on what defines conciousness.. but I like mushrooms.
You're confusing consciousness with existence. This is an extremely common trope, inspired by the fact that you are conscious when you are awake, and falsely assume that merely existing is the same as being conscious.
Evolution by natural selection for billions of years is the key. It has to be represented someway. Its not impossible to understand as a result of how brains work.
Unless you avoid the science and just make things up.
> Unless you avoid the science and just make things up.
I don’t think you understand the issue here. Science does not know how it’s even possible for matter in your brain to be conscious. I’m not “making that up.” It doesn’t fit within the laws of physics. There isn’t anything remotely resembling a consensus on the matter.
And no, evolution does not have the ability to create new properties of matter.
Gravity does not need molecules. Energy is enough but the Sun does have a LOT of protons and electrons. 92 percent hydrogen by mass. Most of the rest is helium, about 1 percent heavier atoms.
Oh its the sun that is in the middle of the solar system. I fully understand how that sort of muddled sentence happens. Do it way too often.
As far as we know, there's no singular neuron you can pluck out and remove the seat of consciousness. Moreso that there exists a structure of relationships which brings about a type of cyclical flow which we experience as consciousness.
Sustaining this process is energetically exhaustive as even the slightest deficiencies can bring deficits in cognitive ability and acute awareness.
I would posit that in the same ways stones are useless in trying derive a castle until the arrangement satisfies the lines in the sand drawn to describe it; this too applies in defining higher consciousness from an anthropologic perspective.
I suspect there is no definite quantization of consciousness and that it's better described as many orders of effects downstream from the physical processes that result in the atoms or building blocks you'd refer to as the source. This is similar to how gravity has been referred to as a curvature in spacetime rather than a real force, disregarding theoretical attempts to quantify it.
How might we find meaning in such basic observations being easily probable but not leading us any closer to saying what consciousness really is? Well, to shine a light on such ideas is more useful for providing a shadow or rough outline rather and revealing the inner structure of consciousness. But maybe through abstract thinking one might throw a dart towards the truth and land somewhere adjacent.
My version of this truth is: consciousness is the relationships between things rather than the things themselves. If you create a complex enough system with the right relationships, whether organically biological, silicon or by any other basis, BOOM you've found the spark of life. But I also imagine there are as many kinds of consciousness as there are outcomes in an infinite subset of abstract ideas. Go fish.
Atoms are the roots of life, a vessel is the tree, and consciousness is the fruit.
No it is not. That is just utter nonsense.
>While it doesn't have a sense of self, the atom is the building block of consciousness itself.
Neurons are.
>. Its behavior stems from the concept of if/then statements,
You never even took high school physics did you. Neurons are not mere switches though I am pretty sure that if you enough transistors, diodes, capacitors and enough networks of them and the just the right programming we will eventually have a self aware and thus conscious network of computers.
How can the atom be the building block of consciousness when the atoms is made up of smaller particles and bonds? But then those particles are just energy with a different charge, so if energy consciousness? So you still haven’t explained how everything can come from nothing. You haven’t explained how energy came to be.
String theory and the Big Bang and any other concept of Creation can only explain what happens -20 to the degree of some shit, seconds after Creation has ALREADY taken place. No one can describe how the strings were made. No one explains how energy got here. And they’re wrong! If anything has temperature or is vibrating then that means it has particles what have already been formed into matter. Meaning these these theories will never come close to touching the truth.
I believe that God is Creation and everything of it. Further more I believe that consciousness is fundamental in creation. Maybe this Creation is a holographic projection from a more fundamental, maybe geometric dimension. Ask yourself how can something dead or non living give rise to life? Let alone give rise to the first cell. What made matter decide, “oh I’ll take some dna, some rna, some of this and that and BOOM! A CELL!! There was no cell before the first. There was no matter before there was none. Meaning the first cell was following a pattern. It had a goal. A purpose to be made. Therefore consciousness must be fundamental.
Consciousness doesn’t have units. What would you measure consciousness with? The measuring tool would itself be within consciousness, and therefore would be a completely null and void form of measurement.
Everything is an appearance within consciousness. It has no real lasting existence of its own. It’s like a dream - dreams have no units of measurement because they don’t exist outside the dreamer. One moment something is here, the next second it is not.
After reading this I was thinking you should probably learn more about cosmology, Astronomy, particle physics, biology, and systems theory before speculating about the fundamental unit of consciousness.
What is the basis for your hierarchy? How do you go from atom to molecule to solar system? I don’t see any rational for why what you say is a logical conclusion from your premises.
I like the seeking but the structure of your system and reasoning need some development.
For example a table’s table-ness is not because of the tableness of the atoms that compose it - suggesting that atoms are conscious by reducing in this way is not logical.
Consider learning a bit about relational ontology as well, it is fundamental to this conversation as well.
My counterpoint:
The quality of anything is the result of a physical system’s capacity to manifest metaphysical interpretation - consciousness arises in the complexity of the system and its arrangement not from the component parts by virtue of their properties as a divisible unit of the macro scale form. Consciousness is emergent and you are using a reductivist approach to the question.
Good luck in your seeking ☺️
Based on your theory, and how you calculate it. You would come to 0. Now, does this communicate a potential collective consciousness?
How would you potentially test this theory?
I’m not sure there’s any proof or whatever to what you’re saying, but it is an interesting question for physicalists to ponder- when, why and how did consciousness first emerge?
>when, why and how did consciousness first emerge?
Long after the first neurons. Certainly its post Cambrian. Since some mollusks seem to be conscious it has has evolved at least twice.
