Scientists have long claimed that consciousness is a construct of the brain, ruled by chemistry. I have always found such claims to be intuitively false at best and irrationally dogmatic at worst. The problem with science is that it is becoming a religion. When you look at the larger pattern of scientist’s beliefs, the religion becomes clear: The universe is dead. All events are accidents, matter and forces are mindless, and existence is meaningless.
Anything violating this religion scares the daylights out of them.
I don’t know why many scientists are afraid of the idea that our consciousness is something special. The prime reality of consciousness is absurdly obvious: in a universe where everything is an illusion, the only thing that is real is the ability to experience the illusion. That’s intuitive. But it’s not proof.
So let’s prove it.
Let’s prove that consciousness is eternal, or at least metaphysical. This won’t be a technically perfect proof, but the necessary reasoning is here.
Basis: Consciousness exists. You can’t argue with me on this point. If you’re reading this, you are aware. If you are aware, you are conscious (those words are synonyms, actually). If somehow you can read this and reply without being aware, then you must be some sort of soulless computer program — sorry, but I don’t have time to argue with robots.
If you doubt your own consciousness, you are at least thinking, and thinking is an act of consciousness. You can’t ponder an issue that you aren’t conscious of, right? If you’re still not sure if you’re aware, pinch yourself as hard as possible (because you deserve it). If it hurts, then you’ve just experienced consciousness.
If you’re following this so far, good. It’s pretty simple. You are aware, and therefore, consciousness exists. But before we go on, let’s knock down an argument from the opposition.
Nonsensical Opposing Argument: “Consciousness is an illusion created by the brain. We aren’t really conscious, it just feels that way.”
Yes, I’ve actually heard plenty of people make this argument, even though it’s obviously contradictory. I can’t imagine what kind of self-fear a person must have to desperately believe that they have no consciousness, despite their direct experience of thought and feeling. It’s disturbing. But anyway, I hope you intuitively grasp the contradiction.
illusion [i-loo-zhuh
n] –noun: something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.
If consciousness is an illusion, who is being deceived? Who is being misled? You can’t deceive a rock. You can only deceive a conscious being. If illusions exist, then consciousness exists. If consciousness is an illusion, then illusions exist, and therefore consciousness exists. It can’t get anymore contradictory than that.
Now that we have a solid basis, let’s delve deeper.
Logic Step #1: If consciousness exists, it is either completely physical or not completely physical. In other words, there are two possibilities: either our ability to think and feel is either a physical phenomenon created entirely by the brain, or it requires something metaphysical, like a soul or life-force. With this statement, I’m partitioning the entire realm of possibilities into two non-overlapping cases, because it makes this problem easier to figure out.
Let’s explore each one of these cases separately.
Case 1: Consciousness is not completely physical. If consciousness is not an entirely physical phenomenon, then there must be some metaphysical aspect to it. In this case, you can pretty much believe whatever you want — something like a soul must exist, and there’s really no good reason to believe that consciousness dies with the body. The physical world endlessly recycles matter and energy, so why wouldn’t the metaphysical world endlessly recycle consciousness? This possibility opens a huge can of metaphysical worms and scares the dark matter out of scientists, so of course, they refuse to even consider the thought. But for most people, this is a pretty happy conclusion.
Case 1 conclusion: If consciousness is not completely physical, it is partly metaphysical.
But consciousness is physical, you say. Maybe all that fufu metaphysical stuff doesn’t do it for you. That’s fine, because the idea that consciousness is created by our brains is even more interesting. Let’s explore that case.
Case 2: Consciousness is completely physical. In physics, numbers have to add up. When you add up the mass of particles in a rock, the total mass of particles equals the total mass of the rock. The mass of the rock already exists in the mass of the particles. What is it, in the brain, that adds up to consciousness? Where does it come from?
In physics, every property of any object is the sum of the properties of every particle within that object. For example, the heat energy of a steel rod is equal to the sum of the heat energy of the rod’s molecules. The charge of a molecule is equal to the sum of the charges of it’s particles. Energy works the same way, and science tells us that energy is just another form of matter. Everything in physics is a sum of its component matter and energy. And so must be consciousness, if it is a physical thing.
Logic Step #3: If consciousness is completely physical, then consciousness is a property of matter and/or energy.
