Metaphysical Questions for Physicists about Cønsciousness (v1.2)

Why do we presume a mechanical agent in matter?

Nov 01, 2020

`Elemental Cønsciousness is Any Experiencer Who Senses & Responds`

Note: this article is one of two which together form the basis for an encompassing framework, described here.

Consciousness. We all intimately experience it but few of us are drawn to examine it.

Examining consciousness can be somewhat disorienting. We’re using the agency that facilitates examination to examine itself. This convoluted circumstance is the perfect excuse to ignore the issue — which may explain why so many apparently reasonable ignore consciousness while ultimately nothing is more essential to life.

It may help to clarify the situation if we put aside consciousness’ qualities and simply focus on the fact of its existence. When you consider that we are each having an experience of being and while all living things are quite different they also are fundamentally capable of experiencing.

What do we mean by “experiencing”? Experience consists of sensing and an ability to use energy to make a response; sentience. Of all the many incredible things in the cosmos certainly this ranks amongst the most incredible.

Our confusion on this subject is exacerbated by the terms we use. The words “Conscious” and “consciousness” are rather blurry in English. They have many different meanings and associations. A word cannot be clearly defined when it signifies many things.

Etymologically the word “conscious” means “with knowledge”.[1] Its most elemental dictionary definition: “the ability to sense and respond”.

Implicate within this root meaning is the concept of an Experiencer — one who receives information from the senses and who (via some process within the self) issues a response. Hence we arrive at other meanings for the term: “having a sense of self” / “capable of being deliberate and intentional”. We might say someone is ”conscious of what they’re doing”, suggesting “the capacity for knowledge” - echoing the etymological root.

These various meanings are too broad for an incisive discussion. Let’s (at least temporarily) put aside “sense of self”, “deliberate and intentional” and “capacity for knowledge” to focus entirely on “sensing and responding”. To indicate this specific meaning I’ll use a spelling modification (replacing the first “o” with an “ø”). Hereafter “cønscious” (& ”cønsciousness”) indicates the capacity to sense and respond with an agency assumed to be an Experiencer (the normal “o” spelling will be used to indicate the full range of meaning — emphasizing “sense of self”).

These distinctions are important because we can well imagine an Experiencer without a sense of self. We can also imagine an entity capable of sensing and responding but without an Experiencer —such as a machine. Indeed, this is a common way for human beings to imagine the existence of other lifeforms with whom we appear to have little in common: insects, plants, fungi, bacteria etc. Many humans don’t consider such creatures to have any self-awareness. Some humans don’t recognize other living things as having an elemental experience that’s essentially the same as our own (in the sense of having a cønsciousness experiencing sense messages from a body that is capable of responsive behavior).

Indeed there is also a long and ignoble subset of humanity who regard some of their fellow humans as if they had no meaningful consciousness. It’s hard to believe that anyone actually believes this kind of thing but history is replete with individuals who found advantage by taking advantage of others. It’s quite understandable that they would want to pacify their tormented souls by telling themselves that their fellow humans had no soul.

If you’re willing to honestly examine life you will see that all living things experience whatever world they’re living in. On the other hand “sense of self” is a reflexive phenomenon— cønsciousness turning its gaze upon itself. It seems that most forms of cønsciousness don’t take this reflexive leap and simply experience being without noticing their own experiencing self (or the self of others, perhaps). This may be impossible to determine on a case by case basis but the distinction may help to explain why some living things are better able to modify their behavior than others.

The word “exist” means “outside of being” (believe it or not - look it up!). And so when we say that something exists we may not mean it but what we’re actually saying is that it stands outside of its own being. Is this a good thing? Maybe not. It’s certainly a characteristic of we humans (perhaps not all of us but from what I see it’s most of us at this point). We might feel distinguished by claiming we’re the only beings that exist - and perhaps that statement is true to some extent but that doesn’t mean it’s anything to be proud of.

Standing outside of being is a form of detachment - of separation from experience. Isn’t it this detachment that has enabled some of humanity’s worst behavior? Do we not suffer from this feeling of detachment and feel that somehow life is passing us by?