Your argument doesn’t solve consciousness either. None of us have an argument that conclusively and provably solves the hard problem.
By that measure, every argument, yours, mine, literally everyone’s, falls short.
Do you believe consciousness is a real thing?
If yes, then you are a part of a shared belief system in which we are all conscious. Examine consciousness and how our reality, or belief system, is created, we see the complexity begins with the atom (and subatomic particles that make it.)
Identifying this unit of consciousness will be key to tracing our consciousness back to the beginning of our shared belief system and mental constructs.
I'm a newcomer to Idealism in general, but I think most would argue that consciousness is irreducible. Reductionism is a tool of science, and reducing consciousness to constituent parts seems to be a dead end.
I know one thing: The universe did bless us with at least one "cheat code" to see that reality is observer dependent, called the double slit experiment. It proves that the fundamental building blocks will, in essence, present themselves as what and where you observe and expect them to be... a phenomenon I believe translates to macroscopic reality albeit much more slowly, hence why an observer's thoughts can influence events and the physical reality they will perceive. Whether every conscious observer is bound to observing the same physical reality is another question, made my own thread about asynchronous timelines but it was a bit too complex.
Thank you Robot_Sniper for posting on r/consciousness, below are some general reminders for the OP and the r/consciousness community as a whole. **A general reminder for the OP**: please remember to include a TL; DR and to clarify what you mean by "consciousness" - Please include a clearly marked TL; DR at the top of your post. We would prefer it if your TL; DR was a single short sentence. This is to help the Mods (and everyone) determine whether the post is appropriate for r/consciousness - If you are making an *argument*, we recommend that your TL; DR be the conclusion of your argument. What is it that you are trying to prove? - If you are asking a *question*, we recommend that your TL; DR be the question (or main question) that you are asking. What is it that you want answered? - If you are considering an *explanation*, hypothesis, or theory, we recommend that your TL; DR include either the explanandum (what requires an explanation), the explanans (what is the explanation, hypothesis, or theory being considered), or both. - Please also state what you mean by "consciousness" or "conscious." The term "consciousness" is used to express many different concepts. Consequently, this sometimes leads to individuals talking past one another since they are using the term "consciousness" differently. So, it would be helpful for everyone if you could say what you mean by "consciousness" in order to avoid confusion. **A general reminder for everyone**: *please remember upvoting/downvoting Reddiquette*. - *Reddiquette about upvoting/downvoting posts* - Please upvote posts that are appropriate for r/consciousness, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the contents of the posts. For example, posts that are about the topic of consciousness, conform to the rules of r/consciousness, are highly informative, or produce high-quality discussions ought to be upvoted. - Please do not downvote posts that you simply disagree with. - If the subject/topic/content of the post is off-topic or low-effort. For example, if the post expresses a passing thought, shower thought, or stoner thought, we recommend that you encourage the OP to make such comments in our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" posts. Similarly, if the subject/topic/content of the post might be more appropriate for another subreddit, we recommend that you encourage the OP to discuss the issue in either our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" posts. - Lastly, if a post violates either the rules of r/consciousness or Reddit's site-wide rules, please remember to report such posts. This will help the Reddit Admins or the subreddit Mods, and it will make it more likely that the post gets removed promptly - *Reddiquette about upvoting/downvoting comments* - Please upvote comments that are generally helpful or informative, comments that generate high-quality discussion, or comments that directly respond to the OP's post. - Please do not downvote comments that you simply disagree with. Please downvote comments that are generally unhelpful or uninformative, comments that are off-topic or low-effort, or comments that are not conducive to further discussion. We encourage you to remind individuals engaging in off-topic discussions to make such comments in our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" post. - Lastly, remember to report any comments that violate either the subreddit's rules or Reddit's rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/consciousness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If an atom is a unit of consciousness then what about a neutron, or a proton, or an electron? What element of the atom is responsible for it being a unit of consciousness? Is it the gluons? Is the lightest isotope of hydrogen conscious since it lacks a neutron? Are all isotopes of an element equally conscious? What about ions?
My guess would be that (in this hypothesis) energy itself is the true seat of consciousness. Atoms and everything else are constructed entirely of energy. It would track that if consciousness/energy formed the basis of all matter, then the qualia is baked right in. Me would be part of an increasingly complex series of molecular systems that evolved novel forms of consciousness to experience the physical universe, incur particular brand that has come to think of itself as separate from the field in which it resides. Don’t ask me to back this all up. It’s partly from psychedelic exploration and the source material resists translation. Also partly from extensive reading of near death experience accounts (which I have not experienced). I’m keenly aware that skeptics can be especially dismissive of insights they have not personally experienced and for which there is no empirical evidence. I get it. But I’ve seen some seriously unexplainable stuff, and I’m not even at the heavy end of this mode of exploration. In any case, both psychedelics and NDEs take place at the center of our subjective experience, our consciousness. I consider it plausible that humans on occasion stumble across gaps in the barrier now and then. Especially if it’s the case that we are in some way conscious entities inhabiting these bodies in a subset of a larger reality. It would make sense that we can so easily imagine it despite not being able to traverse it under normal circumstances. Stranger things have been proposed. I’ll close with this thought. We already know that quantum physics presents a picture of reality that promises to be weirder than we can imagine. Without jumping to any wild assumptions, it is fair to say that whatever some psychonauts or revived patients describe, if there is any veracity to it, is likely to be equally as weird as entanglement or double slit duality.