Yep — that means that every quark possibly has some sort of awareness. And why not? If you kick a rock, it has to know, so it can get up and start rolling. Rocks may not be able to think…or can they? (They can take sunlight as input, process it into heat, and store it in a crystalline structure until a lizard’s belly requests the output. That sounds like a computer to me!) It doesn’t have to be the quarks that are aware; it could be, say, the weak force (although this distinction has been diminished by findings that matter and forces are really the same thing). Either way, some physical building block is aware.
Now, science knows something about matter and energy. It’s eternal. Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed — common knowledge for anyone who passed a physics class. And consciousness, if physical, is inherent to matter/energy.
Case 2 conclusion: If consciousness is completely physical, then consciousness cannot be destroyed.
There you have it. Either consciousness is metaphysical and possibly eternal, or consciousness is physical and assuredly eternal. Either way, it sounds like a good deal to me.
EDIT 9/26/06: Paragraph 22 was carefully re-worded to avoid sloppy logic.
September 26, 2006 at 12:43 pm |
Awsome, man, just awsome. You nailed everything on the head with 100% accuracy. This is exactly how I’ve always looked at consciousness and wondered why scientists assume it is physical.
September 28, 2006 at 11:50 pm |
Wonderful. well – I haven’t read it yet but I printed it out and after I take a shower for bed Im gonna read it. But still, I have a feeling it’s gonna be good.
September 29, 2006 at 12:18 am |
Quite frankly, i find your claims as an attack. You say these things and make them appear as if they are so totally polar that they are the same as yes and no. The truth is, they aren’t. Honestly, who knows whether the physical world really exists, who knows if the metaphysical world entirely is just made up in our minds by the hopes and wishes we have. Again, quite honestly, noone. Because when it comes down to it we aren’t entirely sure or what is reality and what isnt. And your claims that scientists are “scared” of metaphysical reality is quite intrusive and assuming. What a scientist does is proove or disproove certain aspects of life through theory, inquiry, and experiment. A scientists job is simply to learn the truth about certain questions, to find the answers to lifes great mysteries. They are simply searching through what they can find and physically examine right before them, that being physical mass. However this does not necessarily mean there is no metaphysical, I personally believe the two work in harmony and one cannot exist without the other, but it is saying that we do not yet have the means of examining and analyzing metaphysical data, so we resort to what we can. Realistically, there is no possible way of proving that it isn’t just a physical thing or a metaphysical thing. We can only assume, but i find your statement on the conciousness of a rock quite amusing. We really dont know whether a rock has conciousness or not, it just doesn’t have means of communicating that conciousness to us. Look at sponges for example, they sit doing nothing but filtering water and growing at an agonizing rate all their lives. Rocks do similar things, they slowly erode and can be heated. The thing is it may just be a very dormant organism, what we consider non-living isn’t necessarily non-living, it’s simply what WE have PLACED as the RULES to non-living. Now what i found amusing was this :” They can take sunlight as input, process it into heat, and store it in a crystalline structure until a lizard’s belly requests the output. That sounds like a computer to me”. Now seriously, the heat that emenates from a rock isnt light having been processed, because of the fact a rock has no means of processing anything, let alone sunlight for that matter. Sunlight itself is only one of the many waves sent by the sun. The sun also sends UV rays and solar wind. The heat is contained in the UV rays, not the light. It is already heat. The heat you feel when you put your hand on a rock is the heat from those UV rays reflecting off of the rock. The rock does nothing itself to be heated. Also, it is never stored, because of the fact that the rock is heated only when in the light and slowly cools and is usually less heated, if not cold, when in the shade. The heat isnt stored, it is simply the atoms of the rock themselves being heated, heat is defined as thermal energy, or expressed through high vibration, but when all things are vibrating…all…things, that says nothing of the rocks living being. A rock, as far as heat and sunlight is concerned, is just that. A rock. If a rock can store it’s heat until a lizard requests it from the rock, then why would lizards enjoy laying on rocks under heat lamps and not the ones in the shade as well. I believe that a lot of what you’re saying is simply opinion and through that opinion, an expression through what you believe are facts. That doesn’t, however, necessarily make them facts. Enjoy your silly delusions of rock computers and scared scientists. But personally i think youre really being quite close minded and your mind is transfixed on proving one goal before seeing the entire spectrum of possibility. Who says there truly is physical or metaphysical, who says there is any reality, who says this itself isnt the metaphysical world. Maybe we ARE all just a computer program, but that is simply again another theory formed only through what we know. We cannot truly philosophize about what we dont know when we cant comprehend it. But i personally think you should watch, Understanding the Ten Dimensions. It’s a flash film. Search it on Google. It will show you what i mean about who knows what reality is. When you can do certain things such as bend reality and time, then who knows what reality is.
