Is Matter Conscious?

submitted by magnora7 from getpocket.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Interesting, but different ways of saying the same thing imo. Whether consciousness is inherent in all matter, or whether that is "beamed in" to a "receiver", the resulting expression in physical reality is the same result.

[–]beermeem 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Very fair. I suppose the more pointed question scientists could be asking, then, is: why do different types of matter exhibit different types of consciousness? i.e. what is it about the physical arrangement of the matter that causes the expression of consciousness?

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

As the ability to represent information about the universe becomes more complex, therefore the expression of the consciousness is more complex. Right? If you remove half of someone's brain, they're less complex.

When that physical complexity breaks down (entropy or death) the ability of the consciousness to express and perceive information about the universe is similarly broken down, simply because the information representation systems are no longer there. It's simply a matter of physical functionality.

Just like if there is a society of a hundred million people, and then suddenly 99.9% of them die. The remaining people would not be able to exactly re-create the previous society regardless of how hard they try, simply because the operational functionality does not exist anymore, even though there are still parts of that society still existing and conscious.

I think in a similar way, we can see the human body as a democracy of cells. And similarly, cells as a democracy of molecules. The informational complexity of each layer stacks up to build the higher layers. But our consciousness seems to primarily reside in the highest layer it has access to, as we can't arbitrarily shut of the experience of being a human and experience being a lone cell for a while. We are kind of trapped at the highest level of complexity we can access, in a way.

So in that sub-atomic fundamental particles can not be created or destroyed, thus consciousness also cannot be destroyed. Only the complexity of expression can be destroyed.

I think this explanation works for both the "receiver" model as well as the idea of it being inherent within the matter.

[–]beermeem 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

There's a lot of good stuff there. I'll have to think about what you are saying specifically and try to come back to some of those points.

Quickly, though, from a purely scientific perspective, I'm not certain we can comfortably make statements about the internal. We don't really have a scientific method for addressing that. Modern western science is designed to observe and address the external observable state. And I think there's a lot more that can still be learned by sticking resolutely to those external observations and not attempting to make extrapolations about the internal. Our best guesses at the internal, imho, continue to be mired in the politicization of the "soft" sciences and have delivered few real insights -- insights better answered elsewhere.

For me, much of "science" today (especially our extrapolations about the internal) is still highly influenced by Christian-based human-exceptionalism (the idea that humans somehow stand apart from the rest of the Universe -- i.e. humans have "souls" but other animals are just wind up toys). For one random example, the idea that it's morally superior to eat a plant than an animal is a perfect example of the continued failed extrapolation of human-exceptionalism.

My experience has me come from the perspective that the religious/philosophical perspectives of Buddhism and to a lesser (but more accessible) extent Kabbahalism (in addition to some other less influential perspectives) are more practiced at addressing the internal state.

[–]FormosaOolong 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. Adherents of scientism forget that true science is the art of carefully describing reality. The task will never be finished, because the more you chop something up, and the more powerful your microscope or telescope, there is more to discover and describe and the more complex it will seem.

Science is a worthy form or subset of intelligence, but it is not the complete intelligence (as much as its adherents would like to believe it to be.) It exists within consciousness, and is subsumed by it.