# Consciousness



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

How did consciousness emerge from inanimate matter?


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> How did consciousness emerge from inanimate matter?



Are bacteria "conscious"?  

They are animate, but few would call them conscious.  So, how do you get from something like bacteria to something like us?

Millions of years of evolution.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> How did consciousness emerge from inanimate matter?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you indicated in the past that you do in fact believe in evolution.  Is that accurate or am I taking that out of context?


----------



## JFS (Jun 1, 2011)

A more intriguing question may be how exactly you experience it at all.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

Do any of you think there is a way to take inanimate matter and arrange it to have consciouness?

Is this what happened during the millions of years of evolution? If this is the case, what driving force during these years of evolution put inanimate matter into place to give it consciouness? Was it other inanimate matter?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you indicated in the past that you do in fact believe in evolution.  Is that accurate or am I taking that out of context?



to use Ambush's sig line, ""i know we sure didnt evolve from no monkeys." 
"


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2011)




----------



## WTM45 (Jun 1, 2011)

Define "conscious."
If it is defined as a "simple awareness" then bacteria are quite conscious and capable of some calculation.  They show a great ability to adapt, survive and overcome lab challenges.

Remember, early man did not have a common language, and could not read, write or solve mathematical problems.  They knew little about the world they were in, and focused solely on survival.

Can we comprehend, with open minds, that there simply might be life which is much more advanced than us who consider US "bacteria?"
Will man, in one thousand years, see US as quite backwards and ignorant of our world?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2011)

I simply do not know but here are some good reads to get some ideas.

http://darkmattertheories.com/life.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-life-on-earth

http://mysticbanana.com/how-did-con...hrough-evolution-out-of-inanimate-matter.html


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 1, 2011)

Is a plant conscious of the need to develop methods to attract insects to facilitate pollination or the need to develop methods to spread seeds?

How does a plant know whether or not it's seeds are being effectively spread?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2011)

Is there a difference in the atoms between animate an inanimate matter?
The iron in your blood is the same as the iron in a rock, but the things it is surrounded by and mixes with is what makes us live and the rock just lay there.
Given the right arrangement of molecules could make an inanimate object animate. Time could do that.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Define "conscious."
> If it is defined as a "simple awareness" then bacteria are quite conscious and capable of some calculation.  They show a great ability to adapt, survive and overcome lab challenges.


con·scious·ness[ kónshÉ™ssnÉ™ss ]NOUN 
1. awareness of surroundings: the state of being awake and aware of what is going on around you
"feelings of dizziness followed by loss of consciousness" 
2. somebody's mind: somebody's mind and thoughts
"In time, this experience will fade from your consciousness." 
3. shared feelings and beliefs: the set of opinions, feelings, and beliefs of a group
"national consciousness" 

I would go by this, I would not put bacteria under this definition.



> Remember, early man did not have a common language, and could not read, write or solve mathematical problems.  They knew little about the world they were in, and focused solely on survival.


I would say that at least part of the survival process was to be "awake and aware" of their surroundings. One doesnt have to know that the earth rotates around the sun to get out of the rain sort a speak. Either way, they at least had the consciousness to want to survive.



> Can we comprehend, with open minds, that there simply might be life which is much more advanced than us who consider US "bacteria?"
> Will man, in one thousand years, see US as quite backwards and ignorant of our world?


All I got for these questions is....


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2011)

http://www.purifymind.com/MatterConsciousness.htm


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2011)

http://www.closertotruth.com/consciousness


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Is there a difference in the atoms between animate an inanimate matter?
> The iron in your blood is the same as the iron in a rock, but the things it is surrounded by and mixes with is what makes us live and the rock just lay there.
> Given the right arrangement of molecules could make an inanimate object animate. *Time could do that*.



How? Time is not a force, something would have to set this arrangment up.

One would have to add molocules to the rock to make it animate(if that where even possible), why did the molocules in that rock not gather the correct amount or variations of matter to become a human in the first place?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Is a plant conscious of the need to develop methods to attract insects to facilitate pollination or the need to develop methods to spread seeds?


I would say no



> How does a plant know whether or not it's seeds are being effectively spread?



It doesnt that I know of.


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I would go by this, I would not put bacteria under this definition.



So, you accept that there is animate matter that is not conscious.