Thank you for your time and effort put forth into this piece, I respect your beliefs and ideals but personally do not agree.
again, Thank you for exploring the confinds of the human mind with me, its one of my specialties.
Happy hunting through the Maniacal Psyche we call Human Being. or in Zach Braffs words
” GOOD LUCK EXPLORING THE INFINITE ABYSS”
..sure seems like one sometimes.
Goodnight
Daniel
September 30, 2006 at 5:01 am |
And your claims that scientists are “scared” of metaphysical reality is quite intrusive and assuming.
^^^^ Well, maybe they should stop acting that way, then?
September 30, 2006 at 8:59 am |
It seems more likely that consciousness, if physical, depends on entropy rather than being simply ‘made of’ matter/energy. In which case your argument for the perpetuityof consciousness is not completely correct. I personally believe consciousness is not physical, but your argument does not convince.
John
September 30, 2006 at 4:09 pm |
Daniel Straitiff: I tried to find independent verification of this statement: “The heat is contained in the UV rays, not the light. It is already heat.” According to what I found, I still think I’m right, but I’m not an expert. If you have any sources, please share them. The simple fact that pavement is still warm after the sun goes down seems to disprove the idea that “heat you feel when you put your hand on a rock is the heat from those UV rays reflecting off of the rock.”
John M: Stating that my “argument does not convince” would be more helpful if you could point out some sort of flaw in my argument. Anyway, I too doubt that consciousness is physical. However, I want to hear more about consciousness possibily depending on entropy. Can you explain what you mean, or point me to some internet resource that explains this idea?
October 2, 2006 at 9:01 pm |
Wow. The rocks are conscious? Then consciousness is everywhere and in everything. I actually think this is true on some level. This means I am eating and excreting consciousness all the time. Wow.
October 9, 2006 at 12:25 pm |
Entropy is a measure of ‘degree of disorder’ in a system. Negative entropy (‘negentropy’) is related to ‘useful energy’ in Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics and to ‘information’ in Information Theory. It is a property of the system or ensemble as a whole. Consciousness is highly organised rather than purely random, so if it were to be considered a physical attribute in the physical world it would be low in entropy, high in negentropy or ‘information’. It would depend on the physical organisation of the atoms or brain cells rather than being present, in small measure, in each of them. For further info on entropy see books (or websites) on thermodynamics, statistical mechanics or information theory.
But it’s a big ‘if’, I think. If it required energy in the physical world, where would it get the energy from? Energy/matter is observed to be conserved in the physical world but only for all the observed physical processes that go on. What energy would then be left over and available (in the physical world) for consciousness?
Prof David Chalmers (‘The Conscious Mind’, 1996) has, in the light of succeeding failures by consciousness-researchers to account for the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness (i.e. qualia) in terms of physical brain-function, proposed that consciousness be considered an irreducible entity in its own right like space, time and mass/energy, not reducible to further physical terms or explanation.
However, if consciousness is not physical then presumably it does not reside in the skull or, in fact, anywhere in physical space. This might open the door to the possibility of explanations of telepathy, and similar phenomena which are observed or reported (see ‘The Conscious Universe’, by Dean Radin, 1997). It might also suggest the possibility of out-of-body experiences and survival of consciousness after death of the brain, i.e. an afterlife, for which there appears to be a lot of evidence that’s difficult to refute (see, for example, ‘Is There An Afterlife? – A Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence’, by Prof David Fontana, 2005).
For further relevant treatment I could recommend ‘Does It Matter? – The Unsustainable World of the Materialists’, by Graham Dunstan Martin, 2005.
John M
October 11, 2006 at 12:21 am |
To your reply:Daniel Straitiff: I tried to find independent verification of this statement: “The heat is contained in the UV rays, not the light. It is already heat.” According to what I found, I still think I’m right, but I’m not an expert. If you have any sources, please share them. The simple fact that pavement is still warm after the sun goes down seems to disprove the idea that “heat you feel when you put your hand on a rock is the heat from those UV rays reflecting off of the rock.”
thus why i stated : Also, it is never stored, because of the fact that the rock is heated only when in the light and slowly cools and is usually less heated, if not cold, when in the shade.
