You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
It is all hypothetical really. My hypothesis is that energy can be conscious but not all energy is conscious. It is the energy within us that makes us conscious.
The thoughts that energy generates, however, are not energy. An idea has no power to form the corresponding concrete block.
Matter has not evolved a seat for energy that is conscious until us but it was that conscious energy that moulded matter into us. We are the conscious energy that fashioned matter into human form so that conscious energy can exist as a material being.
I believe time and space are not energy but are the foundations of the universe. They are the plane that energy exists on.
Of course I have no evidence of this, It is just a theory.
I’m with anon on this one.
I think we need to separate the a priori description of “matter” from “matter” as a label. I think that those arguing for consciousness are arguing against the label of matter, not matter itself. Manimal asked, “if there was no conciousness, how would matter be matter? If a tree falls when no one can hear it, does it make a sound? Does it even fall?” Yes it makes a noise; yes it falls. Gravity causes the tree to fall and make compression waves through the tree’s respective medium (ie. Air). Does the mere fact that humans have evolved to be receptive to these waves (via eardrums) create the sound? The fact that we label something does not mean we created it; we label things so as to interconnect ideas in our brain and make sense of them… did Galileo create gravity?
so manimal, I guess I can agree to a certain extent that we existentially create the idea of matter, but to make the causal inference that we created the matter itself seems a stretch. At an infinitesimal level of explanation, electricity is the essence of consciousness. Consciousness is an impressive evolutionary creation that did not used to exist. You asked, “How could it be true if nothing validated it?” Can you explain what you mean by validation? Does a rock need to know it’s a rock to exist? A label doesn’t validate anything, it comes after the fact… I’m obviously not grasping the entirety of your argument, or any of the arguments defending the consciousness-first debate.
So did the chicken come first or the egg? I would say neither, a human came along and put a label on both of them. Both existed completely fine without knowing that a human added them to a lexicon.
“But what I’m really saying is this, matter and conciousness are not separate. They are one whole thing.” How do you know this? I don’t mean this sarcastically, I’m just curious what the defense is for this statement.
“I believe that if there were no conscious beings, nothing would exist.” In earth’s history, conscious beings did not exist 99% of the time… everything still existed… are you arguing for an intangible God-like consciousness before humans?
Strange! :D How did you perceive space? What told you, err, what made it seem like space and time?
I’m all for it being pre memory and pre human and such, that’s what I assumed until a few years ago when I decided to put a little logic to it. I really have no idea when and what it could be. But again, logically it was probably in the womb. But potentially could have been pre-womb, but we know nothing of that.
So if you’re just making beliefs, why make them limiting and complicated? There’s really nothing to base those limitations and complications on, is there?
Why only make hypotheses when you could instead strive to see for yourself? (or do both.)
@Dustin How do you know the tree falls or makes a noise? That’s just an assumption. Sure, it’s quite logical from a certain perspective, but what if that logic was based on a misunderstanding or an incorrect perspective? I’m not just talking about labels either, I’m talking about matter. If matter wasn’t known, it wouldn’t be, if it wasn’t created or altered it wouldn’t be.
About the electricity thing. Science shows that electricity is the essence of everything, so your argument isn’t solid from a scientific perspective. Also, how do you know electricity doesn’t consist of conciousness? An assumption, based on a single viewpoint.
How do I know matter and conciousness is one? Well, just take a look at yourself. Hurt your body, your mind feels pain. Strengthen your mind, your body gets stronger. What you tell your mind to do, your body also does and vice versa. Just like the skin and the bones of an animal aren’t separate animals.
So you say that for 99% of earth’s history there was no conciousness? Well how could you possibly know this? You saying that you know what happened is a direct contradiction to what you claim happened, because if it’s known there is conciousness. If you were there and thereby know what happened, there was conciousness. If there was no conciousness, you wouldn’t know. You stumble over your own logic, now I pointed it out to you so you’re now aware of it, that should be enough to make you start questioning whether you’re basing your logic on the right notions.
Sure, you can ask me how I come to my conclusions. But you should ask yourself first, try to see how others come to their conclusions and you will make great discoveries. If you can’t see how they did it, that means you’re missing a key point from their logic. Whether that key point is valid or not is not what’s important, the more you can understand others’ logic the more you will understand your own and expand your mind. Linear thinking is only as good as the nodes it follows.
“What reason I have to believe it’s faulty? Or correct? What reason do you have?”
I have the noise of the falling tree, t-i-m-b-e-r!! What do you have… You put forth an idea that opposes observable science, isn’t the burden of proof is on you? I can hear the tree… you need to offer some reason to believe that my sentience is unreliable. I support my view because it is observable… I wating for a legitimate reason to doubt my senses.
“Sure, I have my reasons and you have yours, but those aren’t all there is. And before you ask others what their reasons are you should always ask yourself what yours are.”
Again, my reasons lies in sentient observation. Now, can I ask what your reasons are?
“This is about your belief/opinion and what you base it on, not how scientifically correct I am.”