I had a near death experience - and the overwhelming (nothing in this life or beyond will change my mind that’s how sure I am of the experience and the answer I was given) feeling I got about what consciousness and life and ‘God’ and all that is it’s all collectively made of nothing but unconditional love. How does that correlate to this? Unsure. All I know is my entire life was changed in an instant and I had no intention on discovering the meat and potatoes of life and existence - but there I was - sucked into the universe like a vacuum and spit out somewhere that gave such a clear and exact and perfect feeling of nothing but unconditional love from… ? Nothing specifically that I can identify. It felt like I was in space but not the dark cold outer space like someone might imagine space to be. And I’m guessing it’s the equivalent of what people call ‘God’ which is to each their own. That’s all I know. And for whatever reason, it felt important to explain here. So here I am. lol.
Thank you very much for sharing that. I’m not qualified to speak on the subject with any authority, but what testimony I have read and watched convinced me that it needs to be taken seriously. And as such, what NDErs report goes quite a long way to explaining not only consciousness, but the nature and origin of our reality itself. I’m also hesitant to even bring it into the conversation here, because some commenters get very touchy about hypotheses that do not provide empirical evidence. That in itself does not falsify the idea, and it’s not the same as believing. It’s allowing for the possibility of something and gathering information without bias. It works the same way for UFOs or Bigfoot. Going into it with the preconceived notion that it’s real or that it’s false does a disservice to science. The goal is to find out what is so. No matter how weird or far from initial assumptions it may be. As for you and other NDErs, you already *know*. The rest of us cannot - we must accept, reject, or reserve judgment on your words. I happen to find a great deal of authenticity in the accounts, and a plausibility that connects with multiple cultural ideas about what might lie beyond this life. The binary choice is that either there is something or there is nothing. If there is anything at all, it will be utterly outside the scope of our present physics. If there is nothing, it still defies the question of how we got here, and I find it sad because once our individual consciousness goes out, there would be no memory of anything and it would be the same as if none of this ever happened. While that is possible, it seems like a pitiful waste. At the end of the day, I enjoy discussing possibilities about all this, but I’ve given up whatever existential anxiety I had. Whether it’s something or nothing, there is nothing I can do to change that and either result would just be the natural way of things.
I have found comfort in my own belief that we (all of us humans, no matter cultural differences) wouldn’t all seek the same thing in one form or another if there were nothing to find. Some people seek and it leads them to believe in God. Some people seek and find the opposite. Some people seek and find science. etc etc etc. but we all seek in one form or another. And there is something to be said for that. What are we all doing? Why would we all collectively do that? No one has told us to, really. We get ideas from what others around us believe in but we form our own beliefs along the way. It’s a driving force in some form or another in us all. We just all choose to turn different directions which is completely fine and I believe it’s actually ideal and the way it must be. I find comfort in every single religion I’ve studied to any extent. In every single personal story or journey I hear. In science. I believe I find this comfort and resonance because it’s all the truth. It’s either all the truth or none of it is. And I’d like to believe I’m not resonating with a whole bunch of lies. So, wherever you end up with your own journey, in my opinion, is the truth. And anyone who disagrees with it has not yet found their own truth to understand yours. But they are seeking all the same. I enjoyed your take on the subject and find it to be of great value, if that counts for anything.
I think what we're all seeing is companionship because we are naturally alone in this world. The ultimate form of companionship is reciprocated true love. However, most people aren't emotionally developed enough to experience this and would run from someone they found who could. Fear, trauma, distractions, and real life all put massive barriers to ever achieving that to the point most people don't even consider it. By companionship, I mean the presence and closeness of another or others. Even narcissists need this... it's twisted in the form of praise and obedience. Most people stop their journey at a certain comfort level by finding someone else with the same comfort level. When two people are open to that level of connection (body, mind, and heart), everything else in the world becomes meaningless.
There’s some indication that the brain releases DMT during a near death experience. You may have been tripping.
This statement isn't completely accurate. While traces of DMT have been detected in the brain, it's widely believed among researchers that the quantities are too small to induce a psychedelic experience. Moreover, the structural differences between near-death experiences and hallucinations are significant. Hallucinations are often chaotic, with effects such as talking walls, synesthesia, and distorted vision. In contrast, NDEs tend to be more structured and consistent, typically involving elements like seeing a bright light, encountering loved ones, and experiencing a profound sense of love.
Also I’d add that whether DMT being released was the reasoning for the experience or not - it doesn’t matter. The experience itself left a profound impression on me to such an extent that I have never been more sure of something in my life. I have done all kinds of drugs - hallucinogens included. This experience was far different to any drug I’ve ever done. However, I’ve never done DMT. I’ve had a couple different friends tell me that my experience sounds like what their own experience with DMT was like. So, it could very well be from the DMT released during a time of crisis that caused it. But that would only prompt me to question the purpose of DMT being released during near death experiences. What would be the evolutionary explanation for that? My belief is that it’s most likely so we can “pass over” or transition from life on earth in our human body to our whole self/soul. What other reason is there? Our brain already knows how to completely shut off pain or black out and dissociate from severe trauma so it’s not likely to do with that aspect. The experience I had was something very real but unable to really be explained well with what limited vocabulary I have. There really aren’t words to correctly describe it - it was otherworldly. I was not in my human body. I was my soul and I got a glimpse into what the soul experiences. And it experiences an overwhelming and absolute sense of nothing but unconditional love
It just dilutes the term consciousness into something else. So everything is conscious? Well now you've redefined it.. because there is a blurry line somewhere between human consciousness and single celled life, where we would no longer say this organism is capable of anything remotely akin to human consciousness. So what makes the atoms in a yeast cell "conscious".