So, we've got two parts here.

1) How do we get from inanimate matter to animate matter? 

2) How do we get from the simply animate, to the truly conscious.

Once we've got a handle on both of those, we've answered your original question.

Part 1 is as yet unknown to science.  But there has been much progress in this field recently.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Part 2 is evolution and natural selection.

So, once we get life started, it becomes possible for conscious life to evolve.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> How? Time is not a force, something would have to set this arrangment up.
> 
> One would have to add molocules to the rock to make it animate(if that where even possible), why did the molocules in that rock not gather the correct amount or variations of matter to become a human in the first place?



Time in the fact that it may take a long while for the right concoction of molecules to get together and form whatever those molecules will form. Add heat or cold, wind, water, debris from space, collisions in space creating different compositions slamming together......

It is a rock because of it's make up of molecules. Melt it and add more and it could be steel. Change a molecule and it is a different type of rock. One molecule may have gotten with another and another and another over time to form a rock. During the same time some similar molecules may have gotten together but one more added and different formed something else and so on and so on. If all the molecules gathered together to be human in the first place, all we would have is humans and nothing else. To accomplish these simple changes Time is needed for the molecules to evolve. Over this time possibly billions upon billions of molecules got together in different numbers and ways did not form a thing, but the ones that had the right make up formed something that we can identify with today.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I would say no
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt that I know of.



Some plants produce bright flowers to attract insects for pollination.  Some produce nectar to attract insects for pollination.  Some plants produce a food source that will encourage animals to spread it's seed.  Some use the wind to spread it's seed.  The list goes on, but the point is that the development of these methods indicates some degree of a consciousness of the need for these methods.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

pnome said:


> So, you accept that there is animate matter that is not conscious.
> 
> So, we've got two parts here.
> 
> ...



Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Time in the fact that it may take a long while for the right concoction of molecules to get together and form whatever those molecules will form. Add heat or cold, wind, water, debris from space, collisions in space creating different compositions slamming together......
> 
> It is a rock because of it's make up of molecules. Melt it and add more and it could be steel. Change a molecule and it is a different type of rock. One molecule may have gotten with another and another and another over time to form a rock. During the same time some similar molecules may have gotten together but one more added and different formed something else and so on and so on. If all the molecules gathered together to be human in the first place, all we would have is humans and nothing else. To accomplish these simple changes Time is needed for the molecules to evolve. Over this time possibly billions upon billions of molecules got together in different numbers and ways did not form a thing, but the ones that had the right make up formed something that we can identify with today.



You have to understand I think this sounds just a silly and ridiculous as you do when I claim it was God.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Some plants produce bright flowers to attract insects for pollination.  Some produce nectar to attract insects for pollination.  Some plants produce a food source that will encourage animals to spread it's seed.  Some use the wind to spread it's seed.  The list goes on, but the point is that the development of these methods indicates some degree of a consciousness of the need for these methods.



Maybe I will just ask the azaleas I planted last week?

I would posit all of this under nature in which the Lord put in place.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Maybe I will go ask the azaleas I planted last week?
> 
> I would posit all of this under nature in which the Lord put in place.



However it was put in place "in the beginning", do you not believe that some plants have changed in order to adapt to their changing environment?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> However it was put in place "in the beginning", do you not believe that some plants have changed in order to adapt to their changing environment?



Yes I do.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You have to understand I think this sounds just a silly and ridiculous as you do when I claim it was God.



Well when you see the composition of things and how they are made up it happened one way or the other. But sculpting a guy from dust and breathing life into his nostrils does not create all those atoms and molecules that the body is composed of so I tend to believe against god.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Well when you see the composition of things and how they are made up it happened one way or the other. But sculpting a guy from dust and breathing life into his nostrils does not create all those atoms and molecules that the body is composed of so I tend to believe against god.



Take a second a believe God is real, do you think He could create humans?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Take a second a believe God is real, do you think He could create humans?



Sure but how likely do you think he would do it by claymation?


----------



## CAL (Jun 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Some plants produce bright flowers to attract insects for pollination.  Some produce nectar to attract insects for pollination.  Some plants produce a food source that will encourage animals to spread it's seed.  Some use the wind to spread it's seed.  The list goes on, but the point is that the development of these methods indicates some degree of a consciousness of the need for these methods.