I was challenging your opinion… you responded with, not a defense, but an attack on my position. I’ve already defended myself with, “I hear the tree fall.” If you think otherwise, explain.
I like your description of consciousness with relation to the painting analogy. You stated, “It takes conciousness to percieve, and mind to label, a panting is just a material object. conciousness is what sees the painting (memory database/subconcious mind.)” I completely agree, but the fact that something perceives (paint, canvas) does not mean it physically creates, it only assigns a label, which is a form of intuitive creation not material creation.
Consciousness. If there was no conciousness, how would matter be matter? If a tree falls when no one can hear it, does it make a sound? Does it even fall? How could it be true if nothing validated it? Etc.
Matter is matter because that’s what it’s percieved as. Where did matter come from if there was nothing before it? Without conciousness, there is nothing.
I see there are a number of different interpretations of the word ‘consciousness’ going on here, which makes it hard to have a good discussion. Perhaps we should all clearly define what we mean by ‘consciousness’ before we have our word.
What I mean with consciousness is something different from being self-aware, like us humans (and some animals). What I mean is kind of hard to describe, I think I’ll describe as sort of judgmentlessly experiencing the existing of the universe… just ‘being’. Just like Alex described.
So for example, a rock is not really aware it’s a rock, but it is part of the complete experience that is the universe. It’s quite funny actually how close it comes to just ‘nothingness’ and at the same time is the complete opposite of ‘nothingness’.
But to get to the point, I think consciousness is the canvas that the universe is painted on, and increases as matter becomes more complex. I can’t imagine matter without consciousness, because I think when something exists it is the same as being an experience…
I have no idea what I’m saying any more, stuff like this is too complex for the human brain
Mostly because I have a hard time wrapping my mind around matter existing without consciousness. So I suppose it doesn’t need a purpose. If it did exist without consciousness, COULD there even be a purpose? My brain is a pretzel at the moment.
Because there is no scientific way we can perceive this as fact, at least not yet. Until then I have to hypothesise an understanding of it all, I can not ignore it and I can not prove it but I have to acknowledge it.
@manimal.. if he doesn’t know (which he doesn’t but doesn’t mean hes wrong) you also don’t know according to your own logic.. Your argument ploys are weak and desperate.
To counter someones argument with “well you couldn’t know for sure so your argument is invalid.” then go on to say something as if you know it is beyond irony.
But matter is also the background that creates consciousness. Without it consciousness is nothing. The point i make is that its a paradox. If there is a creator that was first it is Tao…the creation without creation…i will never make be understandable that’s what is understandable.
I personally find it insanely odd that we as humans like to a put a human spin on the cosmos. Such ignorant creatures we are to think that the mystery’s of the cosmos can be answered by examples based on our own behavior, its silly though.
I also thought about that “everything is conscious.” jabber people have been going on about (not just on here) and I figure if everything is conscious then a rock would be conscious.. and atoms would be conscious.. and subatomic particles would be conscious and smaller and smaller. Then I wonder if things so small are suppose conscious.. which atom inside “my” body is “my” consciousness? But apparently every 10 years all the atoms in your body are new so that theory just goes out the window for those who believe in it.
Consciousness is a trait of a thinking, self-aware, intelligent biological being. So unless there we’re biological beings before the point of the big bang we have to say matter definitely came first and that consciousness grew out of matter.
perhaps matter is evolving as well.(notserious)
How do you know there is no scientific way to percieve it? That makes NO sense at all. Reading what other scientists say and calling it fact is EXTREMELY unscientific, the only scientific way of knowing things is to see them for yourself. Information does not teach, experience does. You’re not really searching for knowledge, that’s why you don’t see it, you’re looking for theory. Theory isn’t knowledge.
Logic and theory without experience is like a house with no foundation. Actually, it’s more like the paint on the house, except there’s no house, only paint. You can’t live in a house like that.
@Anon Where did I say his arguments are invalid? And where did I say I know stuff I don’t? See, you’re making things up just to have a “reason” to attack me. It’s lame, snap out of it. You don’t get this, and this isn’t about you, get over yourself. I’m discussing with Dustin, stop interrupting with your immature butthurt nonsense.
Consciousness doesn’t dictate self-awareness, and consciousness came first. I believe in intelligent design, but not as us humans created it in our own minds and scribed in our own books. I cannot remember the site off the top of my head, but it described these minor differences that if they were any different the universe couldn’t sustain life. If the charge of electrons were something like 0.0000000001 less the entire universe would be hydrogen, but if it was 0.0000000001 more the entire universe would be one huge rock and tons of other shit about the chance of amino acids being formed into living beings from lightning being so minute that it is quite literally impossible.
I get your points. But what I’m really saying is this, matter and conciousness are not separate. They are one whole thing. Just look at your self, you have a body (matter) and a mind (conciousness,) these aren’t separate beings. What’s in your mind is in your body, what’s in your body is in your mind.
Conciousness makes the blueprint for matter, just like dna makes the blueprint for a body.
I agree that our current brains aren’t able to understand this, and that the tao is a great teaching. But that’s not all there is to it.