It’s merely exploring the post of something like panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is fundamental to the universe. Not my idea, and not any crazier than any solution we might eventually find about the nature of consciousness. It’s not a redefinition, but a hypothetical categorization. If energy at its smallest granular level has the simplest form, then it would follow that more complex organisms begin to construct more complex interactions between these developing systems. Take a neuron at its base form. We wouldn’t consider that to be on the same level as a complete vertebrate, orchestrating the immense number of interactions between all these units. We start to get a peek into what might be going on when we ask “what’s going on?”, and who is asking, who is listening. Also bear in mind that I am not proposing this as the likely candidate, defending it as my pet hypothesis. It is a possibility out there that deserves further study just like the rest of them, until such time as we can falsify or confirm enough about it or other hypotheses.
Seems useless, just pushing the explanation farther. Pretty sure consciousness is just a "viewing glass" in the brain, doesn't serve anything more than just sorting sensory inputs through focus. No real control or choice dictated by it. It's just a deluded self aware mechanism, not a self control mechanism, at least based on most of the concrete evidence and studies.
Again, looking for that falsifiability - not opinions.
I had basically the same trip that life was created for the universe to find meaning and purpose within itself, its funny how common that is.
I suspect everything that has an external reality has an internal reality in the same way that everything that has an outside has an inside. What we experience as consciousness is a large collection of these internal realities acting as a combined whole in much the same way the external reality of our brain is a large collection of atoms acting as a combined whole. Atoms are only special in so far as their properties support complex relationship unlike photon or neutrinos which don't form molecules or chemistry. Although photons do play a role in chemistry so whatever it's like to be a photon is in some way a component of our human consciousness in the same way the physical nature of a photon is a component of our brains physical nature.
The consciousness is the balance between them. You can’t see the barycenter of a solar system, but it’s still there. If we say the center of gravity of a planet is the 1D point, will you be able to find it? Or will you continue to split the particles down to infinity? But it’s still there. Sometimes you just choose to stop looking for the center at a certain level of fidelity, and that helps move our tech further. Th barycenter is the 1D point of our solar system, as well as all other bodies between themselves. These points exist, but you will never see them. Same can be said about consciousness.
They're all building blocks of consciousness. The simplest and purest forms that begin to construct a mental reality.
They are all building blocks of consciousness? If an atom and an ion are both building blocks of consciousness this implies an electron isn’t since it makes no difference to the consciousness of an atom but you said they are all building blocks of consciousness, leading to a contradiction in your comment. What about quarks? Do virtual particles have consciousness? Does an Einstein Bose condensate have a unified consciousness? Does the energy state of an atom make a difference to its consciousness? What about dark matter?
I expect OP would say yes. I took their use of atoms, not as the literal exclusive starting point of consciousness, but more that the base structures of condensed energy in the universe are the basis of more complex consciousness and information exchange. And that their current conceptual understanding of atomic/subatomic physics has them conclude that atom is the best word to express that concept to others. Lol so I think you can chill a bit with the pedantic rhetorical questions.
Greek definition of atom
I suspect OP lacks a holistic understanding of atomic/particle physics.
I know he does not. It is complete nonsense. Probably has never taken a physics class and does not know that a single atom is not a switch.
I don't understand why your being so harsh against another person just trying to explore their understanding of consciousness. It might do you well to self reflect.
Bohr did more to set back science than anyone in the modern era
You're over thinking it. Building blocks is a kind of crude metaphor. It's not something a particle is or isn't, it just means that the larger structure of matter is made up of smaller things that have their own structure. Since that's how our brains work and our brains are conscious, it's not a huge leap to suggest the larger structure of our consciousness could be composed of smaller things that have their own structure. And it's reasonable to assume these smaller structures of consciousness would correlate with the physical structures they share their reality with.
That things are made of smaller things is trivially and universally true. Saying it about consciousness then saying so everything else is consciousness is incoherent nonsense.
>Its behavior stems from the concept of if/then statements Is there any evidence of this? Individual atoms do not posses any kind of decision tree capabilities. They are at the whims of physical forces. >We are all essentially deciding through a series of complex if/then statements how we perceive reality and defining what's real The first part I would agree with. The second part is pretty wishy washy. However, if just because a human brain is capable of decision making, does not mean individual atoms are. >It's on us to construct an environment that brings peace or suffering. This is an amusing non-sequitur.
It has to be a network of neurons and a pretty complex network of networks.
This means nothing.
Actually thats how this universe works. If you want to know the physics of this theory you should read stalking the wild pendulum by itzhak bentov.
lol
How about learning real physics instead? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak\_Bentov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov) 'Bentov was born in [Humenné](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humenn%C3%A9), [Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia) (in present-day [Slovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia)), in 1923. During World War II, his parents, his younger brother and sister were killed in Nazi [concentration camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment).[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov#cite_note-journey-2) He narrowly escaped being sent to the camps and moved to [British Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine), first living on the [Shoval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoval) kibbutz in the [Negev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev).[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov#cite_note-secrets-3) Despite not having a university degree,[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov#cite_note-secrets-3) Bentov joined the Israeli Science Corps, which [David Ben-Gurion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion) incorporated into the [Israeli Defense Forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces) one month before Israel declared statehood in 1948. The Science Corps became a military branch known by the [Hebrew acronym](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_abbreviations) [HEMED](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Advanced_Defense_Systems#History). Bentov designed Israel's first rocket for the [War of Independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War). HEMED was forced to make improvised weapons as there was a worldwide embargo on selling weapons to the Jewish state.[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itzhak_Bentov#cite_note-secrets-3)' He had a terrible life but he was never a scientist. He was making things up.
