this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
345 points (89.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43936 readers
577 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you aree using the word "consciousness" without having actually defined it, thus leading to an observation that sounds remarkable but might not be at all.
To be precise, I have no idea what you mean by lower levels of consciousness. Certainly there are systems that build upon each other, but where do you think consciousness resides other than where people ordinarily think it resides? And I mean this seriously. There might be some discussion about dreaming and subconsciousness, but at most that's giving us three different types or levels of consciousness. What you wrote clearly describes more levels, and I just don't know what they could be or where you think they are.
I have a panpsychist definition of consciousness.
I do not equate consciousness with “intelligence” or life for that matter. I think consciousness is a fundamental property of every little thing in our universe. I believe that higher levels of consciousness arise due to higher levels of systemic complexity.
This definition is more intuitive to me as compared to the modern definition where conscious life develops on earth from essentially nothing that is itself “alive”.
Well, this is kind of a different discussion, but I also find the modern consciousness concept self-contradictory, but the way that resolves for me is that I don't think consciousness exists.
At best, it's self-awareness. As in, we have the mental ability to recognize groups of atoms as objects. And we're able to look in a mirror and realize that a given object is moving like we're moving, so this object must be ourselves.
And with this horribly dry view on life, the next step upwards in your question is trivial: It's nature.
Much like a cell plays its part in our body without understanding the whole, we play our part in nature without understanding the whole.
However, having said that, it's not logical that there has to always be a greater, grander thing that everything else is a part of. That's a significant logical leap from just having a grand thing that happens to have lots of parts.
All you describe doesn’t contradict the idea of consciousness at all. Indeed there is no consciousness in the systems and in the self-awareness. Those are the results of matter interacting in increasingly complex ways.
Consciousness is not the mind though.
It’s awareness itself. It’s the “experience of being”. You can’t direct your consciousness towards itself, it is the base. Existence is the base. Awareness, being.
This is more and more clear the more you do try to feel it, to “see” it. And more and more it’s clear you are it. You aren’t “you”, the clump of cells that spurt out random thoughts. You’re the one who sees the thoughts. Who hear the sounds. Who believed it was you. But you are it. The base. You are being, awareness. And nothing more. But it really is all there is.
The universe, the whole of reality, that we experience is consciousness. It’s a “dream” in a way. A simulation, but not a computer one.
At least this is a very very old idea. One of the oldest actually, that we have records for.
And coincidentally, physics and the study of consciousness through science are bringing us closer and closer to it again…
Can you provide a panpsychist definition of consciousness? I had a hard time finding an actual definition in searching. I understand the idea that panpsychists believe that mind is a fundamental part of reality, but haven't seen a solid definition of consciousness in that context.
Also are you on the Panexperientialism or Pancognitivism bandwagon? Or maybe both?
Edit: From plato.stanford.edu I found this, but it is attributed to analytic philosophy:
"something is conscious just in case there is something that it’s like to be it; that is to say, if it has some kind of experience, no matter how basic."
I am purely panpsychist. My intuition says that literally everything in this universe has a bit of consciousness in it. An atom has a bit, a cell has a few bits, a human brain has trillions of bits.
As an analogy, in a vivid dream "you" may be holding an apple, but in the end both you and that apple are made of dream-stuff. I believe that is the case for reality as well.
What is consciousness in this context though? What do you mean by "a bit of?" Are atoms only partially experiencing being atoms?
What was trying to say is that I believe that neutrons are experiencing being neutrons, protons are experiencing being protons, electrons are experiencing being electrons, etc. Meanwhile an atom that contains all of the above is a more complex system and thus has a higher level of consciousness. Again I don’t equate consciousness with intelligence but more of an elementary state of awareness that allows these entities to perform their function.
This is really hard for me to articulate because I’m coming at this from a philosophical point of view and not a scientific one!
Roger that... In which case, your original question is answered by your definition. If everything has consciousness at every level, then of course you can zoom in or out as much as you want.
I personally don't know what to make of that use of those words, though. Verifiability is long gone, which raises consistency questions.
I think they mean that what if you aren't actually flying your meat ship and just think that you are. That something else is flying it and maybe 'you' are just making constant justifications of behaviour to make it feel like you're flying it.
What if you're not even number two? What if you're like 10th in line? You ever pick something up and think 'i should remember where I put that ' then you run around trying to find it later? Actual pilot can't remember and you're just justifying behavior. 'oh I forgot where I put it '
Your forgetting is just a coping mechanism. ....
You're basically describing ego, which is what we think we are. If you've ever been in a true fight or flight situation where the survival part of the brain takes over, you quickly realize that the ego (I guess what OP would think of as the top layer of consciousness) is not the only one calling the shots.