Also…for how long after the sun goes down is the driveway hot? Not long. Since a sunset works over a gradual amount of time a driveway remaining hot after the sunset is unlikely after any long period of time. However if you were to move a rock from the sun into the shade, yes the rock will stay warm for a while, however, still not very long, simply because of the fact that there is no longer any heat source, if the rock could store the Heat itself it could be in the shade and be hot for hours, the heat is simply the energy being expelled through motion in the atoms and molecules. Taking something from a hot to a cold place slows that motion, but it takes time. Heating something is much more rapid. If you look up the definition of heat i believe you can find it as ” energy being expelled through work” thus stating that as the atoms slow in vibration they become colder, however they cannot simply stop, the rock in no way stores the energy, it simply becomes hot. It’s as if you were saying that when you bake a loaf of bread, by heating it, it is storing energy. I think your claims and statements aren’t quite thoroughly thought through from every angle.
also, to John M:
Entropy: Wonderful work. Went over entropy and enthalpy in my College Bio course in the past month. But i highly respect and appreciate your wealth of all around knowledge in Information Theory as well as knowledge. Are you at all interested in quantum physics or String Theory? I am quite in love with it. Thanks
Daniel
October 11, 2006 at 12:25 am |
as a response to Shaun: And your claims that scientists are “scared” of metaphysical reality is quite intrusive and assuming.
^^^^ Well, maybe they should stop acting that way, then?
you only percieve it as acting scared, but yet again, its simply your opinion that they are scared, you couldn’t ever be quite sure that they are scared until you place them into an CATScan machine and search the nerve impulses in their brain to find the fear receptors firing neurons when the scientist is introduced to something have to do with the metaphysical world. In my opinion Scientists are simply searching for more plausible and graspable proof.
October 12, 2006 at 5:27 am |
I want to begin by stating that I did enjoy the post and I essentially agree with your assessment of the dogmatism of science; however, I do think that the distinctions you raised in your analysis has misconstrued some of the ideas of consciousness and has even left some of them (the most pertinent ones) out.
First, naturalists are not forced to maintain that consciousness is entirely physical. Property Dualism and logical supervenence seem to create another alternative for one that wishes to hold onto the naturalistic picture of the universe. Case #2 and Logic Step #3 are then invalid when understood through this line of argumentation. Further, John Searle, who is not a property dualist, has also made some arguments that essentially seem to undercut your thesis.
Second, you have defined the alternative to this picture of consciousness as a belief in a soul that is vaguely reminiscent of Descartes. I must remind you that this is not the only other plausible alternative. With what we know of the operations of the brain and neurobiology, Thomistic dualism seems in much better shape to offer an alternative than Cartesianism. It is far from obvious that consciousness is drastically connected to the brain and I would even say that it is physical. If I hit you on the head with a two-by-four, you will lose consciousness. I think that that is pretty much beyond dispute. But if the brain does not somehow or another constitute a human beings consciousness, then I think we would have difficulty explaining why this is the case.
Another readily available example is the split brain patient. Sometimes in severe cases of epilepsy a doctor is forced to cut the corpus callosum, i.e., the tissue that connects the right half and left half of the brain. What happens when this is done? Experiments have been performed in which a spoon is held in the left visual field of a patient. The patient sees the spoon because his visual reception in his left eye is linked to the right side of the brain; however, though he sees the object, when he is asked what he sees he replies that he does not see anything––this being because the right side cannot communicate with the left. But then something even more fantastic happens. The patient reaches out with his left hand, which is connected to the right side of his brain, and grabs the spoon from the one performing the experiment.
One last objection: If one refuses to acknowledge that consciousness is mostly, or entirely, reliant on the physical one will be forced to claim, with Descartes, that either animals have no consciousness or that they possess souls. Examination of dogs, cats, apes, &c., seem to indicate that though they possess a consciousness qualitatively distinct (even deficient) from human beings, they still do have one.
So are you forced to conclude that one does not survive after death? Not necessarily. Thomistic dualism allows that consciousness is physical but also believes in a soul. The soul, however, should not be understood in the Cartesian since.