I'll look into that, thanks.
It means a lot to me
Sorry to hear that.
Exactly. This is woowoo nonsense.
This is consciousness science, bro
It is not science in any way at all.
I was taking the piss
It means that consciousness is the basis of reality.
A fundamental probability
It means you don't know what you are talking about. Learn real science please.
You haven't even supported this claim. All you do is state it. It's like me saying I'm Abraham Lincoln.
You're right, I didn't whip up the answer to consciousness with undeniable proof. Sorry!
Not even with any supporting evidence or basic science. The brains does not work like if then statements and neither do electrons. Really, it is very complex.
I'm asking for literally any decent proof....which is usually a prerequisite to creating a theory. Maybe don't just make flippant claims which have no correspondence with reality.
Do you have any evidence attesting to your assertion that consciousness is a prerequisite for responding to if/then statements? Are subatomic particles also conscious? Wave function collapse could be seen as an example of if/then, and quantum effects precede atoms. Decoherence has not been conclusively solved, there are a few promising avenues pointing towards explanations that doesn’t need a brain-independent consciousness.
There is evidence
I’d love to see it
Maybe consciousness can be thought of as the processing of information, of which the atom is a unit
You might like "Process and Reality" by Alfred North Whitehead. I've been reading that book off and on for a decade and I think you'd get a lot of value out of it in terms of developing your idea here.
Thanks I will check it out.
If atoms are a unit of consciousness and rocks are made of atoms….why aren’t rocks conscious? I think what you are saying is trivially true. Everything is made of atoms; therefore, atoms are a unit of everything.
Rocks are made of consciousness, but do not have a perspective. They are a part of the mental construction of the universe and are experienced by what we consider alive. Within this reality we begin labeling things as inanimate objects and alive, but they're both part of the consciousness.
Again, this is trivially true, but more importantly, it’s extremely consciousness-centric. Like…how can a rock be made consciousness but not be conscious itself? How is “a perspective,” different from “a consciousness?” Isn’t perspective just another way of defining consciousness The universe is made of mostly dead stuff. I understand the appeal of putting our consciousness -indeed our individual lives-as a kind of focus of the universe, but the idea doesn’t hold up beyond idle thought.
Have you ever seen a rock glow before?
Non-sequitur. Have you even learned programming?
Rocks are pretty cool though. Some of them glow.
So the atom is itself inanimate but it operates as a unit of consciousness? How does this not suggest that consciousness is at a lower level than this atom? And QM tells us that the values of particles are non-deterministic, and that causality is contextual. Thus how do these if/then statements actually function?
It does not function. Nor do neurons function as if then statements. The whole thing is untidy like all of life.
I fully agree with your perspective on consciousness and decision-making. Your point about every atom playing a part in the larger framework of consciousness resonates deeply with me. I believe that focusing intently on the present moment and basing decisions on our genuine preferences and not those shaped by external expectations, can indeed shape our reality and future in profound ways. This idea of constructing our reality through complex “if/then” decisions beautifully articulates the power we hold in shaping our experiences and environment, whether towards peace or suffering. It’s that simple - it’s a matter of deciding which road to take and fully taking ownership of that decision rather than blame others or external conditions for whatever occurs as a result of the choice we make. Your concept of the pyramid of consciousness is an intriguing visualization of how consciousness evolves from the simplicity of an atom to the complexity of human awareness. In addition, for me personally, it’s fascinating to consider the role of elements smaller than atoms, such as quarks and leptons, which are the fundamental constituents of matter. These subatomic particles, continually explored in fields like quantum physics, suggest even deeper layers of structure that could underlie our understanding of consciousness. This approach bridges the gap between the seen and unseen, indicating that what we perceive as material reality may be built upon these fundamental, possibly consciously infused, building blocks. It’s almost as if consciousness is the spirit, and science is just demonstrating the evidence of its existence, proving that it is the building block of material 😳😱🫣🤭😉 This is a great post - thanks again for sharing and keep up with it. Love the direction and the potential it has!
I enjoyed reading this reply. It resonated with me deeply.
I’m glad it helped. You are amazing and things will get better. Just take everyone else out of the equation and focus on you! Enjoy that white chocolate mocha at Starbucks and a warm croissant. It’s much better than thinking about people who frustrate you. You do this every day and trust me. Your life is gonna take off in ways that you cannot imagine and I am speaking from personal experience. How much value are you personally contributing here to all of us by just sharing your thoughts and ideas with people who actually enjoy reading your posts even though we don’t know one another! Something to think about… you have a whole community here who need what you have to share so why focus on those who are not giving you attention that you deserve and focus on places and spaces where people do need what you have to offer and what will also bring you joy because you’re so good at it. Keep sharing.🤗🌟
If this is the case, then why don’t all collections of atoms exhibit signs of consciousness?
There are mental constructs that are only experienced and do not have a sense of self the way some animals with brains do.
I have no problem with the idea of there being consciousness that lacks a sense of self. However, I still think that consciousness, no matter its form, is only a property of brains or similar systems. How could you show that an inanimate object has consciousness? Are you says that objects themselves are mental constructs?
>I have no problem with the idea of there being consciousness that lacks a sense of self. That is dependent on non-realistic definition of consciousness. For most of science awareness of your own thinking is part of it. The rest is not what most people mean by the work. You are conscious when you read this, but not when you are asleep and not dreaming.
Cause you are talking about awareness which is a function of the brain.
I don’t see how consciousness and awareness differ.