It’s not enough to merely exist. We call ourselves “human beings” because being is better than existing! All living entities are beings.

If we look broadly at life as an Experiencer who senses and responds — is there any entity that’s not cønscious?

Ordinary matter is commonly considered “inert”. The word “inert” literally means “inactive” or “unable to move”. But we know that all atoms are constantly vibrating — even if they are fixed in space within solid matter. When their neighbors get more or less excited they too will follow suit. Could it be any more obvious that atoms sense and respond to their surroundings?

All particles, atoms and molecules sense and respond. Even the noble gasses and uncharged particles are sensitive to some conditions and will respond accordingly. The neutral neutrino is one of the least interactive particles but even it will occasionally make its presence known. If there exists something that can not (or will not) respond to signals — it would be impossible to detect.

But is there any evidence that it’s an Experiencer doing the sensing and responding within these elementary objects?

A cønscious entity must have some internal capability to receive signals (sensing) and the ability to do something with those signals (respond). In cases where this process cannot be empirically observed to have some mechanical agent — can we consider the possibility that the agency doing the sensing and responding is some variant of our own experiential consciousness?

We have detailed knowledge of particle interactions but how much do we really know about the internal operations within a particle? Do we truly understand how and why a particle behaves as it does, or do we merely know that it exhibits some particular behavior? We have a workable theory of particle constituents (quarks, gluons etc.). But do we know why these particle constituents sense and respond as they do?

Scientists often use terms ordinarily reserved for qualities of consciousness when describing particles, atoms and molecules. It’s not uncommon to hear statements such as “a charged particle likes to align with magnetic fields”. The word “likes” here refers to the mystery at the core of every physical object’s sensing and responding. Do inanimate objects “like”? If not then what is the mechanism behind their behavior?

We can (and do) endlessly theorize about some mechanical processes behind each observed entity or phenomenon. But we also know that this leads to an infinite ontological regression. At some point we have to admit that the basic sensing and responding nature of matter is at question.

In cases where there’s no direct evidence for a mechanical agent facilitating sense and response - why not consider cønsciousness?

Why must we assume or invent mechanical agents when we have a perfectly good explanation within our own experience visible to us in all beings? Indeed, cønsciousness is one of the very few things we empirically know is real, which without doubt plays a key role here on earth. Why should we assume the cønsciousness abundantly evident here is not reflected elsewhere within the macrocosm and microcosm?

In consideration of all viable possibilities let’s entertain the idea that cønsciousness might be the active agent within matter. Surprisingly, we find ourselves in distinguished scientific company. Max Planck states it clearly: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”

Let’s take the great man at his word. Can we see cønsciousness as the “integral” of matter? We cannot be sure whether Planck intended the word “derivative” to be taken in the mathematical sense — but it’s interesting to consider the idea that consciousness is the function that produces functional matter. Can we envision how this might work?

Matter as Cønsciously Managed Network

Cønscious behavior is bounded by conditions. The cønsciousness of an insect perched on a leaf has an experience of its surroundings quite different from that of the giraffe foraging the same tree. The position of a particle is likewise entirely different to that of an atom, molecule or cell. The environment within which each entity finds itself determines the kinds of messages received by the senses. Cønsciousness is thereby conditioned by its circumstance.

All the cells in your body are cønscious entities — they have the capacity to sense and respond. They play the role assigned to them by their position within the environment of your body. Stem cells differentiate depending upon their placement within their immediate environment.2

Your conscious self is an emergent entity arising from the amazingly complex multilayered network of cells that make up your body. Is this cønscious network structure a basic pattern throughout all existence?

For the sake of free and open inquiry — let’s run this thought experiment: what are the implications if we model an atom to be a cønscious entity organizing a network of cønscious particles (electrons, protons and neutrons)? The cønsciousness of an atom senses and respond to its network’s constituent particles — organizing them into what we call the atom. The behavior of the particles gives the atom’s cønsciousness a sense of what’s going on in its environment just like the activity within our sense apparatus gives us the ability to perceive what’s happening to our body in its surroundings. The response capability of the atom may be found in its cønscious ability to influence particle behavior.