Suggested reading: “The Soul is Not Me,” by Thomas Aquinas…it is only 2 pages but it will show you how different this dualism is from Cartesianism.
Sorry for such a long comment!
October 12, 2006 at 4:10 pm |
@Daniel – I dont agree with any of the article, but you seem not to have a clue what you are going on about in your replies. Please don’t post long-winded replies again without something useful.. or intelligent to say.
October 12, 2006 at 5:56 pm |
@Theseus: You’re absolutely right about property dualism. For those of you who don’t know what that is, property dualism is a philosophy of mind, and a subbranch of emergent materialism. It asserts that when matter is organized in the appropriate way (i.e., organized in the way that living human bodies are organized), mental properties emerge. However, if one can disprove the whole idea of emergence, property dualism is rendered invalid, and my Logic Step 3 still stands. For a thrashing of emergence theory, see my post on The Logical Fallacy of Division. I personally think that emergence theory is ridiculous. As for John Searle, I’ll worry about him when you give me more specifics.
Regarding Thomistic Dualism and other alternative possibilities to totally physical consciousness, I simply said something like a soul must exist. I don’t think that rules out Thomistic Dualism. “Something like a soul” might mean a construct of consciousness-particles. It could be anything. My definition of soul is pretty broad.
Lastly, I have no problem with Dogs having souls. If humans have souls, why wouldn’t other conscious beings?
October 14, 2006 at 9:24 pm |
It’s your Logic Step 3 that’s wrong. You just draw the idea that individual atoms have consciousness out of the hat. I repeat: it’s the way in which the atoms are organised (i.e. the entropy of the system) that would, on a physical theory, be the relevant physical quantity, not the energy/matter. You somehow relate consciousness to matter/energy without any justification. The whole thing is waffly, vague, hand-waving, non-rigorous and frankly just plain wrong! If consciousness were related to entropy I’m afraid the argument would fail, because unlike matter/energy it is not conserved.
So the whole thing is a nonsense. But don’t worry, consciousness ain’t physical anyway!
And you weren’t intending to be serious, anyway, were you?
Were you?
John M
October 14, 2006 at 10:53 pm |
@John M: My ideas were not pulled out of a hat. It’s called Reductionism. If the brain has mass, then its constituent particles have mass. If the brain has volume, then its constituent particles have volume. If the brain has consciousness, then its constituent particles have consciousness.
You don’t subscribe to Reductionism, apparently. I take it you believe in Emergence. The problem is, Emergence is a fraud. Properties don’t pop into existence due to arrangement of matter. If so, I’d be arranging matter into arcane symbols to materialize money and beautiful women. Too bad it doesn’t work that way.
Also, if Emergence is true, there are billions of different arrangements that “create” consciousness. Every human brain is physically different. Every animal brain is different, and there are millions of species of animals. At the very least, every mammal and bird appears to be conscious. If so many different arrangements of matter create consciousness, it must not be very hard to do. Wouldn’t it be simpler to believe that consciousness is in everything?
Also, you seem to be weilding the word “entropy” like a club. I’m not scared of the word because I know what it means. Knowing what it means, I can’t see what the heck it has to do with consciousness.
October 16, 2006 at 5:39 pm |
1. Let’s not misunderstand each other. I believe neither in emergence nor in reductionism. I (like you?) believe consciousness is metaphysical, not susceptible to a physical explanation. David Chalmers in his papers and his book, The Conscious Mind (1996), appears to be the first conventional or main-stream scientist to put forward such a thesis. Since my wife died recenty I find this extremely encouraging as it has several satisfactory possible consequences such as that consciousness continues after death of the brain. It might also explain other phenomena like out-of-body experiences.
2. However, I do not believe your argument above is a rigorous and valid proof that consciousness is eternal, though this conclusion seems likely. You only represent one form of physicalism that you appear to think is reductionism. I implied the emergent arguments need to be refuted when I mentioned entropy. Since I do not wish to ‘wield entropy like a club’ I will briefly say why I have mentioned it. A physicalist argument might go like this: A conscious state (even the sensation of a colour ‘red’, say) contains (or is made up of, or even ‘is’) ‘information’ (in the technical sense of the word). Information is negative entropy, as you know.
3. Every state of consciousness has a physical brain state as a correlate. Hence the entropy of each physical brain state will (for a physicalist) be instrumental in determining the information content of the conscious state.