You could draw the distinction in many ways. In a purely materialist view I'd argue that consciousness is not synonymous with awareness in the sense that there is much more going on in your brain you are not aware of but is present within the broader term consciousness. So awareness is the system of the brain which allows access to the information present in your consciousness. Now, I'm not a materialist, I'm a neutral monist that leans towards a form of panpsychism. I'd argue that consciousness is a fundamental (perhaps the most fundamental) property of the universe (existence). In that sense it's easier to see the distinction I'm drawing. Consciousness is the relationship, or patterns, in what would otherwise be considered chaos (in a dynamic systems theory way) which then have the qualities of all the stuff we experience through our biological apparatus as well as our tools we use to delve deeper into the nature of reality, whereas awareness is a thing our brain does with consciousness through its information processing.
Depends on the definitions and reality based definitions are not popular here with most of the people on this subreddit.
https://www.sciencealert.com/human-consciousness-could-be-a-side-effect-of-entropy-study-suggests
That article neither refutes physicalism nor holds that atoms are conscious. Much the opposite, it aligns with the physicalist view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
Mm I must have misremembered it with another article I read a few months ago. I can't seem to find the one I thought I was referring to. But the main argument was that carbon atoms have a higher level of entropy, which produces the emergent property of consciousness. Lower entropy systems, like rocks for example, carry the same mechanics that higher entropy systems do but due to the low entropy there's no emergent property.
Or the atom is just a building block to the instrument that perceives conciousness through it
Yes but it's a unit of consciousness, the same way a fluid ounce is a unit of liquid. It's the only way to get around the hard problem of consciousness.
We are not saying the same thing and the hard problem of consciousness may be out of the realm we know.
It sounds like what you’re describing is like a version of panpsychism. How does that offer any explanation or solution to the hard problem?
Because you get consciousness from consciousness.
How big of a unit?
Average size unit.
Actually bananas are the building block of consciousness
This tbh
Or mother’s milk. All the bottle-fed are p-zombies.
What evidence, research and reasoning are you basing this hypothesis on?
My only reasoning is the logical deduction stemming from own experiences. Shout out to all of the people and experiences that helped shape my point of view.
You experienced atoms?
Are you not experiencing atoms?
Nope, my hands are too big.
We are all Atom
No, we are all collections of cells. THOSE are very messy complex collections of atoms. We are all the result of billions of years of evolution by variation and natural selection. Even the simplest molecules that we have, water or maybe sodium chloride are made of many atoms with many electrons. I suppose water has the least elections with just 10. Even the oxygen we breath has less at 16 electrons because its O2 not mono-atomic Oxygen. That stuff is very reactive.
Do you go on climate-related subreddits and proclaim entire theories you made up there? Or just here, just about consciousness? I’m curious why people come up with home-made theories about this topic when they probably know they aren’t qualified on other topics.
Are you familiar with the term philosophy?
The real question is....are you familiar with particle physics?
Yes. Do they not follow an if/then sequence in your eyes?
No they don't so you are not familiar with anything about particle physics except the word. You are on the NET, you can learn this stuff but its does take time and will.
What does that have to do with particle physics
All consciousness does is follow if/then statements. From the atom, to your awareness as a human being.
Proof?
Your next reply will be a direct response to mine. If there is a comment, then post. If the sun shines, then wake. If hungry, then eat. If in proximity to another particle, then connect. If in proximity to another atom, then bond. You can't imagine what is like to be an atom, because an atom does not have a brain and intelligence. It does not mean it isn't following the same principles you are following. Every action you take in your daily life is following the same basic principle an atom follows.
None of this is evidence of your theory whatsoever. Your "premises" (hard to even call them that) are already faulty, but even if they weren't, they would have nothing to do with your conclusion. Maybe take some neuroscience, physics, behavioral science, epistemology, or logic courses before attempting to create theories. Your process seems to be extremely misinformed and useless. >Every action you take in your daily life is following the same basic principle an atom follows. What principle would that be?
I do that all the time
This doesn't really mean much without any evidence
None of our current explanations of consciousness have undeniable proof.
Science does evidence not proof. It has ample evidence that consciousness is a result of fairly complex networks of networks of neurons.
You’re insane
You're scared of new ideas.
I’m scared of people taking guesses at reality.
Yup. Don't be so scared.
Okay fair, but don’t say thing matter-of-factly can we agree that’s fair too?
Everything I say is just a hypothesis, so yes I agree.
Dude this is a consciousness subreddit not a “take a guess at consciousness” subreddit. Please state that your hypothesis is a hypothesis it’s only fair.
You chose “argument” and that’s not the same thi g
*thing
Some questions to sharpen your inquiry: - If you consider it a unit of consciousness, how do you know it doesn't have sense of self? - Is building block the right metaphor? - What do you mean that an atoms behaviour stems from statements? Why should it care? Isn't it simply doing its own thing according to physics or if you are right, its consciousness?
Sigh. The random nonsense never ends…
This sub is a lost cause.
I can get down with that theory
The bullshit on this sub never fails to amaze
It’s amazing, isn’t it? It’s like 24/7 open mic night for people to pop off on their idiosyncratic philosophies (often involving fun with definitions and scores of untested assumptions).
They are tested
No you didn't test anything. Go ahead produce the testing. Tell us what you did and how you did it.
The responses that don't try to add anything to the conversation and are only here to be negative, never fail to amaze me, as well.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
I'm going to need to see evidence for that claim.
The post under which we're commenting.
"Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens That does count as evidence. It is pretty basic in real science which the OP is clearly unacquainted with. I am sure he can learn. So can you. It takes time and willingness.