Likewise, molecules are cønscious entities organizing a network of atoms whose behaviors become the senses of the molecule’s cønsciousness. Influence over atom behavior is the response capability of the molecule.

Cells are cønscious entities organizing a network of molecules which act as cell senses — and the mobilization of molecules is the domain of cell behavior.

Organs are cønscious entities organizing a network of cells which together act as a sensory apparatus (a body) — and it’s an influence over cell behavior that characterizes the response capability of Organs. Organisms have the same basic relation with their organs.

Scientific readers — are you willing to admit even the slightest possibility that all arrangements of matter are held together by some Experiencer who senses and responds? Admittedly we can’t be certain about this — but we also can’t be certain that superstrings exist — nor can we be certain that dark energy/matter exists3, nor can we even begin to prove that we’re living in a multiverse (etcetera). Serious scientific thinkers don’t have any difficulty discussing the ins and outs of these other ideas.

Why not speculate about where a cønscious universe leads us? At least we know cønsciousness actually exists (which for a theory is not a bad start).

Cønsciousness: Universal Organizer

If cønsciousness is the ability to receive sensory input, process it and issue a response does it reasonably follow that it functions like an analog information processor?

You’re aware of what’s happening because your cønsciousness receives inputs from your senses. Your consciousness is also able to access something about past experiences4 and to compare this with your sense of present circumstance to formulate a response. Cønsciousness converts experience into decisions.

What is the utility of a processor? A “process” is a “series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end”. Decisions are made “in order to achieve a particular end” — to fulfill a purpose (implying cønscious intent). All processors organize input according to some set of operational principles. When operational principals are “learned” (evolutionary) they are derived from the conditions within which a cønscious processor exists, utilizing the agency of the sense capabilities. When operational principals are inherited (structural architecture, DNA, etc.) we might call this “programming”.

Planet Earth is home to countless billions of cønscious entities all making decisions based upon their place within the biosphere. Some of these behaviors are learned (adaptive) and some of them are handed down via various encoded mechanisms (genetic, social programming etc.).

All cønscious beings are processing their experience simultaneously. This suggests that cønsciousness exists as a distributed processing system within physical space. If we assume (just for the moment — substantiation coming right up) that cønsciousness exists elsewhere within the universe — can we reasonably infer that the entire cosmos hosts a distributed processing system of cønsciousness?

Absent an organizing agent things tend to get chaotic. We are quite fortunate to be in a universe that’s reasonably well organized. We see a vast number of definite entities (stars, galaxies etc.) most of whom live (on a human time scale) in relatively stable relationships with their neighbors in space. Yes, the universe is changing — but these changes are not systemically chaotic. Life exists because there is a degree ot cosmic order that (so far) only dances with chaos — not allowing it to overtake all. We live in a dynamic organization (organism?).

Here on Earth we observe many dynamic organizations (biological, social, technical etc.) that are easily recognized as the byproduct of some cønsciousness. Cities, animal herds, farms, flocks of birds, computers, bee hives — all of these dynamically organized structures are the result of cønscious attention.

In the absence of cønscious attention these organizations would break down. Whether we’re talking about human institutions or other life forms — cønsciousness clearly organizes its surroundings here on earth.

What would happen to these dynamic organizations if the living cønscious network went down leaving cønscious entities isolated, unable to send and receive signals over any distances? Would anything function? What happens to network relations during communication breakdowns?

How might a large number of entities (stars within a galaxy for instance) be kept organized absent some kind of communication network? Can we place that likelihood near zero?

All enduring complex systems feature deeply embedded networks. Consider the nervous system of your body — how long would your body maintain coherence without it? If our electronic communication systems were to go completely dark — for how long would we be able to maintain an orderly society? Do we really believe that something as massive and complex as a galaxy can maintain its coherence without a communication system — and without some central organizing cønsciousness?

Is there any better candidate for The Universal Organizing Principle than cønsciousness?

TAIJIREALITY PUBLICATIONS

Discussion about this post