I see what you are saying to a degree but here is still more to it.Those blooming flowers do it in the spring time not winter.How do the plants know it is winter,or summer,or spring.But there is still more.

Not many people know that a pine tree knows when it is going to die and puts on a flush of cones with seed to carry on the species.The cool part is it takes two years for a pine tree to produce cones.Does this mean the tree knew it was going to die two years before it actually does?I have watched this happening and it is so.

This is not something I read or already knew about.A forester I met in the road that looks after some special variety of pines north of me told me this.I have since witnessed this myself.If one will look at a pine tree with a flush of cones and keep up with it,they will see what I am saying.The tree is going to die!


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Sure but how likely do you think he would do it by claymation?



I dont know what options He weighed. Maybe you should ask Him


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Sure but how likely do you think he would do it by claymation?



Is this the only stab at the OP? You gotta be full from all that popcorn by now.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Is this the only stab at the OP? You gotta be full from all that popcorn by now.



Yeah pretty much my only stab. I think what you were really getting at is, is there more to consciousness than just the underlying physical matter that makes up conscious creatures.


I do want to say concerning plants and evolution that evolution is not a conscious guided process. They don't evolve features with a certain purpose although the final outcome may give that appearance. Rather, random genetic variations are selected for or against through natural selection. It's a subtle difference but an important one.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Take a second a believe God is real, do you think He could create humans?



Well sure, if God was real and I believed in him, I would think he could do anything just as you think he can. The MOST I could ever really sort of, kind of believe is that something got it all rolling, call it the spark, and the rest was left to chance, although even that is sooooo remote. I REALLY REALLY REALLY have a hard time even considering that so don't get all excited. What I do not believe for one millisecond is that he created us from dust, created everything else and made it all up out of complex concoctions of atoms,molecules, cells etc. IF he did and he was as you say, humans would be perfect with no birth defects. We all know that in reality, it is a roll of the dice from conception to birth that all the stages turn out as they should. Most of all I do not at all believe man's perception of him in the Bible is even remotely accurate, and I think it is inaccurate for even a made up god.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Well sure, if God was real and I believed in him, I would think he could do anything just as you think he can. The MOST I could ever really sort of, kind of believe is that something got it all rolling, call it the spark, and the rest was left to chance,





> although even that is sooooo remote. I REALLY REALLY REALLY have a hard time even considering that so don't get all excited.


oh nevermind, forget the banana.......


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah pretty much my only stab. I think what you were really getting at is, is there more to consciousness than just the underlying physical matter that makes up conscious creatures.


Yep, thats the gist.




> I do want to say concerning plants and evolution that evolution is not a conscious guided process.


sure doesnt seem that way.



> They don't evolve features with a certain purpose although the final outcome may give that appearance. Rather,* random genetic variations *are selected for or against through natural selection. It's a subtle difference but an important one.



What do you think the chances of this happening are?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> what do you think the chances of this happening are?



100%


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Is a plant conscious of the need to develop methods to attract insects to facilitate pollination or the need to develop methods to spread seeds?
> 
> How does a plant know whether or not it's seeds are being effectively spread?



First the plants would need to be sentient for them to "understand" this correct?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 100%



Some weird stuff is going to happen eventually.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 100%



Thats easy to say in the post game wrap up, what were the chances 1,115,549,564,646 years ago?(just a guess on the year there)


----------



## bullethead (Jun 2, 2011)

The chances were a lot better on earth and it's proximity to the Sun  than on any of the other planets in our system. A creator could have made creatures that were ideally designed to be on any one or all of those other planets but it didn't happen. For life as we know it to happen all the right elements were needed and a lot of time to make them all work.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 2, 2011)

CAL said:


> I see what you are saying to a degree but here is still more to it.Those blooming flowers do it in the spring time not winter.How do the plants know it is winter,or summer,or spring.But there is still more.
> 
> Not many people know that a pine tree knows when it is going to die and puts on a flush of cones with seed to carry on the species.The cool part is it takes two years for a pine tree to produce cones.Does this mean the tree knew it was going to die two years before it actually does?I have watched this happening and it is so.
> 
> This is not something I read or already knew about.A forester I met in the road that looks after some special variety of pines north of me told me this.I have since witnessed this myself.If one will look at a pine tree with a flush of cones and keep up with it,they will see what I am saying.The tree is going to die!