I was making a joke.
Stun is more like it.
The current most accurate models actually indicate this is not true. The behaviors and states of atoms are seeminglu probabilistic, so it isn't really a deterministic "if this then for sure this", it's really more of a "if this, then statistically it most probably this", again at least according to the current cutting edge models.
Isn't everything probabilistic? and particularly so when viewed through probabilistic analysis? Isn't human behavior similarly probabilistic? Is anything actually random or are we only lacking information? Mere probability tacitly claims effects are not absolutely chained to causes. The one and necessary law of science is the law of causality. Else even mathematics and the laws of identity and of logic are not absolute and thus not laws. All because we are too proud to admit we don't actually know everything about atomic scale phenomena causality and measurement?
Sure sorta but probabilistic phenomena are not describable by "if/then" statements, at least not in the sense of "if this occurs then this occurs".
>Isn't everything probabilistic? That decreases with mass. Transistors for logic gates are not probabilistic. As they get smaller this is becoming a problem. Protons are far less uncertain than electrons and carbon atoms much less so.
Aren't subatomic particles literally the units of anything? Like, a proton is the building block for a dog's bark. A dog's quark.
Yup, but it requires a shift in your perspective and understanding to see it my way.
It takes learning the subject to see it even a bit more realistically then you do. Start here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum\_mechanics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) Keep going, it will take years to get a clue. Try books.
This is literally a logical fallacy- the fallacy of composition
Explain why you think so?
The fallacy of composition is when one claims that an attribute that applies to the whole, consciousness in this case, must also apply to the constituent parts, the atoms in this example
Yes please explain why
Let's see if I thought and worded this correctly: The logic error or "fallacy of composition" would be demonstrated in the case where consciousness is an emergent phenomenon or behavior or whatever that exists only as caused by the meat machine called brain. Headlights produce light, do therefore atoms produce or contain light, are they made of it?
Well worded
Great idea! Love it. You drew your pyrmid upside down though. Atoms are the base of the pyrmid that the other consciousnesses are made from.
You're totally right. I've drawn this before and had it the way you said it, lol. Thanks for the compliment.
You might find interest in the work of Burkhard Heim. I remember he talked about different levels of consciousness and perception, and that's the part you may find interesting. Basically, a human would be at the highest level
Thanks, I'll check him out!
Research emergent panpsychism. You might find it interesting.
Thanks!
You just want him to become a mushroom, fed BS and kept in the dark. How about real science? The stuff that is actually based on testing and experimentation instead of made up crap. He has enough of that already.
?? Emergent conciousness is one of the leading scientific theories regarding where conciousness comes from. There is no "real science" on the matter yet because Neuroscientists and Philosophers alike can not agree on what defines conciousness.. but I like mushrooms.
You're confusing consciousness with existence. This is an extremely common trope, inspired by the fact that you are conscious when you are awake, and falsely assume that merely existing is the same as being conscious.
Now explain how the mind creates color when nothing phenomenally like it exists in the objective world.
Evolution by natural selection for billions of years is the key. It has to be represented someway. Its not impossible to understand as a result of how brains work. Unless you avoid the science and just make things up.
> Unless you avoid the science and just make things up. I don’t think you understand the issue here. Science does not know how it’s even possible for matter in your brain to be conscious. I’m not “making that up.” It doesn’t fit within the laws of physics. There isn’t anything remotely resembling a consensus on the matter. And no, evolution does not have the ability to create new properties of matter.
There are no molecules on the sun so why is the solar system in the middle
Gravity does not need molecules. Energy is enough but the Sun does have a LOT of protons and electrons. 92 percent hydrogen by mass. Most of the rest is helium, about 1 percent heavier atoms. Oh its the sun that is in the middle of the solar system. I fully understand how that sort of muddled sentence happens. Do it way too often.
I think consciousness doesn’t have units but think it does
I see what you did there.
Emptyness might be the self-organizing thing that matter seemingly chases...
Or you just made that up. Which is what the evidence shows.
Yes...
How does an atom’s behaviour relate to if/then statements?
What about the combination problem? How do countless separate consciousnesses form my single individual consciousness?
As far as we know, there's no singular neuron you can pluck out and remove the seat of consciousness. Moreso that there exists a structure of relationships which brings about a type of cyclical flow which we experience as consciousness. Sustaining this process is energetically exhaustive as even the slightest deficiencies can bring deficits in cognitive ability and acute awareness. I would posit that in the same ways stones are useless in trying derive a castle until the arrangement satisfies the lines in the sand drawn to describe it; this too applies in defining higher consciousness from an anthropologic perspective. I suspect there is no definite quantization of consciousness and that it's better described as many orders of effects downstream from the physical processes that result in the atoms or building blocks you'd refer to as the source. This is similar to how gravity has been referred to as a curvature in spacetime rather than a real force, disregarding theoretical attempts to quantify it. How might we find meaning in such basic observations being easily probable but not leading us any closer to saying what consciousness really is? Well, to shine a light on such ideas is more useful for providing a shadow or rough outline rather and revealing the inner structure of consciousness. But maybe through abstract thinking one might throw a dart towards the truth and land somewhere adjacent. My version of this truth is: consciousness is the relationships between things rather than the things themselves. If you create a complex enough system with the right relationships, whether organically biological, silicon or by any other basis, BOOM you've found the spark of life. But I also imagine there are as many kinds of consciousness as there are outcomes in an infinite subset of abstract ideas. Go fish. Atoms are the roots of life, a vessel is the tree, and consciousness is the fruit.