4. However, it does not seem possible that a physical state, however complex, can give rise to subjective experience of colours, smells, sounds, etc, none of which exist in the physical world. One cannot describe apples in terms of oranges. So I do not believe in emergence arguments.
5. Moving to reductive explanation, this is described by Chalmers as: ‘An explanation solely in terms of simpler entities’. Unfortunately I believe you misrepresent reductive explanation. Simply assigning a certain amount of consciousness to a certain fixed quantity of matter is not a way of giving a reductive explanation of consciousness in terms of matter. It leaves consciousness unexplained. This is not a reductive explanation, or any explanation at all. Thus your proof breaks down. But I want to believe in your conclusion with all my heart!
6. I have noticed your other websites and they are inspiring! I am a physical scientist just beginning to break out of the materialist straitjacket.
November 12, 2006 at 8:42 am |
[...] Wow this is amazing stuff, I think the in-depth attempt to show ghosts as a myth is defintely awesome. TechnoGuyRob you have definitely got me much more interested in physics As has been said here before, Objective/Subjective reality makes all the difference. If you believe that certain set of laws are the control of the universe, then these laws shall control the universe for you. Science can prove anything to itself, and people who follow the law of attraction can prove the existence of their laws as well. Two things I want to point out, 1) Results are the measure of all things. Since there is potentially billions of people who have been in contact with spirits at some point in their physical lives – these results prove their own existence – in the observer’s reality, not in yours or in the scientific community’s or anyone else’s. 2) Physics has a few holes in it too. There is a lack of some "particles" in physics. While I definitely will not say that physics is one of the most advanced fields of all science, it still has much to discover. Especially when it comes to conciousness (see Logical proof that consciousness is eternal The Search for Magic). So all in all, hats off to you for such extensive work and keep on going, I know we all want to see advancement in these areas and the only way to make that happen is through debate. [...]
November 18, 2006 at 4:23 am |
Yoshi
simply because your line of thinking is not equivalent to mine, and you dont agree with what i say, nor completely understand the points i am trying to get across
does not mean i am unintelligent. Next time, if you’re going to say someone is unintelligent at least prove yourself worthy of calling them unintelligent by proving your own intelligence.
November 26, 2006 at 4:12 am |
[...] I thought this was pretty interesting Logical proof that consciousness is eternal The Search for Magic [...]
January 11, 2007 at 3:52 pm |
Your conservation argument that “numbers have to add up” is a false generalization. For example, one molecule of carbon can react with one molecule of oxygen to produce one molecule of carbon dioxide, but 1 + 1 = 2.
Test your argument on any clock. You obtain a false conclusion that either every bit of matter (or energy) possesses “clockness” or every clock is at least partly metaphysical.
January 11, 2007 at 8:27 pm |
That’s a very weak argument, Lee. That’s like saying one number plus one number equals one other number. For example, one number, 8, plus another number, 4, equals one number, 12. So what? 8 + 4 still equals twelve.
A “molecule” is just a conceptual unit, a grouping of atoms. The atoms still add up, and so does the mass.
January 11, 2007 at 8:29 pm |
Oh yeah, all matter does possess “clockness”. Clocks work mechanically, just like, you know, all physical things.
January 12, 2007 at 5:43 am |
Daniel, the original argument was that if consciousness is completely physical it must be conserved. Any example of something completely physical but not conserved, no matter how trivial, suffices to invalidate that argument. If the numbers don’t add up for molecules (which are physical), one cannot insist that they do for consciousness.
Your assertion that “clocks are physical” implies “all matter possesses clockness” fails because there is no law of conservation of clockness.
January 13, 2007 at 4:12 am |
So you don’t believe in the conservation of matter and energy…because two molecules can chemically react and form one molecule. Priceless.
Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
Now. “Clockness” is a property. As a property, it is reducible to more simple properties. What are the properties of a clock? It has mass, it can move, it can make a noise, et cetera. Those are basic properties of all matter.
For instance, the solar system is a type of clock. You can count days by watching the sun, months by watching the moon, years by watching the weather. The whole universe has “clockness.”
Instead of just being contrarian, why can’t you recognize the common-sense, obvious points I make?