I'm not insinuating that a plant can reason and develop a plan.  On the most basic level, if a living thing can react to it's environment in a way to ensure it's survival, does this not indicate that it is "conscious" of it's environment and how it's environment may effect it in the future?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 2, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> First the plants would need to be sentient for them to "understand" this correct?



"Understand" might not be the appropriate word because our definition of that word involves reasoning capabilities.

Dogs do not have the same reasoning capabilities that humans do, but they can still understand things to some lesser degree.  Most of their decisions are based upon past experiences which makes it a little harder for them to make decisions when confronted with new scenerios.

I understand that plants develop their methods of reproduction through "trial and error" or "survival of the fittest", but the point is not HOW that particular method came to be.  The point is the "consciousness" that instilled in the plant the need for any change in method at all.  

The reason for developing or changing the old method would be that the old method is inadequate.  How would a plant know if it's seed is being adequately spread?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 2, 2011)

HJ I think you're still slightly off the mark. No individual organism is genetically adapting in response to their environment. In many if not most cases the living thing may have no awareness at all of the selective pressures working on their species and even if they do have that awareness cannot change their genetic make up to improve their survivability.

A good example is that elephants in parts of Africa that have intense poaching are growing shorter tusks than they used to. It's not that the elephants know what the poachers are after or are finding ways to survive through trial and error. The bulls with large tusks are getting killed off for their large tusks reducing their survivability and increasing the breeding success of bulls who just happen to have the genetics for smaller or no tusks. So the gene pool gets shifted in the direction of smaller tusks. But any one individual in that population is going to grow whatever they have the genetics to grow.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> HJ I think you're still slightly off the mark. No individual organism is genetically adapting in response to their environment. In many if not most cases the living thing may have no awareness at all of the selective pressures working on their species and even if they do have that awareness cannot change their genetic make up to improve their survivability.
> 
> A good example is that elephants in parts of Africa that have intense poaching are growing shorter tusks than they used to. It's not that the elephants know what the poachers are after or are finding ways to survive through trial and error. The bulls with large tusks are getting killed off for their large tusks reducing their survivability and increasing the breeding success of bulls who just happen to have the genetics for smaller or no tusks. So the gene pool gets shifted in the direction of smaller tusks. But any one individual in that population is going to grow whatever they have the genetics to grow.



I get what you're saying and if I apply that to flowering plants, then the ones that produce bright colored flowers and nectar for insects will have a better chance for survival than the ones that don't.  But go back further to the implementation of color and nectar to attract insects.  Was this intelligent design by a creator?  Or were there billions of different plants initially and only the ones with colors and nectar survived? Or did plants somehow accidentally start producing nectar and bright colors and the ones that did survived?  Or...


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 2, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I get what you're saying and if I apply that to flowering plants, then the ones that produce bright colored flowers and nectar for insects will have a better chance for survival than the ones that don't.  But go back further to the implementation of color and nectar to attract insects.  Was this intelligent design by a creator?  Or were there billions of different plants initially and only the ones with colors and nectar survived? Or did plants somehow accidentally start producing nectar and bright colors and the ones that did survived?  Or...



I think conditions would have an editing effect on this number.

Perhaps the ancestors of zebras tried purple stripes at sometime?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 2, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I think conditions would have an editing effect on this number.
> 
> Perhaps the ancestors of zebras tried purple stripes at sometime?



Starting out with billions and the "strongest" surviving begs the question: Where did the initial billions come from?  Unless there was an initial creation of mature plants, did they not have to successfully reproduce in order to exist?


----------



## gtparts (Jun 2, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm not insinuating that a plant can reason and develop a plan.  On the most basic level, if a living thing can react to it's environment in a way to ensure it's survival, does this not indicate that it is "conscious" of it's environment and how it's environment may effect it in the future?



If the response is "programmed" into its physiology and requires stimulation alone and no judgment, it does not think. A landmine is a mechanism that performs when stepped on. It processes nothing; it does what it was designed to do... nothing more, nothing less. It learns nothing, lacks the ability to alter its purpose or operation.