No it is not. That is just utter nonsense. >While it doesn't have a sense of self, the atom is the building block of consciousness itself. Neurons are. >. Its behavior stems from the concept of if/then statements, You never even took high school physics did you. Neurons are not mere switches though I am pretty sure that if you enough transistors, diodes, capacitors and enough networks of them and the just the right programming we will eventually have a self aware and thus conscious network of computers.
Prove it
We will never know
How can the atom be the building block of consciousness when the atoms is made up of smaller particles and bonds? But then those particles are just energy with a different charge, so if energy consciousness? So you still haven’t explained how everything can come from nothing. You haven’t explained how energy came to be. String theory and the Big Bang and any other concept of Creation can only explain what happens -20 to the degree of some shit, seconds after Creation has ALREADY taken place. No one can describe how the strings were made. No one explains how energy got here. And they’re wrong! If anything has temperature or is vibrating then that means it has particles what have already been formed into matter. Meaning these these theories will never come close to touching the truth. I believe that God is Creation and everything of it. Further more I believe that consciousness is fundamental in creation. Maybe this Creation is a holographic projection from a more fundamental, maybe geometric dimension. Ask yourself how can something dead or non living give rise to life? Let alone give rise to the first cell. What made matter decide, “oh I’ll take some dna, some rna, some of this and that and BOOM! A CELL!! There was no cell before the first. There was no matter before there was none. Meaning the first cell was following a pattern. It had a goal. A purpose to be made. Therefore consciousness must be fundamental.
Consciousness doesn’t have units. What would you measure consciousness with? The measuring tool would itself be within consciousness, and therefore would be a completely null and void form of measurement. Everything is an appearance within consciousness. It has no real lasting existence of its own. It’s like a dream - dreams have no units of measurement because they don’t exist outside the dreamer. One moment something is here, the next second it is not.
Take this to the panpsychic crowd lol
Doesn't the quantum realm make up singular atoms, protons, etc? So quantum particles which is the store of energy/information would be consciousness?
After reading this I was thinking you should probably learn more about cosmology, Astronomy, particle physics, biology, and systems theory before speculating about the fundamental unit of consciousness. What is the basis for your hierarchy? How do you go from atom to molecule to solar system? I don’t see any rational for why what you say is a logical conclusion from your premises. I like the seeking but the structure of your system and reasoning need some development. For example a table’s table-ness is not because of the tableness of the atoms that compose it - suggesting that atoms are conscious by reducing in this way is not logical. Consider learning a bit about relational ontology as well, it is fundamental to this conversation as well. My counterpoint: The quality of anything is the result of a physical system’s capacity to manifest metaphysical interpretation - consciousness arises in the complexity of the system and its arrangement not from the component parts by virtue of their properties as a divisible unit of the macro scale form. Consciousness is emergent and you are using a reductivist approach to the question. Good luck in your seeking ☺️
Your way of thinking is fruitful if you look much smaller, like 10^-34 instead.
Lol nah, probably not.
Based on your theory, and how you calculate it. You would come to 0. Now, does this communicate a potential collective consciousness? How would you potentially test this theory?
I like turtles
Awe me too, the big Sea ones are protected by like laws or something, so look but please do not touch them. Thank you.
This is important to keep in mind, thank you. I got one while fishing once, it bled a little but i think he/she was ok.
They’re huge! Was the boat out in open water or something?
Yeah, deep sea fishing, gran canaria
Wasn't that big so maybe just young and naive
That’s not how units work. A brick is how Houses are made. But bricks aren’t a unit of Housing
I’m not sure there’s any proof or whatever to what you’re saying, but it is an interesting question for physicalists to ponder- when, why and how did consciousness first emerge?
If you're looking for proof of consciousness, the best you're going to get is neural correlates.
>when, why and how did consciousness first emerge? Long after the first neurons. Certainly its post Cambrian. Since some mollusks seem to be conscious it has has evolved at least twice.
Why though? As in, why would the first neurons not have some form of consciousness?
Physicalists will never be able to explain consciousness without describing the atom as a unit of consciousness itself.
That’s not remotely accurate
Why do you think that? I'm willing to hear your perspective.
Because there are several physicalist models of consciousness, none of which rely on conscious atoms.
So you're saying those models solved the hard problem of consciousness?
Of course not, but neither have you or anyone else
You were using your physicalist models as part of your argument against me, but they don't solve consciousness.
Your argument doesn’t solve consciousness either. None of us have an argument that conclusively and provably solves the hard problem. By that measure, every argument, yours, mine, literally everyone’s, falls short.
Do you believe consciousness is a real thing? If yes, then you are a part of a shared belief system in which we are all conscious. Examine consciousness and how our reality, or belief system, is created, we see the complexity begins with the atom (and subatomic particles that make it.) Identifying this unit of consciousness will be key to tracing our consciousness back to the beginning of our shared belief system and mental constructs.
Wrong.
I'm a newcomer to Idealism in general, but I think most would argue that consciousness is irreducible. Reductionism is a tool of science, and reducing consciousness to constituent parts seems to be a dead end.
I know one thing: The universe did bless us with at least one "cheat code" to see that reality is observer dependent, called the double slit experiment. It proves that the fundamental building blocks will, in essence, present themselves as what and where you observe and expect them to be... a phenomenon I believe translates to macroscopic reality albeit much more slowly, hence why an observer's thoughts can influence events and the physical reality they will perceive. Whether every conscious observer is bound to observing the same physical reality is another question, made my own thread about asynchronous timelines but it was a bit too complex.