January 15, 2007 at 10:46 pm |
Daniel, there’s no point in ridiculing something I didn’t claim. Two molecules can chemically react to form one molecule, so that “number of molecules present” is not conserved in the reaction, although “number of atoms present” is conserved. There is no implication as to whether or not there is conservation of mass and energy during the reaction.
Accepting the principle of conservation of mass and energy doesn’t imply that consciousness is conserved any more than it implies that “number of molecules present” is conserved.
Consider “In physics, every property of any object is the sum of the properties of every particle within that object.” This doesn’t tell us how to sum different properties of particles, such as mass, electrical charge, relative position and shape (if the particles have shape). If we knew how, we might or might not succeed in verifying it by conducting experiments. Such experimental verification exists only in a few special cases, and the principle of conservation of mass and energy is accepted because of the experimental evidence available, not because it follows logically from any (more general) principle of reductionism.
The original argument was put forward as a logical proof, rather than one that ultimately rests on experimental evidence. There is no logical proof of the reductionism principle used.
The number of numbers is not conserved in arithmetic summation. That is consistent with my argument, and neither weakens nor strengthens it.
I withdraw my comments about clocks.
January 22, 2007 at 7:56 pm |
Lee, this should clear things up: I said that IF concsciousness is a property of matter/energy, then it can’t be destroyed, because matter/energy can’t be destroyed.
“Molecule” is not a property of matter/energy, it’s a grouping of matter/energy, so your analogy doesn’t work.
When you think about it, any time you destroy something, the deeper reality, or the building blocks of that something, are still preserved. You can’t really get rid of anything.
January 26, 2007 at 3:48 pm |
Daniel, “number of molecules present” is a measurable property of the material under consideration, and relates to various other properties of it which determine what reactions occur. However, “number of molecules present” is not conserved, even though “number of atoms present” is and mass/energy is.
When four “building blocks” happen to be at the four corners of a square, the resulting squareness is a property of the set of blocks, but that doesn’t imply that the individual blocks each possess a small amount of squareness. The individual blocks merely possess existence, not squareness. Squareness can be destroyed. Similarly, consciousness can be destroyed if it is partly due to how matter is positioned, which is certainly a possibility.
January 26, 2007 at 5:54 pm |
Lee, you’re confusing properties for values of those properties. Shape is a property, not squareness. You can’t destroy shape, you can only change it. And besides, a square is just a mental idea we use to think about objects, it’s not really part of the object — look close enough and the squares disappear. Same with groups, like molecules. You look close enough, it’s all quarks. The deeper reality is always conserved, although ideas in our minds, like “square,” may not apply any more.
Can you destroy a book without destroying the pages? What if I rip out every page and send them to different cities. I “destroyed” the book, but all the pages are in tact and accounted for. EVERY SINGLE PART OF THE BOOK STILL EXISTS. What happened to the book, then? Was it just an idea in my mind?
Do you think consciousness can pop into existence because of how some particles are positioned? Do you believe a demon can pop into existence because of how some candles, stones, and arcane symbols are positioned? What you believe in is sorcery.
January 26, 2007 at 11:40 pm |
Daniel, you sought to show that the assumption that consciousness is completely physical logically implies that it is eternal. To do that, you need to consider whether consciousness might be a property of a sufficiently complicated arrangement of matter that isn’t intrinsic to every component part of that matter. Your opinion that that is implausible is just an opinion, not a logical proof.
In attempting to provide a logical proof, you are either indirectly assuming what you are trying to prove, which is a logical fallacy, or claiming that any alternative is logically absurd, when in fact at least one alternative is absurd in your opinion rather than as a logical consequence.
We commonly encounter physical properties which seem to relate to overall shape (which is due to positioning of components), or at any rate something other than what atoms are present. For example, graphite and diamond have some different properties, but are both just carbon.
When you take a book apart and incinerate each page, it at some stage becomes totally unreadable. Though all its atoms still exist, their arrangement no longer provides certain properties required of a book.
As for the distinction between properties and values of properties, you have stated nothing to show that consciousness cannot be viewed as a set of values rather than a set of properties. If consciousness is treated as values, your argument fails. For comparison, consider what we call colour. Whether that’s treated as a property or a value, it’s neither metaphysical nor eternal.
July 22, 2007 at 5:41 pm |
[...] space. How about… there’s really 26 dimensions instead of 3? There’s no such thing as time!!! Everything has a piece of conciousness. There’s already tonnes of discoveries about the brain out there. "shatter 90% of the world’s [...]