Your plant can only react in a manner consistent with how it is designed or constructed. At best, it is rudimentary "instinct" in animals; conditioning seems to allow for some modification of individual behavior and observation seems to encourage imitation so that groups may change behavior, but that's about as far as it goes.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 2, 2011)

I believe there's a term for plants that grow taller, or sideways to find light. That's something that individual plants do quickly... not over years of selection. I'm not that familiar with it, and from what I do remember you all may say it's not the plant "thinking" because it's some other explanation, but it seems along the same lines as what y'all are talking about..


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 2, 2011)

Another question aside from the plants. We all agree that we are conscious(hopefully), who's to say that consciousness goes away after the body stops working?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 2, 2011)

And who's to say it doesn't?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 2, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> And who's to say it doesn't?



Well, consciousness is working right now, what stops it? All the matter thats is there now will still be there when the body stops working.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 2, 2011)

Does it reside or is it formed or created by matter? If you're thinking of it like a soul, then it doesn't matter if there's matter or not. 

Did we get to the point that we agreed dogs do have it? So monkeys and apes probably do.. .giraffes... fish... things with brains. Does it reside in the thought processing of the brain? Those electric signals and chemical changes need body energy to function. Death, stops that.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 2, 2011)

gtparts said:


> If the response is "programmed" into its physiology and requires stimulation alone and no judgment, it does not think. A landmine is a mechanism that performs when stepped on. It processes nothing; it does what it was designed to do... nothing more, nothing less. It learns nothing, lacks the ability to alter its purpose or operation.
> 
> Your plant can only react in a manner consistent with how it is designed or constructed. At best, it is rudimentary "instinct" in animals; conditioning seems to allow for some modification of individual behavior and observation seems to encourage imitation so that groups may change behavior, but that's about as far as it goes.



In order for this to be true, then any plant that uses the wind to spread it's seed, or uses bright color or nectar to attract insects for pollination, etc, has always done this from the time of the initial creation.  I'm not saying that it is not true.  I just don't know.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 2, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Well, consciousness is working right now, what stops it? All the matter thats is there now will still be there when the body stops working.



I think of it like a computer that is storing information and processing in RAM. The information itself is not physical but it depends on the underlying physical composition of the computer. Shut off the power and toss it in a bath of acid that "decomposes" the computer and the information is gone for good even though the physical elements that made the computer are still around in different forms.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 2, 2011)

Similar to my examples.


----------



## bushidobam (Jun 22, 2011)

So I just read this entire thread (took me an hour or so) and would like to know whether or not none, some, most, or all of us are on board with the idea that human beings--Homo sapien--are _the one_, if not the _only_ animate life form that are aware of itself? 
And based on that, are we--Homo sapien-- so unique a species, that we can place ourselves (cognitively speaking) into different places in time, like past, present, or future?

For example, I don't believe my dog can picture itself one day growing old with the family.  She doesn't know she needs to go get her shots from the vet.  She lives 'in the moment' if you will. The present at all times. You see what I'm saying?

Here's a thought.  This is based on something stringmusic said in the early stages of this thread.  To paraphrase, he says that time is not a force, it needs divine intervention.  But, could _time_ actually be a very real force to those aware of its concept?  Our bodies can sometimes suffer physically due to various mental stresses.  The stresses of loosing a job, for example.  One can _anticipate_ the financial burden he/she is about to incur.  Plants and animals don't seem to follow _time_ in the same sense humans do because they are incapable of projecting the image of itself like we.  But I really don't know.  Who does?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 23, 2011)

bushidobam said:


> So I just read this entire thread (took me an hour or so) and would like to know whether or not none, some, most, or all of us are on board with the idea that human beings--Homo sapien--are _the one_, if not the _only_ animate life form that are aware of itself?
> And based on that, are we--Homo sapien-- so unique a species, that we can place ourselves (cognitively speaking) into different places in time, like past, present, or future?
> 
> For example, I don't believe my dog can picture itself one day growing old with the family.  She doesn't know she needs to go get her shots from the vet.  She lives 'in the moment' if you will. The present at all times. You see what I'm saying?
> ...



Something causes squirrels to store acorns for the winter and bears to prepare to hibernate.  I'm not sure if it would be correct to say that they "foresee" their future condition, but they also aren't just living in the present.


----------