November 18, 2007 at 3:18 pm |
[...] read more | digg story [...]
September 11, 2008 at 12:46 pm |
Consciousness is a property of matter. It acts more like magnetism, meaning it is a vector and not scalar. We all know that though each atom of an element exhibits magnetism, all the atoms put together may or may not show up magnetism at all. Every piece of iron is not a magnet. Only by properly aligning the atoms, the magnetic vector of each of the atoms can be reinforced along a certain direction. In the same way, though matter exhibits consciousness at the the level of quark (smallest known particle as of date… may be in due course of time, with the help of the LHC project at CERN, we will discover something even more smaller but more potent in consciousnes), when quarks get together to form higher levels of matter (protons / neutrons, atoms, molecules etc..) the resulting consciousness vector is rather weak. But, at this level the matter begins to show physical and chemical properties. When molecules become very very complex (biological cells), matter begins to show consciousness again. Body of a plant, animal or human shows up life (consciousness) until all the essential parts forming the body work together in unison to maintain the alignment of the consciousness vector. Any of the essential parts failing will loosen the grip on the particles constituitng the body and the body as a whole looses its so called consciousness (dies). The order is lost and ‘Entropy’ restored. There is no matter which is not conscious. The degree varies however from one to another. The so called non-living matter like soil /rock etc..is construed to be at the level of ‘cosmic unconsiousness’. Unconsciousness does not mean no consciousness. It only means a substantially a lower level of consciousness.
September 11, 2008 at 9:54 pm |
That’s a lot of scientific words you’re using there Gurumurthy. Where’s the scientific evidence to justify those words?
September 14, 2008 at 1:47 am |
I understand what you say Mr. Mark… Indeed there is no better way than going beyond mind to know CONSCIOUSNESS (the noun) and consciousness (the adjective). Science will eventually come close to discovering the truths I have outlined. But, the only way to know the truth is through Meditation. Logic (realm of the mind) will not be of any use.
November 25, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
I had the strangest dream last night whose main message was “conciousness is eternal”. This statement was repeated and seemed to be of very significant importance in the dream… So after I woke up, I googled “conciousness is eternal” for hahas and I found your blog. You make some good points. But according to the dream, there are variuos forms of conciousness that extend far beyond physical or spiritual beings. There are forms of conciousness that we cannot even begin to wrap our brains around because they are so very foreign to anything we know, have experienced or can even image. It made sense in the dream. I don’t know if it does now. But basically, it said that ‘conciuosness’ will always be, over and over again. When our physical bodies quit, our conciousness takes on another type of existance (not always spiritual) but existance nonetheless and keeps going on and on.. It was a cool dream. Glad I was lucky enough to pluck that message outta the ether and find this interesting blog site.
March 30, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
What if the consciousness is like an mp3 file on a CD (CD is the support of mp3)? if you destroy the CD, where mp3 goes (considering that you don’t have a backup copy) ?
June 23, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
Consciousness is the most wonderful thing that has emerged from organised matter – self organised perhaps , even so , in a darwinian sense it is a survival tool , and otherwise an arbitrary side effect of high level integrated perception .
Alternatively it is a playful divine gift . Or all of these things .
There is some doubt as to whether conciousness can be adequately refined to explain itself .
Regarding human conciousness , it is indeed more commonly tied in with the living physical brain .
Can there be a metaphysical conciousness ?
In the sense that everything is metaphysical , yes .
All the arguments of Richard Dawkins cannot explain the ultimate question .
Why is there anything at all ? Energy , matter , why are they there , and why ready with potential for chemistry and biological life ?
If I will it strongly enough , perhaps I can take my own conciousness to somewhere outside my body .
If then I can effect some interaction with the material world , leave a mark on a rock , or interact with another person or another travelling conciousness . If I could achieve these things , I could check them out .
September 11, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
Perhaps the idea behind the rock is not actually consciousness- or maybe in a way it is- but really, it seems as though it is not an actual entity, but a FORCE. Force is something that can be perceived as a something conscious- or maybe it is conscious, but not literally- but in a way, because forces are parts of the universe, making them part of all consciousness, so it has life to it- because life forms are composed of different means of forces. I mean, I think I might be on to SOMETHING.